#the problem isn’t that people are unwilling to sympathize with men

[undead-moth]

The male loneliness epidemic isn’t a good example.

People in general are lonely right now, but people are choosing to center men’s loneliness as though it’s exceptional. That is the main reason why complaints about the “male loneliness epidemic” are so frustrating. Not because men “are too privileged to complain” but because the focus on their loneliness specifically over others’ is literally a product of the privilege they do have. Everyone’s loneliness deserves to be taken seriously, but only men’s actually is.

Nevermind that when people talk about the “male loneliness epidemic” they usually don’t mean genuine loneliness, as in isolation, deprived from human connection. If we were going to discuss who is facing the worst genuine loneliness due to isolation it would be disabled people, regardless of gender, hands down.

What they usually mean is romantic loneliness, as in there’s an epidemic of chronically single men. Often it’s not even about romantic loneliness, but literally about involuntary celibacy.

And this gets framed as a tragedy that women are inflicting upon them. It frames men as the victims of women not wanting to fuck them while simultaneously ignoring that given men are becoming increasingly right-wing, fascist, and even more misogynistic, women are becoming increasingly leftist and feminist, which means there’s a very obvious, understandable reason so many men are not getting laid. These men feel robbed - historically, men have been able to have their cake and eat it too. They were able to treat women however horribly they wanted while still being in relationships with women because women literally had no choice. Women today have more choice and men are experiencing that fall out and calling it an “epidemic.”

And there’s a very easy solution to this - men could be less shitty to women. But instead women are being side-eyed for not giving men enough love/sex and causing an “epidemic.”

“The patriarchy hurts men too.” God I wish just once I could see a post acknowledging patriarchy that doesn’t become about how patriarchy hurts men. You would honestly think men are the primary targets of patriarchy by looking at this site. I literally don’t think I’ve ever seen a post about patriarchy that’s not about how it hurts men, or doesn’t become about how it hurts men.

I constantly see people bring up how men are made to feel like they can’t cry, and need to bottle up their emotions, and “treat [women (be serious please)] like property.” Yesterday I even saw someone argue that men are “groomed into” hating women. Literally using the language of sexual assault to describe men allying with the ideology that ensures their privilege, again framing them as the victims.

I literally never see anyone acknowledging that men implemented patriarchy and uphold patriarchy, and virtually all of the harm done to them by patriarchy is, at the root, self-Inflicted. Men can choose not to be toxically-masculine. Women can’t choose not to experience misogyny. Though patriarchy does harm men, it also exclusively benefits them, and it benefits them far more than it hurts them, which is precisely why most of them choose to side with patriarchy their whole lives. Women are exclusively harmed by patriarchy, and they harmed by it far more than men are.

But of course, acknowledging this would require us to for a single moment consider that men are not oppressed under patriarchy and that all harm done to them under patriarchy is the result of friendly fire or unintentionally shooting themselves in the foot.

There is a loneliness epidemic right now and it’s an actual good example of what this post is talking about. Hell, even the fact that so many people are involuntarily celibate is an example of what this post is talking about. For both, you could argue that they’re groups that are “too privileged to complain” but both deserve to be heard. Men who are involuntarily celibate due to their allyship with patriarchy and don’t even know it even deserve some sympathy in my opinion, but only when we call it what it is and don’t end up putting the onus on women to solve it.

Ultimately, I just don’t think it’s fair to suggest people’s frustration with “the male loneliness epidemic” is about thinking men are too privileged to complain. That’s not the source of frustration there. The source of frustration there is that it ignores everyone else who is also lonely (in more ways than romantic or sexual), and faults women for not fulfilling men’s romantic and sexual desires.

Saying that a certain group of people is too privileged to complain about the way that things are is its own sort of defense of the status quo

[legacyofabsolutewalnuts]

@swtorpadawan tagged me in this meme, and I am hella into it. This is my favourite musing bc swtor in the canon of star wars is fucking hilarious. On a side note, for anyone who does this and chose only one oc, but has thoughts about the others oh my god do and let me know. Im a snoopy bish give them all to me. In this case I’m going to try to keep it brief while covering my main four, Viticalia, Thomsyn, Belville and Montym. Partly bc I’ve been thinking about their dynamics for a joint Alliance Commander AU lately

This got really long, bc I couldn’t choose one, and Im a wordy bish, so I’ve put the actual answers under the cut, so as not to kill everyones dashes

What would your OC do if they were thrown through time and into Star Wars the Clone Wars:

1. Who would they fight for?

I think most of them would either end up going independent or siding with the Republic. Montym and Belville would actually be the most likely to commit to the Republic, they’re both two people who value loyalty and understand that sometimes things need to be changed from the inside out. Thomsyn I think would stay with the Republic, but may end up with the Grey Jedi. She isn’t inclined to this whole “just peacekeepers” deal and would want to take the fight to the Sith directly. Viticalia would be an independent, committing to neither except for who would pay her most, or just destroy the CIS and take her place at the top of it. She would not be willing to submit to being ordered around by Dooku, or lord forbid Grevious or Ventress, and she definitely wouldn’t appreciate Sidious being unwilling to step up on the frontline with his troops.

2. If not a force user, would they keep their job (Would a trooper still work for this new Republic and would an Agent be loyal to the Separatists?)?

Bel would probably make a play to join the SIS. And then immediately question how the SIS went from agents like Theron to seemingly having the capabilities of two people and paperclip. I’m just saying how did no one put any of the diddly dang dots together. He’d be the type to pull off an op and then basically drop it at the Jedi’s feet like “here, give me a job.” I’ll get into why he would go to the republic in a bit.

3. Who would they hate?

Vits would despise Dooku and Sidious. She would like Ventress but find her training considerably lacking. She understand some cunning, undercover work, and what it can do, that’s why she and Bel get along, but the lack of commitment to stand beside your men and fight with them is something she despises.

Thomsyn would have some problems with the way the Jedi, but she and Montym would both have a much bigger problem with Senate oversight. They’re both used to working with politicians, but the inability to work without that oversight would bother them. Neither of them think the Jedi are infallible, but they both have a big problem with the idea of needing politicians to greenlight things like humanitarian missions. 

