#then a new department that was the opposite of what she advocate for formed on the company she wanted to create | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jonsa101 · 3 years

Text

Yes, There’s Only 14 Episodes in Season 3 But Sharpwin is On Track and Progressing How They’re Supposed To.

There has been so much talk about this season’s writing and the lack of Sharpwin scenes that I thought I would just address everything in this post.

First, the writing this season is NOT BAD! In my honest opinion I actually think this season has some of the best writing in the series. Compared to season two, the writing is head and shoulders above what we got last year. More than ever before we are diving into these characters stories, seeing friendships form, getting a better look into their home life and seeing secondary characters shine! This is a good thing! These were the things that were so desperately needed in season 2 but we didn’t see this play out. I’ve said this before in my infamous season 2 rant and I’ll say it again, a show can’t solely depend on a ship! It has to have great storytelling and good character development for all of it’s main characters. This is what New Amsterdam failed to do in season two and they’re now making it up for it in season 3. The only area I would say the storyline suffered was the Cassian, Helen and Max “love triangle.” There was definitely more intent with that plot before the pandemic. Cassian was not only supposed to be a catalyst for Jealous Max and Sharpwin but he was also supposed to come in and challenge the way Max did things. Cassian’s whole thing was self care first=great patient care which was the complete opposite of Max and the two of them were supposed to clash. Obviously this completely changed due to the pandemic. You can’t have a storyline about a doctor prioritizing himself first for “better patient care”in the midst of thousands of doctors globally throwing themselves on the frontlines and even loosing their lives to COVID-19. It would have been a terrible look to have that storyline so they clearly scrapped it! What we saw was probably them trying to salvage whatever was left from the original plot while they still had Daniel Dae Kim in the limited amount of episodes for season 3.

Apart from that, I think the writers are doing a fantastic job in terms of character development this season. Arguably I would say that Iggy probably has the best storyline so far and that’s incredible for his character. Tyler Labine is acting his ass off and Iggy’s scenes with Lauren, Vijay and Martin were top tier!!! We are finally getting a Max and Reynolds bromance that was teased in season one but literally know where to be found in season two! It’s great seeing them bond on screen and I hope we get more moments with these two. We’re also seeing Reynold’s “life plan” blow up in his face and we finally have some closure with Bloom. They kept us in limbo for so long! We didn’t know if him and Bloom were truly over but now we finally know. Also, it seems like he and Evie are officially done as well and he might have a new love interest on the horizon. For Lauren, she’s clearly seems to be having a coming out story which is something I didn’t see coming at all. I’m really curious how they’re going to play this out for her and can’t wait to see it unfold. Last but not least, for Max and Helen they are both going through massive character development phases which leads me to my second point.

I love a good Max and Helen scene as much as the next person. To me they’re the ultimate ship and I want to see them thrive and flourish but just because we don’t see Max and Helen interact doesn’t mean that the show isn’t properly developing or investing in their relationship!!!!!!!!The relationship between Max and Helen is so nuanced that their relationship doesn’t hang in the balance because they don’t have more witty, flirtatious, or emotional dialogue. Don’t get me wrong, I adore those moments. Those scenes between them make us the passionate sharwpin shippers we are. At the same time though, we have to truly take a look at why the state of their relationship is where its at now and why from a narrative perspective their current interactions make sense. In order to do this, we have to take a look at where Max and Helen left off last year.

At the end of season 2, Max made a move on Helen and almost kissed her in her office. After this moment occurred he never addressed it and at the time he was still dating Alice. There’s no doubt in my mind that this was the catalyst for why Helen started dating Cassian in the first place. She had practically laid her feelings out there and told Max he was the reason she gave up half of her department. After this revelation and the massive, intimate moment he initiated in her office, he didn’t even have the decency to address it. He swept it under the rug and wanted to keep the same relationship that he had with her like nothing ever happened. Even though Helen was aware about Alice, we now know from season 3 that Helen felt a type away that Max never “officially” told Helen that he was dating her. This is IMPORTANT!!! Max and Helen did not end on a high note in season 2. In fact, the very last scenes we see of season 2 is Helen blowing off Max to go on a date with Cassian and Max breaking off things with Alice. I know this wasn’t intentional due to the season being cut short but it definitely contributes to where they are now.

Fast forward a year later, and not only do we still have a massive almost kissed elephant in the room between Max and Helen but also the trauma of being on the frontlines of a pandemic and going through the biggest social justice movement the world has seen. This is something I’ve said many times over but I’m not sure the fandom recognizes how much these events have permanently altered these characters and changed the dynamics of this show. COVID-19 changed everything. The Black Live Matter Movement for the first time grabbed the attention of the world and changed everything too! Max and Helen are in the process of trying to heal and rebuild their lives the best they can as individuals after such a tumultuous year. At the same time, they are acutely aware of the feelings they have for each other and the UST between them and are carrying the weight of that as well. Naturally guys, the combination of all this is going to change most dynamics in a relationship. Things are awkward and distant because Max and Helen are awkward and distant!! They have a lot of shit that they’re going through as individuals and subconsciously as a “couple.” They are clearly not in a healthy place to be as vulnerable as they once were to each other. And how can they be when their feelings have literally been eating at them for over year?! It’s hard to ignore that and try to force yourself to go back to the way things were. Especially when their feelings have “technically” been out in the open since the end of season 2. They both know what it is! They were steps away from unleashing years of built up sexual tension between them and they went on with their lives like it never even happened. Max walking in on her and Cassian kissing in HER OFFICE and subsequently having that convo with Helen was not for shits and giggles. It triggered the BEAST of his feelings that he had fought so hard to suppress. There is no doubt in my mind that when he saw them in her office kissing, he was having some serious dejavu to their almost kissing affair last year. He‘s in love with her and she’s in love with him but this what happens when you continuously try and run away from those feelings and let it fester instead of trying to deal with it head on. The dynamic were seeing between them now is a result of their unresolved issues and it absolutely plays into Sharpwin’s story. It doesn’t take away from it. It makes sense for where they are NOW!

If we look at season three holistically, you’ll realize that a momentum for something significant happening for Sharpwin has been set through the acting and writing. I got to give it to Ryan Eggold. He has that fire and desire, Mr. Darcy type level acting down to a tee so far. It is so satisfying seeing Max so overcome with his feelings that you can tangibly see it in his body language and hear it in his voice. We have seen Max taken aback by Helen before but we have NEVER seen him like this. I keep on saying it but this is different guys. Something has shifted and it seems like Max is on the verge of exploding. His feeling are burning hot right underneath the surface and it’s a beautiful thing to behold. Last night’s episode was ripe with this type of content and Ryan was in his acting bag! It wasn’t an overtly “Sharpwin” episode but the writing and the acting is so clever and methodical, it will have you thinking otherwise. At the beginning of season 3 Max told Helen that he wants to build something better for Luna and something better for her. Was last night not a beautiful reflection of that? One question asking Max if he has ever loved a black woman put him in the shoes of his patient’s husband and had Max advocating for his wife like he would advocate for Helen if it was her! If that’s not fucking romantic I don’t know what it is and if the alarm bells aren’t going off that there is something deeper at play here with a huge payoff around the corner I don’t know what to tell you! Another moment that sticks out to me like a sore thumb is when Helen was telling Cassian that her brother died. I wrote about this in a previous meta of mind but Helen at her most vulnerable telling Cassian that she feels like she’s running out of time is SO SIGNIFICANT guys!!! It’s not only tell us that she fears that she’s missing out on the windows of opportunities for the wants and needs in her life but it literally sets the pacing of how quickly Sharpwin is going to progress. It is the beautiful freudian slip that tells us exactly where things are headed for these two. To me this is equivalent to Max telling Helen “I love my doctor” and “what if I want you?” in season 1. This episode had no interaction between Max and Helen but it was a MASSIVE Sharpwin indicator through and through! These are just a couple of examples but even their respective journeys in parenting is so Sharpwin driven. So in all I’m not mad in the direction the show has taken to showcase their relationship this season because Sharpwin is deeply interwoven in the storyline this year even if it’s not overtly obvious through emotional dialogue/ interactions.

Also, one thing you have to realize is this, season three is wrapping up a lot of loose ends from season 2 and when it comes to Max and Helen these two points will be/ have to be addressed in the next six episodes.

The Almost Kiss

Whether or Not They Want To Be Together

The showrunners know without a shadow of doubt that the resolution for these two points is owed! If Sharpwin is talking about their almost kiss, there is no way that they aren’t talking about what they mean to each other and what their future looks like together. Both solutions literally go hand in hand and I promise you they are not delaying the resolution for that till season 4. It’s not happening fam. We will see this play out within the next six episodes. So in hindsight, more Sharpwin interaction are on the horizon.

When I was making predictions about this season I wasn’t aware that this season would only be 14 episodes. I’m sad that season 3 is so short but that still doesn’t change my mind for where I think the story is going. Call me crazy but I’m sticking to my guns. There is something about how Ryan is portraying Max that is signaling something huge. Also I just trust the context clues that i believe the show is giving. I trust it! Anyway y’all! If you have any sharpwin question just DM here or message me on Twitter! my username is @oyindaodewale.

Love you guys! ❤️

#sharpwin #new amsterdam #max goodwin #helen sharpe #max x helen #sharpwin meta #new amsterdam meta

79 notes · View notes

dwellordream · 3 years

Text

“In the mid-1910s, when the modern fashions were first introduced on the Danish scene, they provoked relatively little controversy. Even though the vast majority of fashion commentators found the new styles unfortunate, and fashion pioneers—such as the woman at the new year's party—met with gossip and disapproval within their own social circles, short dresses did not trigger much public opposition. After all, wealthy women were known to be given to extravagances, making them the easy victims of any designer whim. That a few working-class daughters adopted similar styles was not surprising either, given their notoriously "poor" taste and unfortunate propensity for flashy outfits.

It was only when broader groups of young women began to adopt the new styles that public concern grew. Certainly, there were contemporaries who found any debate over this matter superfluous. As they saw it, the new styles were merely a temporary folly, doomed to vanish as quickly as it seemed to have appeared. But this was the view of a minority. Most people took the styles much more seriously, believing them to be a sign of more profound changes. In their eyes, young women who adopted shorter skirts, lower necklines, simpler cuts, and higher heels were doing more than simply altering the specific details of fashionable female apparel. In a more fundamental way, they seemed to be departing from older styles of proper and attractive femininity.

Although some observers welcomed the new fashions as charming diversions from the older, more formal styles of dress, most older adults therefore watched the emergence of the "modern look" with considerable unease. At a time when the values and virtues associated with nineteenth-century womanhood were already under attack and longstanding gender arrangements seemed to be crumbling, these changes in women's dress were interpreted as yet another sign of rebellion against the status quo. Still, it remained rather unclear to most observers what these new styles might mean and what consequences they might have; as more and more women adopted the new styles, their efforts to determine the answers to these questions intensified.

As a result, debates over women's fashions soared in the second half of the 1910s, and while some voices were risen in their defense, the vast majority of those who expressed their views publicly were deeply troubled and critical of the new styles. Although critics disagreed about which particular aspect of the new styles was more objectionable, they were unanimous in the complaint that modern fashions seemed to violate both gender norms and class hierarchies. The latter was not the least of their concerns. According to one observer, the new fashions obliterated "all differences among people. You can no longer tell who is the daughter of a common laborer and who belongs to the better circles."

Some observers blamed this on upper-class women's surprising preference for simplicity over adornment. Others faulted young working-class women and their inappropriate enthusiasm for "new fashionable finery." Less judgmentally, others argued that the erasure of visible class distinction was the inevitable outcome of readymade clothes. But no matter where they placed the blame, contemporary observers generally agreed that visual class differences were becoming increasingly blurred. The dangers of this were clear enough: Without the obvious visual clues of class status, an unsuspecting soul might inadvertently mistake a working-class girl for a young lady, or—worse yet—a young lady for a working-class girl.

In general, though, observers were more concerned about the new styles because they seemed to refute older codes of female virtue and modesty. What particularly troubled many critics of the new styles was the increased display of the female body. Even though hemlines would remain below the knee throughout the 1910s and 1920s, shorter dresses still revealed significant parts of women's legs, and sheer silk stockings displayed ankles and calves in more suggestive ways than did traditional wool stockings. Simultaneously, lower necklines and sleeveless tops also made women's upper bodies more visible, leading one Copenhagen city council member to conclude that the new styles of dress "obviously" did not "have the purpose of warming and protecting the body, but rather the opposite: to reveal as much as possible."

Besides, the fashions also seemed to call attention to the body beneath the clothing in new and disturbing ways. Even those parts of women's bodies that were in fact clothed seemed more exposed and accessible than ever before. As the amount of fashionable female underwear was reduced to brassieres, underpants, and light corsets, the fact that merely a few layers of delicate fabric shrouded the female body only furthered this sense. For other critics, the increased display of the female body seemed less disturbing than the sexually provocative nature of the new styles. While admitting that modern dresses carried the advantage of allowing a woman to dress herself without assistance, the fact that they also made it possible for her to undress "in the twinkling of an eye" was not lost on contemporaries.

According to some alarmists, this might well lead to unchecked promiscuity and even prostitution among young women. Other social conservatives expressed concern that the new styles eliminated the visible differences between respectable and disreputable women, or—in the parlance of the early twentieth century—between "ladies" and "women of the streets." In a public lecture, Copenhagen mayor Ernst Kaper, for example, decried that "the ideals that define the appearance of almost all women have completely blurred the distinction between professional prostitutes and respectable citizens."

"The look," he explained on another occasion, "short hair, lipstick, powder and make-up, the few pieces of clothing, is often the same." Adding to this argument, one newspaper editor noted that it would be most difficult for men to respect a woman when "she faces us in the attire of a whore." These criticisms notwithstanding, the more frequently voiced objections to women's new fashionable styles were of a quite different nature. While some (female) fashion columnists complained that they new styles were plain and unattractive, most men reacted quite differently.

Although historians, cultural studies scholars, and fashion specialists have often focused on the fact that the new fashions deemphasized womanly curves and removed visual attention from breasts, waists, and hips, arguing that this gave women an androgynous or even boyish look, it was certainly not an impression of juvenile asexuality that struck most Danish men at the time. In their eyes, the modern fashions seemed to endow young women with a new sexual attractiveness, which they flaunted in public and private. As one newspaper reporter noted, "They are everywhere— in the street, at the cafe, on the beach—presenting themselves in their new attire, unabashedly showing off their feminine charms."

Under other circumstances such displays of female beauty and style might have prompted appreciation, but in the second half of the 1910s it was the cause of much male resentment. The new styles, they complained, made women too attractive and too sexy, giving them an unfair edge in the ongoing battle between the sexes. As one journalist grudgingly noted, "Women are becoming more and more beautiful, and still more seductive under the devilish rule of his majesty King Fashion, and the rest of us are undeniably—only men." The underlying concern about the sexual balance of power helps explain the visceral response to female fashions that dominated much of the popular press in the late 1910s.

Because many men perceived the modern fashions as posing a more fundamental threat to a sexual order based on male control and initiative and female modesty and passivity, they responded with vehement anger. Some commentators warned that scantily clad women created a dangerously erotic atmosphere, where men aroused by the sight of female bodies would not be able to control themselves. Others claimed that they "did not mind that the ladies are dressed like that, but in return all sections of criminal law pertaining to rape ought to be abolished."

Surely, they argued, women's "undressed [appearances] entail a diminution of male responsibility—they appeal so openly and aggressively to the baser elements in man's nature that it becomes a directly extenuating circumstance if temptation becomes too strong for him." As more and more young women began to adopt the new styles, such criticisms became more and more intense. By the end of the 1910s, a host of journalists and literati, academics and politicians, and ministers and moral reformers publicly denounced the new styles and the women who wore them.

Yet, exactly at this moment when public opposition was reaching its crescendo, a counter discourse in defense of women's fashions began to emerge. After years of relative silence, fashion advocates threw themselves into the battle over women's dress, and surprisingly quickly they managed to quell much of the opposition. Ironically, it was the efforts of a group of older, reform-minded women to have the infamous garments removed from department store windows that first began to sway many critics from their otherwise adamant stance against the new styles.

These efforts first came to the attention of the public on November 25, 1919, when Carla Meyer, the charismatic and controversial president of the newly formed Housewives' Organization, published on open letter to department store owners in which she urged them to "halt the window display of half-naked women's costumes." Behind this initiative stood not only Carla Meyer but also members of moral reform groups and many feminists who feared that the new styles would throw into question young women's ability to make sound judgments and thereby potentially damage all women's claims to sexual equality. Jointly, these women had formed the Committee Against the Dissemination of Modem Apparel, which on November 27 published yet another official protest endorsed by twenty-six of its most prominent members.

Given the "irresponsibility .. . of our big, respected firms," they wrote, they felt compelled to express their objection, since "we cannot tolerate that such harlot's garb be introduced into our country and thus help destroy the sense of decency shared by men and women from all strata of society." Whether the members of the committee had actually expected business owners to comply with their request remains unclear, but they had certainly not anticipated the kind of backlash they would encounter in the wake of their action. Rather than support their efforts, many of the very same reporters and newspaper editors who previously had railed against the new fashions used these older women's action as an opportunity to denigrate and ridicule them.

Obviously preferring fashionable young girls as the embodiment of "liberated" twentieth-century womanhood over more serious-minded—and potentially more threatening—female reformers, Folkets Avis, for example, called their criticism a "comical act" and mockingly suggested that "some people may be entirely relieved to know that the leaders of the Housewives' Organization will not wear any of [the dresses]." The Social Democratic daily, Klokken 5, characterized the incident as "a protest of the old and the ugly, the holy and much too prudish ladies."