Bel would have a huge problem with the Jedi that he keeps under lock and key. Part of it would be due to Kothe. The other part is...well he’s seen what happens when Sith lead, he doesn’t really think the Jedi should be given military power for their ability with the Force either. 

4. Who would they get along well with?

Bel would actually get along really well with GAR Specforces. I think he’d adjust pretty easily to them, and people like Skirata and Vau would be comfortingly familiar as Bel actually got along really well with Shae and Torian. And he would very much enjoy the troopers, he understands their mindset, and especially with the Commandos, they understand the importance of intel people like Bel are meant to provide. He’d also be all in to spar with the ARC’s, and hone his skills against theirs.

Montym would have had a romantic crush on Obi-Wan within five seconds of the man dramatically dropping his cape and that’s really all there is to it. He would also get along well with Senator Organa.

Like I said earlier, I think Vits would have liked Ventress, and probably tried to poach her as an apprentice in a damn second. Thomsyn I’m not really sure who she’d get along with best.

5. What would they think of the Jedi Order?

Viticalia has, and always will be fascinated by the Jedi in that sort of detached, research-esque way. Otherwise she doesn’t care about them much, although she does find it a bit amusing to watch some of them tout the ideals of the Republic as things go down hill. She at least never had any misconceptions about the Empire. Thomsyn and Montym sort of understand how the Jedi could have come under such heavy control of the Senate. They both would have hoped for better, but aren’t that surprised, not after Saresh.

Bel could not care less about the Jedi. Likes them well enough individually for the most part, but that’s his approach to any and all force users really.

6. What would they think of the “rule of 2” Sith?

Viticalia thinks its the stupidest thing ever. Probably starts taking on as many slightly sensitive people as she can and calls them her Apprentices just to piss off these new “Sith”. Really she’s just adopting herself a bunch of children, but it counts and that’s all she cares about.

7. What would they think of having a clone and droid army fighting instead of typical soldiers?

Bel understands what its like to be treated as less than a person. As an asset only. It’s still something he does to himself, thinking about himself as only an asset or a liability, which is a mindset Theron’s working on having him get rid of. So he would sympathize pretty heavily, which is part of why he’d go to the Republic. He’s turned the tide of a war and saved countless of his coworkers in the military before, he would try it again.

Viticalia and Thomsyn would have more practical issues with the idea a droid army. They aren’t creative, they can’t interpret, and they aren’t built for every situation. Thomsyn however would have a lot of problems on the legality of clones, whereas Vits is used to slavery and is prone to forgetting about how that works.

Montym thinks the whole idea on either side is terrible, for various reasons, but cannot stand that clones are not legal citizens but the Republic uses them anyhow.

8. If Republic - if they became a general in the army what would their relationship with their clones be like?

I think Montym would accept a position as a General, Thomsyn...maybe for a while. Montym is a little better with handling the cost of war, whereas Thomsyn counts on herself to keep everyone around her alive. I think they’d both be on good terms with their troopers, Montym would take a bit longer, he’s quiet and a bit...odd, but when he likes people he makes it clear. Thomsyn would get close to them quickly, and each death would hit her pretty hard.

9. If Imperial - what would they think of the complete lack of sith and excess of droids in the Separatist army?

Viticalia has soooo many problems about tradition with the way the Sith operate, but in particular thinks the CIS is...stupid. The idea of a civil war is fine, sure, but their execution is lacking. Bel thinks they’re stupid but also finds it very funny. Terrible tactics, questionable leadership, not a good spy in sight... but he also thinks the way the Republic has alienated so many of their own...well he’s seen it before with Imperial worlds, and after Saresh it isn’t surprising. He’s largely disillusioned and just wishes someone would learn from their mistakes already. Part of what would push him to join the Republic in this case would be that he values peoples lives a lot more than droids, and he hasn’t valued the Sith as leaders in a long time, so he has no reason to go to the CIS and as far as he’s concerned, Republics got the better chance. 

10. Consider they were born in this era - where would they fit in Clone Wars canon?

This I’ve actually thought about this a bit. Thomsyn and Montym would be still pretty much the same, Jedi, although Thomsyn would not have joined the Grey Jedi in that AU as she would be more accustomed to what this Republic is like. Viticalia I would go with a Jedi who leaves the order eventually, simply because it would be really fun to explore a much more light-sided Vits. Bel’s a bit more difficult to place, in a society that doesn’t put as much importance on genetics and perfection, he would have the chance to do whatever he liked, which he didn’t in the Empire. In an au that follows his canon life a little better, he would probably join the SIS, but more likely as an anaylst or undercover agent, not as a sniper and agent. 

Honestly time travel and born in that era, they’re def aus I’ve thought about writing

[lesbian-ed]

yeahsureyoudo replied to your post “What are your opinions on gay women choosing to identify as Queer...”

I actually identify as Queer, not because I'd have any shame about identifying as a lesbian but because i just feel more comfortable with Queer.

I also think the term queer is useful for trans lesbians that perhaps aren't out yet? Women that love women but are not fully identifying as female to the whole world yet. If that makes sense?

I find it both sad and amusing that you have unwillingly proven the point of one of the many issues with the word ‘queer’.

First off, lesbians don’t ‘identify as’ lesbians, we are lesbians. To imply identification, which is something immaterial and subject to constant change, tied to the whole gender-mania of ‘~~~sometimes I’m more of a boy, sometimes I’m more of a girl and sometimes I’m both!!!1!~~’ means you’ve successfully tied lesbianism to a choice, to ‘fluidity’ (to play along with the jargon) and all that hogwash that has nothing to do with what an actual female who is exclusively attracted to other actual females is. The word Lesbian is not a title, it is not a label to be given or ‘claimed’ because it has a very clear definition: as just mentioned, lesbians are females exclusively attracted to other females. No ifs, no buts, no choices, no silly little games of ‘identity’. It is for no one to use for themselves but actual lesbians; it’s not for straight women, it’s not for bisexual women and it sure as hell isn’t for any sort of man to put his greasy hands on.

If by any chance, ‘lesbian’ feels ‘restrictive’ or if it really, really doesn’t reflect your experiences (as in, if you’re not really a homosexual female), maybe you’re just bisexual -- and there’s nothing wrong with that. But, see, the problem lies not with lesbianism; the problem is with the hypothetical person in question, who just isn’t a lesbian.