Even the otherwise sober Copenhagen newspaper Politiken joined the chorus. Lashing out at the grammar, intelligence, and appearance of female activists, the paper felt compelled to "call to the attention of the 'cultivated' hyenas that a costume cannot be half-naked; a woman, rather, is capable of that, even without being stupid, as long as she is attractive. On the other hand, it does not require attractiveness to be a competent housewife. It was, however, unknown to us, until the publication [of the protest] that stupidity was a prerequisite." Such tirades placed women struggling to protect and defend older styles of femininity on the defensive.

By reducing their concerns to issues of sexual jealousy and female competition over men, male journalists managed to challenge both their sincerity and the moral authority to which they, and other older women, laid claim. Faced with ridicule and accusations of dowdy unattractiveness, most of these women quite understandably preferred to withdraw from public controversy, and after their initial bold offensive, few of them ever commented publicly on the issue of fashion again. The 1919 incident had other consequences as well.

For supporters of the new fashions, the unprecedented attack on older, reform-minded women provided at least an indication of how they might construe an effective argument in favor of the modern styles. By latching on to the critique of female activists as frumpy, prudish, and self-righteous, they might be able to position fashionable young women as their positive contrast and thereby curb the harshest criticisms of their appearances. The media invariably portrayed the women who protested against the display of modern fashions, as dowdy and unattractive old maids. For that reason, fashion advocates quickly embraced the media's portrayal of older female activists as unattractive and unfeminine.

In the following months and years, they eagerly promoted the increasingly popular stereotype that feminists, female reformers, and educated women in general failed to take interest in their appearances and actually prided themselves in this negligence. "I was once honored with an invitation to spend an evening in the company of .. . brilliant and influential women," one young female journalist thus wrote in the early 1920s. "It would have been an delightful affair," she continued, "if all the ladies had been represented through the radio and had not been present themselves, as they were all to an extreme degree lacking in beauty. And it quickly dawned on me that they were proud of their careless appearance."

In comparison, young women who embraced the new fashions were obviously more feminine in their pursuit of beauty and style, and unlike older female activists who dared to be in the public eye without necessarily striving to be pleasing to look at, they would offer no such challenge to social conventions. To bolster the credibility of this argument and further distance fashionable young women from an older generation bent on women's emancipation, proponents of the new styles supported sharp distinctions between men's and women's clothing.

They assured critics that equality between the sexes, established with women's suffrage in 1915, rendered the masculine attire—such as jackets and neckties—worn by some older feminists both inappropriate and unnecessary. Sexual difference, they promised, would remain highly encoded in modern fashions. If young women wore clothes that could in any way be deemed inappropriate for their gender, fashion advocates continued, it was for reasons of comfort or practicality only.

Thus, when an American fashion designer in 1920 introduced a combined housecoat/pajamas, Vore Darner ensured that "it is exceedingly feminine, not the least bit mannish, and it does not appeal to any kind of desire for independence in the young lady who wears it. Rather, the pants . . . are reminiscences from the delicate Oriental women's costumes." From the end of the 1910s, fashion reporting thus concentrated on affirming the gender-appropriate nature of the modern styles.

Over and over again, in a seemingly endless litany to femininity, every single item of women's clothing from summer hats to walking shoes was characterized as elegant, graceful, charming, delicate, or refined, and the overall fashionable style as womanly and ladylike. Contrasting the appealing femininity of fashionable young women with the allegedly frumpy, unattractive, and occasionally mannish appearance of an older generation proved an effective strategy for advocates of the new styles.

While placing female critics on the defensive, it simultaneously provided a platform from which fashion enthusiasts were able to respond to male critics who interpreted women's changing appearance as a sign of the erosion of proper womanhood and a challenge to the established gender and sexual order, and within a few years they managed to convince most skeptics that the new styles were not a sign of rebellion or women's efforts to gain control over men. On the contrary, the new styles were, according to fashion advocates, the sign of a renewed and reinforced femininity that admittedly incorporated heightened attractiveness and erotic appeal, but did not endanger female respectability or conventional gender arrangements.

As a result, the controversies over modern fashions all but disappeared within a couple of years of the 1919 incident. Most contemporaries either lost their determination to battle the new styles, or they became convinced that they posed no real threat. And those who remained concerned about the implications of the new fashions soon had their attention drawn to another change in women's appearance even more disturbing than the modern dresses. In the mid-1920s, growing numbers of women began to discard one of the most cherished icons of femininity—namely, their long hair. After a slight lull in the early 1920s, controversies over women's appearances therefore reached a new peak.”

- Birgitte Soland, “The Emergence of the Modern Look.” in Becoming Modern: Young Women and the Reconstruction of Womanhood in the 1920s

#birgitte soland #becoming modern #1920s #fashion #history #gender #class

14 notes · View notes

96thdayofrage · 3 years

Text

Not only is white supremacy the root cause of all anti-Asian attacks, we are told, but the very mention of black assailants serves to bolster an illusory or harmful trope. Examples here include “Stop Blaming Black People for Anti-Asian Hate” (Newsweek), “Old tropes of Black-Asian conflict rear up after NY assault” (Chicago Tribune), and “Why the trope of Black-Asian conflict in the face of anti-Asian violence dismisses solidarity” (Brookings Institution).

On #StopAsianHate, a piece titled “The ‘Black-Asian Conflict’ Is a Problematic Trope—and It’s Time to End It” informs us that any anger directed at black assailants is a mask for “White establishment anxiety.” At Mic, Melissa Pandika argues that we should refrain from posting photos of suspects in anti-Asian hate crimes—but only if those suspects are black. “Posting photos of white suspects,” on the other hand, “can help counter the narrative that the majority of anti-Asian attacks are perpetrated by Black people, and convey what the research actually finds: White people are more likely to commit anti-Asian hate crimes.”

This brings us to the issue of crime statistics. Pandika bases her claims on a University of Michigan Virulent Hate Project study of news articles that describe incidents of anti-Asian racism. “In the 4,337 news articles that we reviewed, we identified 1,023 unique incidents of anti-Asian racism that occurred in the United States between January 1 and December 31, 2020,” the authors reported. And while “only a small fraction of news articles explicitly identified the race of the individuals who harassed or discriminated against Asian and Asian American people … in the few harassment incidents for which the news media explicitly stated the race of the offender, the majority of perpetrators of anti-Asian harassment were reported to be male and white.”

On page 14 of the study, we learn that the race of offenders was explicitly identified in only 57 anti-Asian harassment incidents. Of these 57 incidents, white individuals were reported as perpetrators in 44, Blacks in six, Hispanics in four, Chinese in three, Vietnamese in one. “The information that we have,” the authors conclude, “while limited and imperfect, does not support the common claim that Black hostility is driving the current epidemic of anti-Asian racism and violence.”

There are a few problems here, however. The first is that the data isn’t comprised of actual crime statistics, but just information gleaned from news articles. And even within those news article, only a tiny minority mention the perpetrator’s race. As the authors themselves note, “reporting practices might differ by the race of the perpetrator, and it is not clear how news outlets and individual reporters chose to navigate the complex issue of racial identification in its coverage of specific incidents discussed in the articles we reviewed.”

More importantly, the University of Michigan study groups together vastly different forms of behaviour, from harassment and vandalism down to “stigmatizing and discriminatory statements, images, policies, and proposals.” Among the 184 total incidents in which race is identified, more than two thirds consist of “stigmatizing statements and actions by politicians.” And even the category of physical harassment and violence groups together getting spat at and being assaulted with deadly force.

In regard to actual hate crimes, as that term is defined by the FBI, Voice of America has reported that “only two of the 20 people arrested last year in connection with [New York City anti-Asian hate crime] attacks were white, according to New York Police Department data analyzed by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. Eleven were African Americans, six were white Hispanics and one was a Black Hispanic.” According to the reporter, Masood Farivar, “most police departments do not publish this kind of data, but anecdotal evidence suggests the pattern seen in New York has emerged in other cities, as well.”

My intention here is not to perpetuate stereotypes about black people. Crime is perpetrated by individuals, not whole races. Moreover, to the extent that black people are overrepresented as assailants in this (or any other) kind of crime, it’s useful to note that crime often is linked to poverty and disadvantage, which disproportionately afflict American black communities. But that said, it is intellectually dishonest to ignore or deny the identity of real crime suspects in the service of protecting a certain kind of ideological narrative.

Even Asians themselves are being pressured to frame the attacks against them in this ideological context. UCLA lecturer Manjusha P. Kulkarni, the aforementioned co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate, has admonished Asian Americans for their anti-black and “white adjacent” attitude. “Sadly, immigrants come to the United States often and understand right away the racial hierarchy that we have in our nation,” she states in her widely circulated video. “And so they know that if they want upward mobility, they want economic security, they need to align themselves with whites, essentially. And so you see a lot of that white adjacency in our community or efforts to strive toward white adjacency.”

Such language channels the idea that, as recently described by Quillette contributor Kenny Xu, the success of Asian-Americans can be traced to their “proximity to whiteness.” Seen through this lens, even when Asian Americans feel themselves under threat of physical attack, they bear a special moral responsibility to ensure that their response is ideologically onside with the fight against white supremacy.

What does this mean in practice? According to journalist Kayla Hui, this means that Asians must resist endorsing the most obvious source of relief from street crime: the police. “Policing only catalyzes racial tensions between Asian and Black communities,” Hui writes. By way of alternative, Hui urges “bystander and de-escalation training to learn how to intervene when anti-Asian hate and harassment occurs.” And in the long run, “Asian solidarity with Black and brown communities [would serve as] a catalyst for tackling white supremacy and the systems that continuously uphold and enable racism.”

Cat Brooks, co-founder of the Anti-Police Terror Project, a black-led organisation based in Oakland, says that instead of funding increased policing as a means to prevent anti-Asian violence, money should go toward “groups that are doing this work anyway,” such as local community patrols. And in an NBC News article “Critics fear NYPD Asian hate crime task force could have unintended consequences,” reporter Kimmy Yam leads with the statement that “The New York Police Department’s new anti-Asian hate crimes task force could inadvertently put Asian Americans in opposition to other communities of color, some activists fear.”

In response to the recent spate of anti-Asian attacks, the US government has enacted the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, which promotes the reporting of hate crimes at local and state levels. One might think that Asian groups would welcome the move. Yet a coalition of over 100 Asian and LGBTQ organisations have opposed the law, on the basis that the mere collection and reporting of hate-crime data “contradicts Asian solidarity with Black, Brown, undocumented, trans, low-income, sex worker, and other marginalized communities whose liberation is bound together.” The idea here is that police should be removed from “communities and neighborhoods” altogether; and that the security of the population should instead rest on such “community alternatives” as “non-coercive mental healthcare infrastructures, neighborhood-based trauma centers [and] community food banks.”

The signatories believe that collecting crime statistics and empowering the police more generally fails to address “the structural conditions that lead to violence against marginalized communities.” Obviously, they are free to argue for such a wholesale reorientation of American public policy (even if it flies in the face of recent evidence). But it is disingenuous to pretend that they are doing so in the service of protecting Asian people from physical attacks, or protecting the interests of Asians more generally. From first to last, this manifesto reads as a defence of a certain ideological stance. And to the extent that Asians are treated as autonomous political actors, it is on the expectation that they will play their assigned role in expressing “solidarity” with other groups.

Indeed, one wonders what the true goal is here. Advocates will tell you that their fight against white supremacy is a means to protect hate-crime victims. But often it seems that means and end have become reversed, and that these crimes now serve as a prop in the larger ideological campaign against our supposedly white-supremacy-saturated culture—a campaign that Asians themselves are now being pressured to join. Whatever you may think of this ideology, it seems doubtful that its champions are motivated primarily by the need to protect Asians from violence.

3 notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 4 years

Link

Dr. Amy Cohen, executive director of Every Last One, explained to me in an interview that under the Trump administration’s so-called “Remain in Mexico” program, “the United States has been essentially feeding vulnerable migrant children and families to cartel traffickers in Mexico continuously.” The program, officially known by the Orwellian-sounding title of “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP), sends immigrants seeking entry into the United States across the border to Mexico to await the adjudication of their cases. While the Department of Homeland Security claimed that MPP would “decrease the… ability of smugglers and traffickers to prey on vulnerable populations,” in fact it does the opposite.

Cohen elaborated on this horrific phenomenon, saying, “migrants are dropped off with nothing on the other side of the border, with no shelter, with no protection, with no food, with no money. And within minutes, they are picked up by cartel gangs that are waiting.” As a child and family psychiatrist who works closely with traumatized migrant children, she did not mince words, saying that families are, “kidnapped and used for extortion, which is a form of trafficking. Sometimes they are tortured. Sometimes they are raped. Children are compelled to watch. Sometimes children themselves are raped.”

The only way to view the outcome of this policy is that the United States is actively participating in a trafficking operation. The Trump administration cannot claim ignorance of the outcome of MPP. According to Cohen, “This is happening in cities literally all along the border. This is not a secret; this is widespread.” So extensive is the abuse that according to her, “The vast majority of asylum seekers who we’ve placed into the MPP program have at one time or another experienced at least one, sometimes multiple, episodes of what I would consider trafficking, of kidnapping, and some form of psychological or physical torture.”

Because of the extreme danger that the Trump administration has put families in, according to Cohen it has “forced many parents into a decision” about whether to keep their children with them or send them unaccompanied across the U.S. border.

But under cover of the coronavirus pandemic, the federal government has accelerated the expulsion of even unaccompanied children to Mexico and Central America—in violation of federal law. The Associated Pressexplained that “More than 2,000 unaccompanied children have been expelled since March under an emergency declaration enacted by the Trump administration, which has cited the coronavirus in refusing to provide them protections under federal anti-trafficking and asylum laws.”

Now reports have emerged of the government hiring a private security and transportation firm to move immigrant families and children into hotels in the United States before expelling them. According to the New York Times, which broke the story, the Trump administration has created “a largely unregulated shadow system of detention and swift expulsions without the safeguards that are intended to protect the most vulnerable migrants.” Children, some as young as one year old, are being cared for in hotels like Best Western and Hampton Inn by private security personnel who have no childcare training.

Cohen says advocates like her believe that “this has been a way for the United States to try to hide a number of these children who they are deporting.” Those children held in government facilities have to be registered as having entered the United States, which then triggers legal protections for them. But by holding children in hotels, effectively off the books and out of public view, “government attorneys are denying that they are actually in the custody” of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, says Cohen. Bizarrely, they are claiming that the children are in the custody of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) over concerns of COVID-19, and thereby flouting the legal mandate known as the Flores Settlement to maintain the safety, care, and oversight of the children.

31 notes · View notes

chelseychats · 3 years

Text

Read This if You’re Curious About The Results Of The War On Drugs

Have you ever wondered where America’s-for lack of better terms-obsession with drugs came from? If not, have you at least become curious as to why the American government felt the sudden need to tirelessly advocate against drug use? The vast world wide web presents endless information on the nation’s War on Drugs; including how it came about, the effects it has had on our country, and where we are now. Yet, many of these website’s explain this information through wordy articles that are sometimes difficult to follow or simply downright boring. Chelsey Chats presents to all willing readers the ins and outs concerning the War on Drugs, it’s ramifications, and what this information means, in simple terms. Let us begin.

Drugs have not always been viewed as harmful, taboo, and negatively life altering. Countless individual cultures have utilized various types of drugs for pharmaceutical and religious reasons. Recovery.org found The Native American Church to be one of the most well known religions which use drugs to exercise their faith. The Native American Church uses a highly potent drug called peyote in certain ceremonies. An additional common religion that utilizes drugs for spiritual purposes is Hinduism, which has traditionally used cannabis to worship. Drug Policy Alliance asked the million dollar question begging to be answered in an article titled “A Brief History of the Drug War,”: why are some drugs legal while other drugs are prohibited? To provide readers with all-inclusive understanding, we must first understand the origin of the infamous War on Drugs.

In the 1960’s, around the time when bell-bottoms, lava lamps, and go-go boots were at their prime, drugs had become what Drug Policy Alliance calls, “...a symbol of youthful rebellion, social upheaval, and political dissent.” As drugs became increasingly frowned upon by parents and political figures, the American government was obligated to counter this “growing threat”. The first president to do so was former President Nixon; in June of 1971, Nixon officially declared what he called a “War on Drugs.” President Nixon swiftly took action by mandating a handful of new orders and policies. These orders included significantly expanding federal drug control bureaus, and administering policies such as the notorious mandatory sentencing. Nixon also strategically placed cannabis in Schedule One; this distinct classification of drug categorizes cannabis as high potential for abuse.

The year following Nixon’s series of changes, the commission recommended reversing Nixon’s decision to place cannabis in Schedule One. Instead, the commission held that the drug should be decriminalized for the possession and distribution of cannabis for personal use. This suggestion was entirely ignored by Nixon. This information leads us to revisit the initial question presented by Drug Policy Alliance; why are some drugs perfectly legal while others are strictly and heavily prohibited? Writers for Drug Policy Alliance summed it up perfectly, “It’s not based on any scientific assessment of the relevant risks of these drugs- but it has everything to do with who is associated with these drugs.”

The War on Drugs did not end with Nixon’s presidency, in fact, quite the opposite. Former President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, where he chose to continue to carry out the plans of his predecessor. The first lady, Nancy Reagan, launched her own anti-drug campaign in which she created her well-known slogan, “Just Say No.” Mass hysteria surrounding the subject of illegal drug use was partly owed to the media, which consistently presented images and news of American citizens addicted to the free-base form of cocaine called “crack”. Nancy Reagan’s campaign pushed for “zero tolerance” programs which showed no mercy to individuals who had fallen victim to the highly addictive drug.