To posit lesbianism as an identity is to allow anyone to take it and, among other things, this is what the ‘queer movement’ does, stripping actual lesbians from ourselves (calling us gynosexuals or something equally ridiculous, as if we needed another word, as if ‘lesbian’ didn’t express it) and handing us on a silver plate to anyone who isn’t us -- but wants to exploit us.

Secondly, ‘queer’ is something that alienates us from ourselves and pushes us towards the values of those who antagonise us. I’ll break it down for you: if a lesbian falls into ‘queer community’ and starts to absorb their values upfront instead of those which would actually benefit her as a lesbian, it becomes easy to manipulate her to act against her own interests and those of lesbians she might come in contact with. Instead of finding her own crowd, with experiences and needs that are much more akin to her own, she mingles with people who oppose these experiences and deny these needs directly -- she begins to interact with and defend, as you have just done, the interests of males masquerading as women trying to get into lesbians’ beds, for instance, without understanding just how fucking perverse that is. We find adversaries in what presents itself as a community of equals, of people who understand and sympathize with our struggles, because in fact ‘queers’ do not understand the first thing about our struggles.

‘Queer’ is a divide-and-conquer tactic. The more lesbians side with it, the more they compromise their safety and their own subjectivity, something already much beaten around by a lesbophobic society that tries at every turn to annihilate us, either by physical force or by total erasure, by conversion, by coercion, trying to get us to worship at the altar of the phallus which, by definition, we are incapable of doing because we’re gay women, for fuck’s sake. We can be mislead, as the ‘queer folks’ try to do, but we cannot truly be converted. However, this deception is highly destructive, individually and collectively.

‘Queer’ alienates us from our very selves and it alienates us from one another, it creates rifts between lesbians who could otherwise work together, live together, love together. It walks hand in hand with cries of ‘terf!!!’ because all the ‘non-queer’ lesbians end up being shunned -- we don’t want to associate with men impersonating women or lesbophobic bisexuals (or straight people who truly believe a woman using a strap-on with a man is somehow ‘queering sexuality’ and makes them in any way comparable to us homosexuals!), so we’re punished for it. Lesbians who walk away from it are deemed suspicious and bad, while the ones who accept the label and play along with delusions are the ‘good’ ones and it stunts communication between these two ‘factions’ that should never be factions in the first place. It sets us apart and it sets us against one another. Quite honestly, it’s extremely depressing to see misguided lesbians being pitted against others simply because, unlike them, we prioritise actual lesbians in our lives instead of people who think we should all just shut up and open our legs for just about anyone.

This damn term creates a divide. It’s hard for us sometimes to find authentically lesbian communities because the support for ‘inclusivity’ -- as opposed to our caring about ourselves for once in our lives, since nobody else in this godforsaken planet gives a single shit about us -- makes enemies out of women who should have the same goals. It contributes to the effacing (and worse, the self-effacing) of lesbians, it corrodes our networks, it isolates us from one another. Inclusivity in the name of what? To whose benefit? Because the effects of all of this are negative to lesbians. And I know people who aren’t lesbians couldn’t at all be bothered about us and wouldn’t care if all of us ‘transphobic, biphobic’, ‘queerphobic’ dykes up and disappeared, but that’s precisely why we must put ourselves first. It isn’t selfish, it’s self-preservation. We have a right to exist as we are, not bent and broken as people want us.

Some lesbians fall into the trap of thinking that ‘lesbian’ is just a porn category, that it’s too loaded a word, and they shy away from it. But we came before porn, are we really just going to strip ourselves of our words, silence ourselves, and hand them over to sick men just like that, in the blink of an eye? They should be ashamed of co-opting a beautiful word that holds meaning to us to tag their trash with, not us. And as for it being a ‘loaded’ word, yeah, it has history, it has weight, it has pride. It is us, us who refuse to die out, who refuse to erase ourselves to be with men just because ‘oh, poor menz, give them a chance’; it is the name of our almost unwilling resistance because honestly it should not be so hard to live in this stupid world, having to justify ourselves at every turn, having to defend ourselves from attacks on all fronts just because we were born women who commit no other crime than loving only other women.

You have given the key to understanding the problem in your own reply. That a straight male who doesn’t even go to the trouble of dressing himself up in order to disguise himself as his revolting idea of what a woman actually is should use ‘queer’ so as to access spaces to which he otherwise could not shows what the word can do. It blurs lines. It removes barriers that exist for a reason. To be ‘queer’ is to be nebulous because nowadays it means just about anything; and lesbians are not someone’s vague idea, we are women of flesh and blood who have very specific experiences that are tied to our sexuality because this lesbian-hating society despises us to the point that we are being pressured to abandon the words that define us so we don’t sound ‘outdated’, so that we are more ‘inclusive’ and politically correct, preparing the terrain ourselves so that men can try to get into our pants. Do you see? We are being deprived of even calling ourselves what we are, we are being deprived of ourselves, in a way. And, I repeat, to whose benefit? Think. And if you refuse to think, then feel -- since so many are ready to feel on behalf of transgender males, why is it that you have never and will never feel anything but contempt for lesbians? Why do they deserve your time and compassion and why do we deserve your scorn?

Lastly, because this has gone on too long, let me reiterate a very simple fact about this blog: it is for lesbians. We have stated time and again that we are open and welcoming to bisexual women in relationships with women, but ultimately our focus lies with lesbians and we shall not tolerate male-pandering, lesbophobic bullshit here. If you’re not a lesbian, if you’re not here for lesbians, if you sincerely believe that we should embrace males as ‘lesbians’ because of ‘queer fraternity’ or some equally obnoxious, ridiculous garbage argument, kindly fuck off forever from this blog and please never interact with a lesbian again.

(An addendum: Why on Earth have you capitalized ‘queer’ but not ‘lesbian’? Seriously??? Why is that? Must I dwell on that too, must I interpret it here or is that proof enough of just how little respect there is for lesbians that the word in itself is seen as lesser-than as opposed to how people use what many still consider a slur? Fuck’s sake.)