The rise of the war on drugs continued to increase. Los Angeles Police Department Daryl Gates established the renowned project D.A.R.E, which educated youth on drugs. Drug Policy Alliance stated that the program “... was quickly adopted nationwide despite the lack of evidence and effectiveness.” The result of the mass hysteria concerning drugs in our communities began to shift the way American’s perceived drugs. In the year of 1985, the amount of American citizens who thought drug abuse was the country's most important issue was estimated to be about two to six percent. Around four years later, the percent of Americans who thought drug abuse was the most crucial issue jumped to an astounding 64%. Congress viciously fed off the American hysteria, placing severely harsh penalties concerning drug use, trade, and distribution. Long after the hysteria subsided, the harsh penalties remained.

The War on Drugs was composed of anti-drug programs, excessively harsh laws, expansions of federal drug control agencies, doubling prison populations and endless anti-drug marketing. The War on Drugs founded by Nixon had lasted almost 50 years. After 50 years of advocating against drug use, the results are disheartening, to say the least. The Penal Reform Institution stated, “The enforcement of overly punitive laws for drug offenses has not only proven to be ineffective in curbing production, trafficking, and consumption of illicit substances, but had many negative consequences including overloading criminal justice systems, overwhelming courts, fueling prison overcrowding, and exasperating health problems.”

There were many faults to the War on Drugs project from its very inception. To begin, the prime reasoning behind the project’s launch stemmed from ill and discriminatory intentions. Nixon’s former domestic policy advisor, John Enrichman, later revealed Nixon’s hidden agenda in starting the War on Drugs. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” You can find out more here.

The War on Drugs primarily focused on low-level offenders and drug users. This moved the government’s focus from removing actual offenders of organized crime. The project also failed to sentence drug users and dealers accordingly; there was minimal distinction between the possession of illegal drugs and trafficking. The War on Drugs project also provided an unfair disparity between crack and cocaine sentences. Penal Reform International concluded that the “...biggest contributing factors in the startling increase in incarceration in the U.S. is traceable to the arrest and imprisonment of poor people of color for non-violent and drug related offenses.”

Now that we’ve drawn an adequate illustration of the War on Drugs and its efficiency, this post will present some useful statistics to provide readers with full understanding. Writer for The Globe, David Case, wrote a commendable article titled “The War on Drugs: What Is It Good For?” which broke down the various aspects of the campaign and analyzed the results. From gathered statistics, Case estimated that the 50 year long war on drugs has cost the nation a whopping $2 trillion dollars, and calls the war “nearly still born.” As of 2013, almost 3 million people are incarcerated; equivalent to more than 1 in 5 of the planet’s prisoners. To provide readers with a better understanding of what this means, Case provided that the number of American inmates currently serving time for drug related charges surpassed the total U.S. prison population in the year of 1970.

The effects of the War on Drugs project caused a negative trickle-down effect that affected American neighborhoods, families, and taxpayers across the country. The World found, “Illicit trade has transformed neighborhoods- from Baltimore to Detroit to East L.A.- into battle zones where innocent citizens live in fear of violence and shady dealers.”

Not only this, the plans specifically designed to fuel the War on Drugs has proven to have failed or backfired. The project has not considerably affected the overall flow of drugs in America. In fact, the prohibition of drugs has consequently amplified the worldwide black market, which has been estimated to worth a whopping $300 million.

Furthermore, the War on Drugs has been identified as the leading cause behind the spike in crime. Jefferey A. Miron, A Harvard lecturer, explained how the outlawing of drugs ultimately forced the drug industry to move underground. Inevitably, this meant that sellers and buyers were unable to settle any possible disputes with legal action, leaving the individuals to rely on violence. Miron further conducted a study back in 2010 which concluded that full legalization of drugs in America has the potential to save taxpayers over $40 billion dollars each year. Taxing these drugs was also estimated to bring in over $40 billion dollars in revenue, meaning changing our drug policies could yield over $80 billion dollars in revenue each year.

The primary fuel behind the War on Drugs was to prevent drugs from invading our communities, and more specifically, harming our youth. Yet unfortunately, the project failed to keep the youth from obtaining and using drugs. A study conducted in 1975 found that approximately 40% of high school seniors across the nation reported having smoked cannabis in the past year. By the year 2012, the rate had dropped by a mere 4%, as around 36% of high school seniors reported that they had smoked cannabis within the past year.

Now that readers have a thorough understanding of the War on Drugs and its effects, which have appeared to be completely negative, I would love to present some of the positive effects the project has had on the nation. I sifted through an endless amount of websites searching for positive outcomes of the War on Drugs. Nonetheless, I failed to find any positive outcomes that could be scientifically/evidently supported. Counterpunch.org provided one of the funniest positive outcomes claiming, “Via programs like DARE, it has turned kids into drug informants who monitor their parents for the authorities.”

“The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world,” concluded a June 2011 report published by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. The report noted that between 1998 and 2008, global consumption of opiates had increased 35%, cocaine 27%, and cannabis 8.5%.” -The Globe

So… what does this mean? Well, this means it's time to reverse the damage that has been done. It means it's time to restore our communities, amend drug policies, exonerated individuals who have fallen victim to these severe drug policies, and restore families. Public opinion has begun to substantially shift in favor of logical reforms that support health-based approaches to combating drug use.

Good news; the change has already begun. States across the country have already taken the first step by participating in marijuana reform. Many states have decriminalized cannabis, while others have legalized it all together. America has continued to take progressive steps; dozens of states have passed legislation in order to increase access to the overdose antidote, naloxone, in efforts to fight the overdose epidemic. Drug Policy Alliance has compelled the government to support drug policy reforms, and has successfully brought about major change. On November 3, 2020, the state of Oregon passed Measure 110, becoming the first state in American history to decriminalize all drugs. This created a significant shift in American support in favor of treating addiction with a health based approach rather than a punitive approach.

There you have it Chatters. This blog post has provided you with the full history of the War on Drugs (sparing you the painful details), with supportive evidence, a birds-eye view of where we are today, and what all of this information means. Personally, I’ve always found the War on Drugs and its effects especially intriguing. Therefore, I hope you enjoyed this blog post half as much as I enjoyed creating it for you. That brings us to our final quote:

“There's a phrase, "the elephant in the living room", which purports to describe what it's like to live with a drug addict, an alcoholic, an abuser. People outside such relationships will sometimes ask, "How could you let such a business go on for so many years? Didn't you see the elephant in the living room?" And it's so hard for anyone living in a more normal situation to understand the answer that comes closest to the truth; "I'm sorry, but it was there when I moved in. I didn't know it was an elephant; I thought it was part of the furniture." There comes an aha-moment for some folks - the lucky ones - when they suddenly recognize the difference.” -Stephen King

Until next time,

Chelsey Chats.

3 notes · View notes

chaos-or-cosmos · 4 years

Text

Book Review: „Emma Goldman – Living my Life “

“If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution”

“Red” Emma Goldman

The biography of famous anarchist, writer and advocate of free love and birth control Emma Goldman, is not only a great insight on anarchist theories and their ability to speak to the masses, but also a great analysis of the turbulent times from the 1880s to the first world war and the October Revolution and the takes and turns the radical political left has had to take. Emma Goldman writes her autobiography, her who had been declared “the most dangerous woman in America” by J. Edgar Hoover, is one of the most inspiring, feminist characters of the turn of the century and tells the tale of her life, “its heights and its depths, [in] bitter sorrow and ecstatic joy, [in] black despair and fervent hope”. She claimed her place in the (still) patriarchal organised anarchist and communist circles and spoke up for birth control and free love.

For all her life she had numerous lovers, fighting against being forced into the role of wife, mother and housekeeper that, ‘the weaker gender’ was supposed to occupy and refused to marry her entire life, not even to secure a citizenship, when she was in dire need of a country willing to grant her refugee. Fighting for her place in a world dominated by men she often surprised herself to find in her “such ordinary female vanity”, as being concerned about having her face disfigured in the presence of probable death. She proclaimed true equality and freedom for women could only be reached by overthrowing the current system, not by pressing for reforms in a patriarchal society, making her an enemy of the suffragettes, who thought woman’s freedom lay in their right to vote. What made her even more controversial, in her own ranks as in those of her enemies, was her lecturing on birth control and homosexuality. She believed in freedom for everyone, freedom to take control over one’s body, freedom to decide for oneself if one was willing to go through the struggles and pains of yet another birth, just to watch the child starve to an early death. Her lectures on homosexuality made her an object of controversial discussion among her comrades, some claiming it would hurt the cause of the anarchists and would make their public image even worse, though she wasn’t willing to compromise and propagated free love for everyone. Making her loved and admired by those she was addressing with her lectures.

The most part of the book is taken up by her life in the United States, from the Chicago Martyrdoms of 1887, which she understood as her political awakening, from her time in New York, where she first met Alexander Berkman her lover and dearest friend for most of her life, planning the attentat on Frick and serving the jail time that followed. Her political works form demanding better working conditions, to free love and anti-war propaganda she spend her time lecturing and later publishing her own magazine, “Mother Earth”. It’s not a solemnly political book, it’s no theory, it tells the life of a women fighting for her ideal, “everyone’s right to beautiful, radiant things”. The focus is put on the life, on her family, on her lovers, on how deeply she cared for all human beings, which makes her political ideal so much more understandable.

When she was forced to leave the US, she was departed to Russia, her motherland, for whom she longed all her life. But since she had left it half a century before, big changes took place. The Bolshevik Revolution, ‘October’, took place. A ray of hope for the international left. A revolution was possible. Though the communists, not anarchists, took the power for themselves she, and many others, believed to find the sacred land in Russia. Not even reports from there, which told of the exact opposite could change her opinion and she defended the Bolshevik Revolution against all critics. Until she arrived to see for herself. It is interesting to see the effects of the revolution through the eyes of her, she wants so badly to believe that it’s measures are all just against counter-revolutionists. Though finally she can’t help but realise that humans are weak to power, and those who have it refuse to share or care for those at their command. Through the communist bureaucracy and corruption among those in charge most of Russia is starving and the Cheka, the all-powerful communist militia, rules with iron strength and shoots and arrests at will. It takes her a long time to accept that the communist revolution has failed, giving her time to meet and describe to us readers the heads of the new state, Trotsky and most of all Lenin. Leaving ‘Mother Russia’ makes her a stateless refugee, dependent on visas from other countries, forcing her to life the rest of her life restless and lonely and disillusioned.

This biography is a book worth reading for everybody, especially those interested in anarchism, feminism and the radical left at the times of the turn of the century. It is a surprisingly easy read, considering the topics it deals with, but the writing lets one get lost in her emotions and stories. I read a shortened version though, the original is published in two volumes as it has more than a thousand pages. But even those pages can not cover a whole life. Emma Goldman tells her life, the life of a revolutionary, but what makes the book, so intriguing is, that she also tells the story of a woman.

#emma goldman #anarchist #anarchy #anarchist literature #book review #my first book review #not proof read #please be gentle #if anyone even reads this #dark academia

15 notes · View notes

neo-culture-mafia · 6 years

Text

NCT 2018 Reaction When Someone Disrespects Their S/O [U + 127...Dream is linked]

Hello Lovelies, these will be longer because I’m giving a scenario/blurb for each. Enjoy :) !

Dream / Junior Forces Ver.

LEE TAEYONG

Everyone was on his shit list today, even you at some given moments. He just wanted to get through his damn meetings in peace without listening to his constant update reports. Yet, when someone compared you to a servant, it got his blood boiling:

“Honey, I was wond-” You walked into the conference room, the entirety of the Neo Culture had their eyes focused on you. Some had the hands going to their hip, ready to fight for their leader’s life who sat closest to the door, yet most of them calmed once they recognized the big and gentle eyes of their leader’s partner.

“Oh, I’m so sorry I should’ve knocked.” You said, bowing towards the familiar faces you deemed family.

“Yeah…you should have.” A new prospect piped in from the bottom of the long table. “Gosh Lee, who knew you let the help step in for meetings. Put her in her place, would you?” He rolled his eyes, thinking that he would be praised as a manly man and a fearless advocate….when everyone just saw him as a dumba*s.

To say you felt like a stupid nuisance was an understatement. Your eyes now trained towards the ground while you kept your inner lip fixed between your teeth. The fiery red setting in your cheeks as you felt out of place. Taeyong noticed this and decided to give you attention from his nice and friendly side while in his mind he was going over what he would have Jaehyun or Jisung do to the prospect later on. He grabbed your waist and pulled you closer with both arms so you were standing in between his legs. “No, my attention is yours. What did you need?” He asked taking your hand and running his hand over your knuckles. “I just wanted to go shopping and was seeing if I could take the car.” You said, still feeling stupid. “Of course. Mark? Want to go with her?” Taeyong asked and Mark shot out of his seat, ready to leave this boring and useless meeting. Taeyong threw the keys to the younger and he caught them on beat.

“Have fun, honey. Text me if you need anything.” He said kissing your knuckles as you nodded, a smile forming on your face. “Let’s go Noona!” Mark whined as he dragged you out of the room as both of you laughed at the fact you get to leave. The door closes and all the official members knows what’s coming though.

Taeyong let an enthusiastic sigh leave his lips as he leaned back in his chair. He finally faced forward again as he took his gun from his hip. He set it down on the wood table infront of him. He had a sinister smile as he sat up, looking at the new recruits like a madman.

“Let’s have a talk about respect, yeah?”

__________

MOON TAEIL

He sat next to you at the annual family and associates dinner that Taeyong threw. You sat at a LONG table that was faced into the ballroom where everyone else sat at circle tables. Only the closest and most elite members were aloud to sit where you sat with your husband.

You were adorned in the finest jewels he had gotten for you specifically along with a dress you deemed unfit to be worm by someone like you. You were a goddess in his eyes along with everyone’s eyes who had a brain. So when someone compared your formal dress to a garbage bag…ends up he had to hold you back:

His hand found yours under the table as you toyed with the fabric of the elegant dress that hugged your body in all the right places. You looked over to see him smile and give you a reassuring nod. Taeyong was going on the usual speech he gave every year about the meaning of respect within the strong family we have.

Yet, when Jaemin LITERALLY snaked his way under the table to where you and Taeil sat, to say you were shocked was an understatement. He was the last chair…on the opposite end of the table. You lifted the silk table cloth as he sat in between you and Taeil on the ground. “Hello, Noona.” He bowed nicely as he sat cross legged. He then turned towards Taeil. “Hyung.” He started, keeping his voice hush still. “The prospect at table 87 with the blue vest on keeps talking bad about Noona.” He said hurriedly and angrily. You comfortingly played with the hair on the back of his head so he would calm down.

“What?” Taeil asked again. “Prospect. Table 87. Blue Vest. Talking bad about Noona…revenge?” He said and automatically held up handcuffs and a match box. “…what was he saying?” Taeil asked and you stared down the man. “That it looked like she was wearing a trash bag,,.and some stuff I don’t feel comfortable saying infront of a female presence.” Jaemin said as the speech ended and everyone clapped for Taeyong. Jaemin still rambling. Taeil hit Jaemin upside the head. “Stop. He didn’t say it, the prospect did.” You grabbed your husbands wrist as Jaemin rubbed the side of his head softly. “Oh yeah, sorry.” Taeil said.

You cleared your throat, tapping your napkin on your mouth and setting it next to your plate. You pushed your seat back and stood up. “What are you doing?” Taeil asked as Jaemin just looked up at you. “Obviously if he’s speaking about me, he wants to talk.” I said bowing to some people who passed infront of me. “What? No.” Taeil said. “Sit your as* down, and you can see me from here. I’ll be fine.” You said moving your leg to your dress slit and exposing your holster on your thigh. He nodded and turned toward his food again. “Jaemin, will you please accompany me to the prospect?” I asked and he got up quickly, extending his hand. He guided you down the steps as he brought you to table 87. Most just gawked as you approached him, talked, and told him if he ever talked about you again in such vulgar ways you promised death. Taeil was quick to come in and swoop you up before the prospect lost his anger, and Taeil would get involved himself.

“Talk about me one more time, and your body will be thrown out in the garbage bag you compared this dress to.”

_________________

SEO JOHNNY

You were walking around the base, making sure you hit up all departments to get what Taeyong was asking. You were walking back from Doyoung’s warehouse when a new fledged member thought you were on of the many hookers around the base…yeah…you weren’t…:

“Cherry Bomb shell and hand-held revolver…check…Brass knuckles and nun chucks…check…matches and fire kit…check…cyanide and sinai…ch-” you mumbled to yourself, strolling through the courtyard of the base while checking off the list you had on a piece of paper. The weapons were stashed in your backpack and without worry. You weren’t paying attention as you didn’t hear the man running up behind you.

You didn’t even realize he was there until you were pressed up the side of the building with his lips on your neck. “Get off! As*hole! Get off.” You whined as you tried to throw the man off. A smack across your mouth had cut you off as you felt his hands grip your rear-end in a painful way. You cried into the ‘kiss’ as your hands were pinned into the rough concrete of the wall…painfully you might add.

“God you’re such a bad whore.” He said and kicked your leg to open your mouth more. His hands roamed your body as you desperately tried to get him off. “HELP.” Was all you could shout as he bit down on your neck to probably make you shut-up.

Finally, his body was thrown onto the ground, hardly. Your body crumpled down to the ground as you held your knees to your chest. You watched as Johnny took all his anger out on the new member. You were brought to your feet by Jeno who was talking to Johnny that was on a quest to find you.

Jeno took you away, trying to calm you down. You ended up on the training center with all the Junior forces who were talking about what they would’ve done if it was their own girlfriend…most of them would act the same way as Johnny.

“New member or not. Mine is mine. I would’ve hit him with a combo, monkey knuckle on the nose, nipple twister, stomp on a couple of his toes, do the eye poke thingy-” Chenle went on, his mission to make you smile after the incident and it worked as most of the others were laughing as well. He was cut off by Johnny walking in. “Y/N!” He yelled from down the hall. “I think I left my bean sprouts in my shoe. Lele, wanna help?” Jisung asked as he dragged his dolphin companion to the stairs. “She’s in here, hyung!” Renjun walked in himself with an ice pack and a cup of Jasmine Tea.