/Mod T

[forsetti]

On The Power of Language: Normalizing White Supremacists

Language is the basis by which humans develop concepts and beliefs.  There is an entire field of study and industry built on this-marketing. Media outlets and political groups spend billions of dollars hoping to capture the right language to persuade people.  Yet, many people seem completely oblivious to the power of language.  Maybe this is why advertising is so effective.

One person who really understood the power of language was George Carlin. On his “Explicit Lyrics” album (yes, I'm old enough to remember and know what an album is,) Carlin talked about how changing how we describe things, changes how we view them: I don't like words that hide the truth. I don't words that conceal reality. I don't like euphemisms, or euphemistic language. And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protest themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation. For some reason, it just keeps getting worse. I'll give you an example of that. There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to it's absolute peak and maximum. Can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap. In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was seventy years ago. Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue. Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, were up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car. Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder. I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time.

Conservatives are really good at describing things in ways that hide reality: “Clean Air Act,” “Death Tax,”... they know if they label something a certain way and say it enough, they can alter how the issue is viewed.  They can alter beliefs.  They can turn “shell-shocked” into “post-traumatic distress order.”  FOX News' model is based entirely on this principle and it has helped create a large swath of Americans who believe complete bullshit.

Yet, knowing all this, many people, including progressives, seem unable, unwilling to see how white supremacists are being normalized by many media outlets.  Everyone from Milo to Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and the white supremacist next door have been described as something other than what they really are.  They are “provocateurs,” “clean-cut,” “well-dressed, “thought-provoking,”...  No, they aren't!  They are fucking white supremacists and dangerous. Every time these people are described in terms other than racist, bigoted, danger fucks it helps alter reality.

This alteration is done on purpose because for reasons that aren't too difficult to understand, white Americans have always had a hard time grasping and being willing to identify some of their fellow white Americans as deeply horrible people, as racists.  The racists know this and use it to their advantage.  The Lost Cause which allowed the South to completely rewrite their racist history and beliefs which led to their treasonous actions was effective because the rest of white America was more than willing to believe their white Christian brothers and sisters weren't really bad people, evidence to the contrary be damned.

When the Ku Klux Klan came to power in the South and rained terror, death, and destruction on blacks, they were portrayed as “good Christian men,” “pillars of the community,” “good, caring neighbors,”...  These descriptions allowed them to hide their real nature-brutal racists.  

Now we have people in seats of power and influence who believe the same underlying things that led to the Confederacy and the Klan and a lot of white America are falling back on their go-to position of not describing them for who and what they really are.  Every article written about “Joe Nazi” who lives down the street, has a job he's worried about, is married, loves his kids, is concerned for their future... is nothing more than reality Get Out Of Jail Free Card.

Calling someone a horrible person, a bigot, a racist, is never an easy thing to do.  It is more difficult if you are made to feel they are like you.  Just like it is difficult to call your racist grandpa or mom a racist because the relationship you have with them is personal, normalizing white supremacists makes calling them out harder.  If “Joe Nazi” is a lot like you, then you begin to relate, sympathize with him.  If Confederates are “good Christians,” like you, it is easier to relate and sympathize with them.  If the Klan are “outstanding members of the community,” it is easier to relate and sympathize with them.  This is exactly how language works. How we describe things has a direct impact on what we think about them.  Language forms beliefs.  

If an article about “Joe Nazi” spends the majority of the time “normalizing” him and adds a few words at the end about his toxic ideology, what do you think sticks?  There is a reason why drug commercials highlight all the positive aspects upfront and quickly gloss over all the negative side effects.  By addressing the positives first, it forms an initial impression that becomes “reality” that isn't likely to be undone by something negative later.  Every salesperson knows this.  Yet, white America seems unable/unwilling to recognize this is what is going on when it comes to white supremacy even after centuries of evidence to the contrary.

An article about “Joe Nazi” should start with his dangerous ideology, his likely domestic violence history, how he tortured animals in the neighborhood when he was younger, and maybe end with he reads “Goodnight Moon” to his daughter.  Any article or conversation about white supremacists should focus first and foremost on very abnormal beliefs, not their normal behaviors and traits.   These people are dangerous people who believe horrible things who also happen to be your next-door neighbor, school principal, pastor, etc.  They are not your next door neighbor school principal, pastor, etc. who happen to believe horrible things.  If you don't understand the difference between these two descriptions, you are part of the problem.

The first description starts from a premise of normalization and sympathizing.  The latter description starts from a premise of dangerous and disgust.  Under no circumstances should Nazis, white supremacists be viewed as anything but dangerous and with anything but disgust.  I don't care who they are, what job they do, what title they hold, how “loving” a parent/spouse they seem to be.  The toxic nature of white supremacy taints and poisons anything and everything else about someone.  Treating their supremacist beliefs as secondary is whitewashing (pun intended) who they really are.  

White supremacy isn't a peripheral believe or opinion.  It is a core belief that supports major chunks of the rest of a belief system.  It is also a belief that has serious consequences for other people.  In some ways, being a white supremacist is like being an anti-vaxxer. The beliefs you have and the decisions you make will have serious consequences for the whole of society.  Other people's well-being and lives are at risk because of it.  Of course, the big difference between the two beliefs is anti-vaxxers aren't responsible for a Civil War, lynchings, the Holocaust, etc.  

The greatest moral failure in American history was the breakdown of Reconstruction after the Civil War.  After the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans fighting for and against a moral cause where the moral side won, we allowed the losing side to reinvent themselves and continue their immoral behaviors under Jim Crow.  The main reason Reconstruction failed is because too many white Americans were unwilling to put the moral and political hammers down on their racist counterparts.  This failure was the cause behind Jim Crow, segregation, housing discrimination, etc.  It was the root cause behind Nixon's Southern Strategy.  It is the underlying cause behind school of choice and privatizing education.  It is the main force behind modern-day conservative ideology.

Even though there has been significant progress with regard to Civil Rights, the underlying beliefs of the Confederacy (white supremacy) are still alive and thriving in the minds of many white Americans. These alone need to, once and for all, be stamped out.  White supremacy all on its own is horrible and should be stamped out whenever it rears its ugly head.  Nazism is nothing more than white supremacy on evil steroids.  The Confederacy used white supremacy to own other people. Sure, they would beat them but they didn't want to kill them because that was losing an asset.  Nazis used white supremacy to commit mass murder of anyone on their “not like us” list-Jews, Gypsies, gays, the disabled...  