He pressed the coldness to your leg and neck, trying to get the hickeys to go away as quickly as possible. You thanked him as Johnny walked into the dining/kitchen area where you and the others sat. He was out of breath and his knuckled dripping (love, love, drippin’ drippin’ love…srry) blood onto the white tile floor. He was still angry…not at you though. “You okay?” He asked and you could only nod.

“I’m sorry I wasn’t there sooner.”

___________

NAKAMOTO YUTA

You were at the local coffee shop, going for a well deserved coffee break. Yet…OUT OF ALL PLACES YOUR HUSBAND DECIDED TO HAVE A TRADE DEAL…it was at the shop you were at. He had no idea, and once he does realize in the worst way possible; it’s too late…but not for him:

“One large iced americano, please?” You asked the barista who nodded with a smile, gladly accepting your debit card with both hands. She scurried off and began making the drink while you scrolled through random apps on your phone and listened to whatever music was playing in the small cafe. It was pretty much a dead flow of customers but there were a handful of stragglers.

You felt hands on your waist and you quickly turn around ready to hit whoever it was across the face. Yet your fist was met by the man’s hand. “Hey pretty lady. I need you for a job.” He said and you just dropped your fist, getting out of his grip. “I’m going on a meeting and need you to be my arm candy.” He said.

You finally noticed the huge body tattoo he possessed and you sighed…Yakuza. “No. Hands off.” You pushed his chest and noticed how everyone around you had reached for their waist. You pouted. “Now. Let’s go.” He picked you up and dragged you outside and up the stairs to the building that sat atop of the shop.

The door opened and he sat at the seat closest to the door. The curtain that separated the 2 gangs was left untouched across the middle of the table, obscuring both boss’s vision from eachother.

You wanted to just cry and go back to see Yuta because you were some place you shouldn’t be and it scared you…especially because everyone was bigger than you. “We’re ready to begin.” A man on our side said and the curtain was dropped a few seconds later. You looked across to see Yuta seated at the opposite end of the table. Our own men surrounded him.

“Yuta.” You shot up but was met by a forceful grab and pull, causing you to end up on the floor. “Ow.” You whined and held your arm that the man let fall to the ground with a thud.

“Get up, whore.” He kicked your legs forcefully under the table where it was obscured from vision. You whined again softly, holding your leg. “Can you please return my wife before we have more than a territory issue on our hands?” Yuta spoke fire from the other side of the room. “We don’t have your wife, Yuta.” The man said and you stood up again. “Yes you do, dumba*s.” You said and his hand flew up to squish your jaw so you’d look at him.

You put both hands on his wrist to pry his force from your face. Yuta flew up and his men stood up after they sensed his anger. “Let. Her. Go.” Yuta said throwing his fists on the table.

The stupid man finally pieced two and two together and quickly released his hard grip. Yet seeing the red marks on your face threw Yuta over the edge. You wasted no time in running to Yuta after the grip was released. His one arm slipped around your shoulders to hold you close. “Fu*k you, fu*k you wanting more space. Get the hell off our land.” He spat and the men wasted no time in getting the hell out of there.

He held you close as he made sure to get it across your concious that he cared deeply about what happens to you. He pulls away and looks at your face where he grabbed you. He grazed his fingers over the marks and examined them.

“Find the leader and base of that branch. We leave at 1.”

_________

QIAN KUN

This was supposed to be your guys’ night. It was your guys’ time to get out of that stupid medical room where your boyfriend locked himself into night and night again. Yet when a mission goes South, he is told to bring you in for backup…you both getting there was a mission within itself:

“Where to next, sweetie?” Kun asked as you looked around the colorful sky that filled with the smell of popcorn and the sounds of ride motors and children laughing. ‘I don’t know, there’s so many! Ferris Wheel is last though.” You said turning towards him with a smile. “Anything thing for you.” He said and you guys walked hand in hand down the grassy walkway.

“Let’s go on the bumper cars.” You suggested and you walked hand in hand. You both gave up your tickets and got on. The ride started and all of you began driving and hitting eachother. It was a moment that would last in your mind forever.

You then raced eachother to the mega air. You stood in the long line, and you guys would be on the next group of riders. His phone sounded off with a ringtone you were familiar with. He silenced his phone, yet no matter what, this person’s calls always came through and the loudest volume. Kun picked up without hesitating. “Yes?” He asked and the ride started finally. You watched at what you would hopefully be getting onto next.

“Ok. I have y/n with me.” He said and a few more seconds, the phone was hung up. “Mission went wrong.” He said and your heart began racing. He ducked under the rope and then lifted you over, ultimately losing your place in line. He took your hand and started pushing people out of the way so he could get to his car with you safely. “Most guys are hurt. I need your help. Enemy’s are on their way to come get us so we don’t get there.” He said and as soon as he said that, both of you began running.

We were directly outside of the entrance when someone passed by and grabbed your other wrist. When you are moving extremely fast and then stop because of a pressure is on one of your joints…it hurts. You whimpered as the person twirled you so their arms are around your body.

Kun doesn’t waste time in pulling the gun on his hip. You’ve seen the gun on his hip, knowing he was forced to carry it. You’ve never seen him touch it though. You were clawing at his arm to get him off.

“Honey. When I say ‘go’ turn to your left and crouch.” He said in Mandarin. You got the jist and he gave you the signal. You used all of your strength to turn to the left and crouch. The man’s hand was wrapped in your hair as you went towards the ground, yet once the loud sound of the gun went off, so were you and Kun. Kun picked you up and ran all the way to his car.

He didn’t even throw you in your seat as he got in, he set you on his lap, and managed to get you out of there alive. You didn’t face forward as you looked over his shoulder to the fleet of cars behind him. “Those are associates, don’t worry.” He said as he laid a hand on your thigh.

“You okay, pumpkin?” He asked and you silently nodded. “Do you think he’s alive?” You murmured and he chuckled.

“If he isn’t it serves him right. He touched something that wasn’t his.”

(I HIGHKEY LOVE WRITING ABOUT BAD-ASS KUN!!!)

___________________

KIM DOYOUNG (trigger warning of sexual violence) (LONGER)

You left him at the member and associates dinner. You had grown fatigued and needed rest. You assured him that you would be okay and that you would call him if ANYTHING happened, even if you saw a squirrel. He HAD to stay at the dinner because of his position and you knew that and completely understood. Yet when he doesn’t find you at home the way you left, he returns back to the party to wreck havoc:

“Call me when you get home and text me if ANYTHING happens. Like, you see a squirrel or your favorite K-Drama has a surprise ending today.” He said kissing your forehead. You nodded and chuckled as the cold air nipped at your skin. “I got it. I love you.” You said as you wrapped your arms around his waist that was hidden under his formal blazer. “I love you too, get warm.” He said as you started walking away toward your car. He didn’t let you go without a cheeky slap on the behind though, which in turn was met with the finger. He held up a finger heart as you got in the car.

You laughed as you watched your husband see you out of the parking lot. It was a calm drive back, listening to TWICE and thinking about random things. Do you have any Instant Noodles at your house? Is your show on tonight? Where is Madagascar located?…can fish see water?…

You make it to your house with ease and you walked to your house with your elegant dress. You unlocked the door and made your way into the living room. You looked around and noticed the mess you were witnessing. Everything was either over-turned or slashed. You try to seem calm on the outside. You take the small gun off your thigh and turn around and was met with a bigger human literally right behind you. You screamed and weakly held the gun up but it was soon thrown at the wall where some of the metal popped off. Even if you grabbed it, it probably wouldn’t work now.

Their mask was on their face and the only thing you knew is that you have seem the blue vest before (I’M SORRY, I WAS RUNNING OUT OF RANDOM PEOPLE). You were grabbed by the man and he held you above the ground as you fought your way off of him with no victory in sight. He opened a random door and it turned out to be the closet where you kept you SUPER fancy dresses like the one you were in now.

He closed it and opened the door next to it, and it was the guest room. He dropped you on the bed, and you immediately rolled off the side, crawling to the loose floor board where there was a gun with your name on it. “Get back here.” He called, dragging you by your foot that was adorned with red bottom heels.

“Please no. Stop.” You whined as he threw you on the bed and straddled your waist. He took his belt off and bounded your wrists tightly together and to the metal headboard.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Doyoung waited patiently…waited. It was now 1 am, and the dinner was far from over. He then excused himself from the conversation he was caught up in with Taeyong, Taeil, and Yuta.

He wasn’t calling anymore. He was going to show up at your house, gnaw your ear off…and then cuddle while eating ice cream because he’s had enough of caviar for the night.

His car was easy to spot for him as he got in, and drove quickly to your place. Your car was there, and your light was on. He was pppiiiisssss*eeeeddddd now. He groaned and got out of his car, shoving his key into his back pocket. He didn’t even bother to knock as he walked into the front room.