You don't normalize this under any circumstances.  At no point is it okay to say, “Sure Nilo wants to create a white-only state but he is an upstanding businessman who votes in every election and keeps his yard immaculate.”  No!!!  Nilo is a fucking Nazi whose beliefs are dangerous and not tolerated in a multi-cultural democracy.  His white supremacist views cancel out everything else about him that is “normal” in the same way a serial killer's views cancel out everything else they believe and do. “You know, Ted Bundy loved to kill young girls but boy could he put out a dynamite eight-course dinner.”  

If people talked this way about a serial killer, normal people's reaction would be, “What the fuck?!  Who cares about his culinary and hosting abilities?  He believes it is okay to murder people. Seriously, WHAT THE EVERLOVING FUCK?!!!”  Yet, the New York Times and other media outlets can publish puff pieces about Joe and his Nazi friends, the President of the United States can call torch-wielding Nazis “good people,” he can them in positions of power in his administration... and when those of us know how language is tied to beliefs point it out, many of our fellow white Americans look at us as if we are the problem.  Why?  Because white Americans are reluctant as hell to call other white Americans, “racist,” “bigot,” “Nazi,”...  It is easier to overlook reality and come up with reasons to not call them out for who they are than be honest.  It is easier to normalize them because the reality of who they truly might be too painful to admit.  It is easier to write articles normalizing the Nilos who live among us than it is to denounce them because not enough people want to be the ones who call out grandma's racists comments at the family gathering.  You know what?  Too bad.  Grandma's a fucking racist and we shouldn't want her spreading her toxic attitudes to the younger generations.

One argument I’ve heard from some progressives about why these articles about white supremacists are good is because it informs everyone these people live among us.  All anyone with two working neurons has to do is think about the conversations from Republicans during the last election and now and the fact they voted for a white supremacist to be president who put other white supremacists in positions of power around him.  If you need articles written to convince you people who believe and support horrible ideas live among you, you haven’t paid the slightest attention to the world around you for quite a long time and you probably need remedial classes in logic, civics, and psychology more than an article in the New York Times.

Language forms beliefs.  Nazis, white supremacists, racists, bigots... aren't “normal” people so we need to stop using language and writing articles that normalizes them in any way.  If the first words about these people are something like “horrible,” “dangerous,” “immoral,” “evil,”...then you’re doing it wrong.  To quote John McClane from “Die Hard.”-”If you aren’t part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.  Don’t be part of the fucking problem!”

[kershmaru-blog]

Rape culture as seen by a non- feminist

I have to preface this blog post by mentioning some caveats: rape and sexual harassment are very emotionally charged topics, and some victims and advocates may very well object to and reject my commentary as an outside observer. I would implore you first to read my post and then judge.

There is also an earlier blog post about feminism which can give you some additional insight into my thoughts.

 Rape culture is the hypothesis that there is a culture of sexual harassment and worse that protects the perpetrators and continues to hassle and victimize the victims. Usually, it is assumed that the victims are female and the perpetrators are male. More on that later.

 There is a problem with the terms used concerning sexual violations. One might think that sexual assault, rape, and sexual harassment are unambiguous. They are not.

Sexual harassment can be anything from inappropriate touching over such rather odd perversions as Louis C.K.’s masturbating in front of unwilling onlookers to catcalling. While I count catcalling as the least grievous of the three, I am of two minds about the other two. The grievousness of a sexual violation isn’t easily quantified and may ultimately lie in the eye of the beholder.

While all of these things are inappropriate, and even the least outrageous instance outs the perpetrators as idiots, it is counterproductive to count them as the same offense. They are not, and counting them as though they were devalues the more grievous cases. Similarly, The definition of rape is unnecessarily complicated, i.e., by counting every instance of sex under the influence of intoxicants as rape, as advocated by, for example, Laci Green in her consent 101 video. In it, she claims that if they are too drunk to drive, they are too drunk to consent, period. While I find her and her work admirable, I need to disagree vehemently. While I am of course of the opinion that intoxicants can impede the ability to consent and make rational decisions in general, that point is not reached with the legal driving limit. What I aim to say is that at least in my opinion, you aren’t too drunk to consent when you are merely too drunk to drive. We are talking nuance here. Though the legal driving limit varies widely depending on country and jurisdiction, It usually errs on the side of caution. Classifying drunken sex as rape in this way muddies the waters and relativizes the definition of the most heinous crime bar murder.

In light of the recent wave of allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment against influential people, I think it would be wise to introduce a new term into this blog: the existent notion of sexual coercion, distinct from sexual assault and harassment, but depending on the exact situation varied in its severity. There are no clear-cut distinctions here, being forced into a sexual situation may well be perceived as being more violating than forceful rape. It depends on the individual victim and their emotional response. It indeed isn’t enough to merely classify the amount of force involved. There is an interesting debate to be had whether relationships with an uneven power dynamic can ever be ethical.

But if there is an explicit quid pro quo stipulation, as there was in the case of Roger Ailes and others, it certainly is a horrendous abuse of power. It should also be noted that unfortunately, one of Harvey Weinstein’s excuses for an excuse, rings true: “It was a different time.”

I am not one of the people who deny rape culture ever existed or exists in certain circles and cultures. However, it is undoubtedly true that times have changed and that sexual harassment and sexual coercion are less socially acceptable than they have been in ages past. Past but not forgotten.

There are still people in positions of power who act as “gatekeepers” and explicitly demand sexual favors for career advancements. Ultimately it may be necessary to let time pass and let these relics of the past die off.

 Why am I saying this? Because sexual coercion and quid pro quo deals are, though scandalous and unethical, in and on itself not explicitly illegal. We only see the tip of the iceberg, where a legal or moral line was crossed, not the cases in which the “offer” was accepted. Of course, here again, we need to distinguish. I set offer in quotations for a reason. If the situation is one with a wildly uneven power dynamic it isn’t an offer, or in the worst case, an offer one can’t refuse.

 All of this, and especially the width of the ongoing scandals may be taken as proof that we indeed live in a rape culture. I ultimately need to leave the subjective determination to the reader. Because yes, this is not an objective matter.

 Do I believe we still live in a rape culture? No, and I consider the notion to be potentially harmful. Why? As shocking as the recent allegations and the # #metoo is, it shows one thing: that the mighty can, and should, fall. By reinforcing in victims that our society will turn against them when they speak up, they are less likely to, and the abuse can continue unchecked.

I am not saying your effort will necessarily be rewarded with a conviction; that would be a lie. The statistics show that without proof the chances aren’t all that great. But, one thing they will do is they will shine a spotlight which in turn can make it much harder for a predator to prey on yourself and others. And there is also catharsis in bringing these matters into the light of day I’m told. Ask yourself: If you don’t speak up, will you ever be over what happened? Will you ever stop wishing you spoke up? It might be considered presumptuous as somebody who didn’t share your experience, but I am confident I couldn’t.

 Here I need to address the case for a change in the justice system concerning the burden of proof: I am unequivocally and absolutely opposed. We, as a society took a long time to transition from mob justice to innocent till proven guilty. I am well aware that a trial puts more strain on victims than speaking up anonymously does; the same is true for the victims of any crime.

By shifting the burden of proof, we would create a system ripe for abuse. Contrary to the hypothesis of rape culture, the mere anonymous accusation of rape or sexual misconduct can destroy a person’s livelihood and send a mob of self-righteous vigilantes after them. Though it seems unfair, victims must go through the process and prove their case in court.

Yes, there will be doubters and people demanding proof, myself amongst them, but there will also be people on your side, people who will unconditionally support you.

Lastly, there will be people thankful for your struggle, because it exposes and thus renders inert another potential monster. I count myself also amongst this third group of people.

To anybody in the “listen and believe” crowd, the very vigilantes I mentioned, I recommend careful and pensive lecture of Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

 I am not a victim of any kind of sexual infringement, and though I can and do sympathize, I ultimately do not know what it feels like. If you feel that disqualifies me from speaking out on this matter, this is your prerogative. But this kind of “argument” is to me highly suspect since it seeks to bar anybody speaking up against a potential course of action, leaving the political playing field to understandably distraught victims and their advocates.

 One thing I need to mention is assumptions about the gender of the victims and perpetrators. It is commonly assumed that only men are perpetrators and women victims. That is a potentially dangerous false conclusion. Not only can men be victims – as cases like Kevin Spacey prove, but women can be and are perpetrators. If they abuse an uneven power balance, i.e., in a teacher-pupil relationship than it is every bit as amoral as in the opposite case. Growing up, the first adult woman I had sexual fantasies about was a teacher of mine. Now nothing ever happened, she was never anything but professional and I also never told her about my feelings. But had I and had she reciprocated than the resulting relationship would have been one with an uneven power balance and abusing what should have been an inherently professional relationship, and thus unethical. And relationships like that are seen much more leniently by society and the legal system than between men and young girls. There are also societal tendencies to belittle and relativize male victimhood and female guilt. This matter, the matter of the differing societal dynamics based on gender is a very complex one and deserving of its own blog post, which it might get in the future. But back to the victims.

 If you have been the victim of a crime, I feel for you. As mentioned before, I believe leaving you with the mindset that you need to fear repercussions if you speak up is counterproductive. I will now presume to give hopefully helpful tips to you. Hate me for it if you must, but listen.

Never forget you are not alone, not without support, but perhaps even more important, in your pain. And while I can emphasize with the wish to retreat and cry - I have felt this myself numerous times for different reasons – doing so will leave your attacker free to continue victimizing you and others.

 Never seek the fault with yourself. You are not responsible for what happened. Even if you navigated into a potentially dangerous situation, your attacker has agency. They can choose to do the right or wrong thing.

 If there is any physical evidence of a crime, try to preserve it. Your first impulse may well be to wash yourself clean of them. I know from my own, unrelated trauma that only time, support and potentially therapy make you better. And it will destroy evidence that could be used against your victimizer. It will make it that much more difficult to persecute them and put them where they belong.

 Speak out! If not to police, to somebody else you trust. I know how hard that must be, but if there are witnesses not of the act itself, but of your outcry, then they can be used once you find the inner strength to expose them in front of the world. If that is too hard or if there is no one you trust, preserve a written record.

 I was told by someone who read this blog before it was published that this last point isn’t as clear-cut as I might have thought. They deserve credit that this blog post is as good as it is, no matter how bad you think it is, it was worse before. Based on their criticism, I made changes here and there, but here I wish to clarify that the following was not something that I came up with on my own.

Sometimes victims need years to process and understand what happened to them - especially if they are very young I imagine. That too is an understandable and natural reaction. My above tips are of course not meant as rebukes for these victims, but as a hopefully helpful pointer for those who realized they have been violated and are capable of acting. They are intended to facilitate the prosecution of the perpetrator, and thus to protect yourself and others.

 Lastly, even though I know I will incur the notion of victim blaming, here are some tips to prevent being victimized in the first place. This is not to shame or make victims blame themselves, but merely to protect others. It is true that in a perfect world your actions won’t endanger you. We do not live in a perfect world.

Do not fall into the trap that if you do everything right, you cannot be victimized, that it had to have been something you did. As the Bill Cosby situation proves, there are veritable predators amongst us, wolves in sheep's clothing. And I am well aware that many perpetrators are people we trust. My tips can only help protect you. They won’t keep you safe in every situation. That being said, they certainly may help.

 Listen to your instincts. Do not let societal norms and manners make you enter a situation you are not comfortable with. Better to hurt some feelings than being victimized. If you later find out that you were overly cautious, you can always make amends. But you can’t un-rape yourself.

 Imbibe or otherwise consume legal and illegal intoxicants only in settings you feel safe in, and try to stay vigilant. You should also avoid drinking from a glass you haven't had in your sight or given to you by a stranger.

 Avoid being alone in settings or around people you are uncomfortable with. As in the above tip, your instincts are your best friend. Listen to yourself.

 Prepare for a physical confrontation! Predators target those they think are defenseless or physically weak. Bearing in mind the principles of self-defense may protect you when everything else fails. Taking a course to teach you is time well invested.

 Finally, do not presume that you cannot be victimized. There is no “victim look” or societal victim status. You owe it to yourself to be vigilant and take care of yourself, no matter who you are.

 Of course, there is much more to say about this matter, but I, as a writer need to balance brevity and conciseness with detail in order to not lose the attention of my reader. I find that it is the hardest thing to express deep emotion in writing, and balance empathy with objectivity. As mentioned in my prior blog post, these blogs constitute an effort to get feminists & social justice advocates on one side and antis on the other back to the table. Here is a question: Do you consider such a dialogue to be worthwhile? I openly welcome your thoughts and criticisms, as well as personal narratives if you wish to share them.

[theartfulmegalodon]

My Unpopular Opinions of the Wonder Woman movie:

First let me say, I’m not trying to puncture anyone’s balloon of goodwill for this film.  I don’t hate it.  It was okay.  But I was reading yet another glowing, worshipful article on just how great it was from FilmCriticHulk this morning (along with his recent Spider-man: Homecoming article in which he bashes Marvel’s latest movies for their character development, then contrasts it by praising the WW movie yet again) and it prompted me to finally put down my feelings all in one place.  As someone who really appreciates good storytelling and good character building, it is frustrating when it seems I’ve seen a completely different movie from everyone else.

I realize that saying anything negative about the Wonder Woman film is just asking to be shunned around here, and around some of the prominent film review sites, but in response to the FilmCriticHulk article  I happened upon today, I addressed to him in a comment this small essay in disagreement.  I’ve copied it here.  If you absolutely love this movie and its portrayal of WW, and don’t want to hear a single word against it, then please pass this by.  I’m not trying to take away anyone’s joy, here.  But if you don’t mind reading a long, off the cuff post about all the ways in which I believe the movie failed to give us a good Wonder Woman, then please proceed.  These issues have been nagging at me for awhile.

[As I said, addressing this to FilmCriticHulk, I wrote:]

I realize this is an incredibly unpopular opinion around here, but I have to disagree...  Hulk, you like to (deservedly) call out a lot of films for paying lip service to a theme or message without physically or dramatically backing it up.  I'm not sure why you can't see it here.

I understand that Diana is supposed to be this paragon of empathy and female empowerment, but how can anyone possibly relate to her?  (Again, I realize I'm in the minority.)  Her character barely has an arc, and her ability to fight for justice (or whatever) wherever she can is hardly empowering when she's INVINCIBLE.  Seriously, there were NO STAKES for her in this movie.  We never saw her get hurt, or lose a fight.  It sort of comes down to what makes a hero, for me.  I can't help but compare it to Captain America: The First Avenger.  It's the parable about courage: courage isn't the absence of fear (that'd be Diana), courage is being afraid but doing it anyway.  In Cap's story, we see Steve Rogers doing the right thing before he has any strength or influence to back it up.   As a skinny shrimp, he's the only one to jump on a grenade without hesitation.  He uses cleverness where brute strength would fail.   (Retrieving the flag during training by pulling the pole's hinge out.)   "A weak man knows the value of strength."  It's so poignant, so admirable.  What makes Diana a hero?  She's just doing what she was trained to do since childhood, what she was told she was made for, destined for.  She's never known anything but strength.

And I'd like to address that No Man's Land scene: everyone and their mother thinks this is the best scene since sliced bread, and it fell absolutely flat for me.  As I said, it means nothing that she "defies" the men telling her not to go, because she's INVINCIBLE.  Not a single bullet touches her.  She takes no damage.  And she knew she wouldn't.  That's the thing.  She knew she could do it, while the men up to that point had NO REASON to think she could.  Why would Steve think she could handle a barrage of gunfire?  He already saw other Amazons get killed by bullets.  He has no reason to think Diana can survive such an attempt.

I hate, actually hate, that that moment is framed as "Diana defies all who doubt her, and has the moral fortitude to do what the quivering menfolk won't: face down danger to rescue innocent lives!"  That's incredibly unfair.  These men aren't abandoning the innocents because they think it's not worth the risk; they are accepting the terrible reality that they physically CANNOT save them.  It's called “No Man's Land” for a reason.  They know they would literally all die in the attempt and it would waste even more human lives for no gain.  So to have Diana's big moment be "empowering" because she dismisses their warnings and proves them wrong is just... kind of disgusting to me.  Paragon of empathy?  If she was, and if she had even a little bit of tactical intelligence, she would feel for these men that she knows and the horrible no-win situation they're in.  She would acknowledge their powerlessness.  In my opinion, this moment could easily have been actually empowering if instead of "Fine, stay cowering in your trenches; I'm gonna go do what's RIGHT!" Diana sympathized with the men, and it was "I see now; you can't save them, but it's going to be alright! You don't realize it, but I'm strong enough to take their fire and make it across!  I can help you help them!  Come on, men; I'll lead the charge!"

And that's just the one scene.  I have a problem with her character for the entire movie.  I don't find her naivety charming, because she never seems willing to learn.  She actually comes across as quite stupid.  It's as though her Amazon upbringing did quite a lot of damage, ensuring she was ignorant of so many things that you'd think they'd teach her (tactical warfare, for instance) but at the same time filled with righteousness!  I mean, she bulldozes her way through this movie, unwilling to hear a single argument that goes against her preconceived plans.  (For Zeus's sake, she can't comprehend the simple concept of "The battle is really far away; we have to arrange things to get there, so we need to go THIS way before we can go THAT way.")  Her boundless confidence is not inspiring, since again, she's INVINCIBLE, and she KNOWS it, while the others around her DON'T.  Of course she can afford to be insistent and unyielding.  She knows she won't lose.  Did you notice?  Nothing ever actually humbles her in this movie. She doesn't even admit that she might be wrong about something until the general's death.  She is eventually made sad because her favorite man dies, but before that - in fact, outside of Steve and to a lesser extent the three other guys - she never seems to connect to humanity on any personal level.  She observes them from afar, and has Steve explain their behavior to her.  It's all very detached, very academic.  And then when she sees the people at war injured and struggling and wants to stop to help each one, it should make me believe she cares, and yet...

It's the childishness of her approach to "helping".  Again, those Amazons who raised her made her believe that she was destined to fulfill this fairy tale purpose: defeat Ares and thereby magically flip the switch in humanity to make them all peaceful and loving again.  She believes she is meant to Help People, even though we never see this behavior in her towards her fellow Amazons.  We never see her helping any of them, being kind or encouraging to them, showing any kind of strength of character there.  There's no innate "goodness"; she's just been programmed to someday carry out this concept of Helping People.  And throughout the movie, she makes no room for nuance.  She never once changes her mind, not until the very, very end.  She approaches the entire world with the stubborn, black-and-white views of a child.  When she sees people being good, well that's just their natural state.  When she sees them be bad, well that's just Ares.  Gotta go defeat that Ares!

And talk bout fumbling your message!  For half a second there, when she's killed the general and the war doesn't magically stop, and Steve is there frantically trying to get the concept of "maybe you're wrong" through her thick skull (honestly the most believable person in the entire film), there was a glimmer of hope that she might have to adjust her perception of the world and of humanity, and admit that there are no easy answers.  Maybe it would have led to her finding a more genuine, personal reason for "fight the good fight anyway" instead of just fighting evil because she's "supposed" to.  Buuuuut NOPE! Here's your big easy answer!  Here's your simple bad guy to defeat!  And then again, for half a second, with all of Ares' jawing about humanity being plenty terrible all on their own without his help, Diana gets to give her "this is what I've learned about humanity: they can hate AND love!" speech, you think the movie will admit to that nuance and leave it on that note... buuuuut NOPE!  As soon as Ares is killed, the fog of war literally blows away on the wind!  Soldiers of both sides take off their helmets and embrace!  The war is over!  Easy-peasy!

[This still addressing Hulk about his articles:]  You write here about WW being slow to anger, because she's more interested in fighting the good fight.  You write in your recent Spider-man essay that WW "is about not staying put, not out of juvenile frustration, but out of the living heart of empathy and taking responsibility".  I don't buy either of these things, not for a second!  You say it's backed up beautifully through dramatization...  no it's not! Don't take this as a personal attack; I just saw a very different movie than you, it seems.  Diana may not be "not staying put" because she wants to join the big boys or something, but her reasons are no less shallow.  As I said, I don't see her fighting out of love or empathy - she's doing it because she was raised to, told her whole life that she was meant for one thing only.  And she's never proven wrong, or given reason to change.  From your Spider-man take-down of Marvel, you write that Marvel movies are about "making you feel like you did or learned something you really didn't do or learn. Out of the side of their mouths, they [tell] you all about how *wink wink* you don't have to really have to change, because you're already awesome."  What exactly is the difference here??  And what now?  Diana chooses to hide herself away as a mild-mannered archaeologist or whatever for 100 years?  While occasionally... donning her flashy costume and leaping off tall things to go fight... what?   We're never told what she's doing these days exactly.  Or why she retreated from heroism for a century.  I just have so many problems.

At some point in the movie, I realized that I was watching a child.   Mentally, morally, she was a child approaching the world.  An invincible child, but that only meant she never had to reevaluate herself.  Her one-dimensional view of humanity became (gasp!) TWO dimensional, but other than that, she learned nothing, and her personal character had no arc.  And I was reminded, painfully, that these superhero comics were mostly meant for children.  Attractive heroes, flashy action, and simplistic morals, very clear-cut right right vs wrong.  And I just made my peace with that.  This movie will win over a ton of little girls and boys, and is a perfectly fine role model for them.  But I just can't understand how so many reviewers and adult fans think this is somehow a phenomenal movie, or that she's a phenomenal hero.  "Wonder Woman done right!" they say.

My very last thought is about that "Wonder Woman done right" opinion.  I will readily admit I've never read a full WW comic, but through everything my friends, WW fans, and the internet in general have told me, Diana is supposed to be the hero who wants peace, who loves and feels for humanity, who fights when she has to, but only as a last resort, right?  Remember that whole "We have a saying, my people.   Don't kill if you can wound, don't wound if you can subdue, don't subdue if you can pacify, and don't raise your hand at all until you've first extended it."  Um, where was THAT Wonder Woman?  This Diana didn't solve a single problem except with violence. It was her first instinct.  The Amazons in the movie raised her to be nothing but a warrior (despite, again, paying lip-service to just how good and pure she was, too good for humanity).  When she was given new clothes, her first thought was how to fight in them.  She snuck into a fancy party with a “god-killer” sword.  When in the trenches, being told of a complicated stalemate, she didn't spare a thought for how to proceed, she just plowed straight ahead.  Never once did we see her even try to solve a problem with understanding, with placation, with compromise, with kindness.  Nor did we see her try to outsmart anyone at any point.  The only possible example I can think of is her telling the one guy "Who will sing for us?" to keep him from leaving.  Does that count?  It actually seemed out of character for her.

[Yeah, I’ve noticed Tumblr building altars to that one tiny scrap of dialogue.]

So, sorry to drop an essay on you, but it's been driving me a little batty that I never see anyone pointing any of these things out.  (Though my friend, who I saw it with, came away with the same impression.  We're both kind of baffled at the over-the-top praise.)  In conclusion, the movie was actually FINE.  It did clearly borrow a whole lot from other movies, and it did have a weak, cartoonish villain and a thematically shallow ending, but it was overall assembled nicely enough.  It was watchable.  It showed women in a good light while showing Not All Men to be sexist pigs.  It had enough flashy action and likeable characters to be a Good Movie. 

I just felt they missed something essential with her characterization.  I couldn't really admire her, because she was just blindly, ignorantly blundering towards her "destiny".  I couldn't be inspired by her, because she was a literal god who could do things no one else (like me) could ever hope to do.  I couldn't relate to her, because she couldn't relate to us.   When Captain America first ignored his orders and crossed into enemy territory to rescue captured troops, he returned marching on the ground with the host of them at his side, and then immediately submitted himself for discipline.  When Diana charged in to save the town, it ended with her standing on high, with the adoring little townspeople she saved cheering her from below.  A hero who is one of us v. a hero who stands above us. 

I think I would salute this Wonder Woman as she soared past me, and cheer her on, but I would follow Captain America into battle in a heartbeat.