His breathing didn’t falter as he registered something was terribly wrong. He grabbed his gun and called out your name with force…and there was no response. “Y/N. Answer. Now.” He stated clearing out the kitchen and living room. He kicked your closet, bathroom, and bedroom door open and there was nothing. He sighed as he kicked in the last door with impenetrable anger.

There you laid, hands and feet tied, body exposed, eyes covered, blood, cuts and bruises along with weird substances littered across your skin. What made him really mad was that you still had your feet adorned in heels. …they didn’t even take off your shoes before doing this?…

“Y/N?” He asked and you twitched a little. He went over and took off the cloth that held your eyes prisoners from the light. He threw it on the floor and held your jaw loosely, knowing that the gesture made you relax. Your eyes were tear filled with pain and shock. “I’m sorry.” You cracked from pain. The bruises around your neck made breathing hard. “It’s-it’s not your fault.” He said as he quickly and safely untied your various limbs. He picked you up bridal style but you tapped his chest. “What?” He asked coming closer. “Under the bed.” You choked out. He nodded, knowing even though he would be out of the room, the person couldn’t escape from the bolted closed window.

He set you in the bath and started the water. He walked back to the room and with one swift movement, lifted the bed and the cage it laid on. The man tried to scurry like a roach once caught, but Doyoung kicked the air out of the man. “Family? YOU DID THIS TO FAMILY?!” He kicked the down man again. “WE TOOK YOU IN.” Kick, “WE ALL DID.” He said landing a hard blow to his head. “Just wait till Taeyong finds out abou-” “DOYOUNG.” You yelled. Doyoung quickly grabbed the belt that held you and he tightened it around the man’s throat, the other end hung on the door knob. “Don’t even think about moving.” Doyoung called as he ran out of the room and to the bathroom. The water was now red and you scrubbed lightly on your body.

Tears rushing down your cheeks broke him. It broke him because it showed how you were broken.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Doyoung walked into the ballroom at 4 am as everyone still talked and laughed. He kicked the big door open which got everyone’s attention. He dragged the man by the belt in one hand and a revolver in his other.

Everyone watched as the man crawled on hands and knees to the front of the ballroom, right infront of Taeyong. “What the hell is this?” Taeyong asked as he peered over the table at the alleged ‘member’. “I went to Y/N’s house because she left the party not feeling well. After 3 hours with no word from her, I went to check up on her.” He said looking at his boss.

Doyoung pulled on the belt as the man stood up. “And I found this bastard under her bed…where he raped her.” Doyoung spat while maintaining psychotic eye contact with the man. “Now…you might not remember but this as*hole was sworn in about…a week ago?” Doyoung questioned looking at the long table of true members. They had hatred and disgust in their eyes.

Doyoung kicked the man’s knee cap as he fell to the ground with pain. Taeyong never lost eye contact with the ‘member’. “Thank you for coming tonight. Please come next year. Dismissed.” Taeyong said and EVERYONE cleared the room except the long table.

“See, if it was my choice I would play pinata with his body as he hangs from the ceiling…but I don’t want to give him the gift of living any longer than he should.” Doyoung weighed out his options, waving his gun around in circles. “And because of him…she can’t even fuc*king exist without being in pain.” Doyoung said taking the man’s face in his hand. The man laughed as he spit random words.

“She’s too tig*t…I don’t know why you’re with her…I’ll take her again if you want.” He laughed and Doyoung laughed too, but with a different meaning. He stood up, cocking his gun and splattering the man’s skull all across the floor laughing at his slumped over expression, sarcastically.

Doyoung threw his revolver as hard as he could at the man, shaking his head. “…is she okay?…” Taeyong broke the heavy silence to ask what everyone was wondering. Doyoung chuckled as he walked down the aisle of circular tables where ladies in beautiful dresses danced as the men were proud to call one of them theirs. His footsteps echoing throughout the marble built room.

“She will be now.”

__________

TEN

You were at a local coffee shop unwinding with your husband when the barista had some comments and actions that weren’t accepted:

“We haven’t done this in so long.” You sighed as you sat back in the chair, eyes trailing out the window. “Agreed.” He smiled and set his phone, face down on the table; something both of you haven’t been able to do in a long time.

The drinks came on a cute platter as you both talked about random things that have never crossed both of your minds when you were alone.

You pick up your drink and take a sip from the straw. You happen to look down to the lid where the straw poked through. “The straw won’t be the only thing you’ll suck tonight. Call Me 10 xxx-xx-xxxx ;)” You read out loud to Ten who just stared at you.

“No way.” He said and took your drink from your hands to look on the lid himself; probably in disbelief. He slowly turned toward the barista who was red in the face, nonchalantly drying a couple mixing sticks. “Ten, it’s oka-” You tried to cut him off. “THE ONLY THING SHE’LL BE SUCKING TONIGHT IS YOUR SOUL FROM YOUR BODY. SHE’S A DEMON.” He said, getting the attention of EVERYONE in the small shop. Most of them laughed as Ten threw the lid back at the counter with such force.

The barista sadly threw it away. “Also, that’s not cool. You obviously see me sitting right here.” Ten said as the younger boy bowed and apologized. He was in a bitter mood all day.

”He wasn’t even that good-looking. Little boy needs to step his priorities up before I put them in check for him.”

___________

JUNG JAEHYUN

Both of you were on a late night stroll when someone tried to mugg both of you…tried:

“Dinner was so good.” You groaned, holding your stomach. “I’m glad you liked it, sweetie. Burgers was a good choice.” He said, throwing his arm around your shoulders. “I gained like, 20 pounds.” He said groaning again. “I’m losing feeling in my legs. You have to carry me.” He played as he slowly put more of his weight on you.

“No. Jae.” You laughed as you both stumbled down the dark and deserted street together. You both loved times like this, where you were just acting like your real age and it was truly refreshing. Not a care in the world, going with the flow.

“So where to next? Movie at your pla-” Jaehyun asked as you both passed an alley. A person popped out infront of you and held a gun in your face. It was plastic but it was still startling. “All your money, now.” He said. You and Jae looked at eachother with an obnoxious sigh. Jae took out his wallet. “How much you need, my man?” He asked and the person relaxed and dropped the ‘weapon’ a little. “Are you serious?” The man asked and Jaehyun nodded. “Now.” He coughed and you kicked the man’s ‘weapon’ out of his hand. “Hey!” He started but he was quickly cut off by a nice, clean fist to the face. I guess it was a little too forceful as he dropped down to the ground…unresponsive.

“Poor soul.” Jae said as he tucked a 100 in the guys pocket.

“And good kick, honey.”

_______________

DONG SICHENG (WINWIN)

Your anxiety was high already, but once you met his men at an abrupt moment, it was through the roof. You never understood how such a sweet human was the boss in this scary world of drug deals, money extortion, and merciless murder:

You walked into the main conference room, where Winwin was asking for you. You stopped once you had one foot in the door though. At least 20 other men sat around the large table. You thought the meeting was in an hour…boy were you wrong. “Uh-” You started. “Hey sweetie, did you get the files from the triad gang in the area?” He asked and you slowly nodded.

Some of the men snickered at your scared expression, but your husband was quick to shut it down. “Excuse you. It’s not really a laughing matter.” He said and the person rolled his eyes. “Sure, boss.” He said. Winwin brought you closer. “Are you okay?” He asked and you nodded.

“Here, sit down.” He said and pulled you into his lap. You were uncomfortable at the little snickers from around the room. “Boss, aren’t you going a little too far?” The same man asks and Winwin gave him a death glare. “You run this branch, you decide what is and isn’t too much.” He said and his hands ran over your arms comfortingly.

The man just nodded and stared at his papers. “Because last time I remember, you were already on my bad side for running around with a random person last week when you were supposed to be on a mission.” Winwin spat at the already defeated man.

You turned toward him and placed a hand on his neck, your thumb running over the bottom part of his ear comfortingly. “Honey, it’s okay. I think he gets it.” You said and he nodded. “Okay.” He muttered. “Alright, next page. Income revenue.” He said as you turned the page for him. You had gotten bored and doodled some random characters around the paper while you sucked on a random lollipop he had placed next to your hand. You could hear his smile as you doodled a dog spitting a spitball at the word ‘Revenue’

“You know, let’s wrap the meeting up early. We can go over this tomorrow.”

_____________

KIM JUNGWOO (His is a little different)

Both of you were a giggly mess when you were together. When it was work time though, no one peeped a chuckled unless you both knew you were clear. When he was in the middle of an on-ground mission, he spots / puts you in an awkward position:

You sat alone at a music themed coffee shop. Old record played of old hits and you were calm and at peace. Jungwoo was at work so you had the night to yourself, sadly. You wanted to bring him here, but seeing that he was going to be booked up the rest of the month…it seemed like a convenient time for some reason.

You read a fascinating book on galaxies far away and their creation when the bell above the door rang. You looked over and saw Jungwoo. You looked back down at the book and continued reading…WAIT JUNGWOO…you snap your eyes up to see him trying to avoid your eyes. You know he knows that you are sitting right there.

He gets a medium coffee and scoped around as if he doesn’t already know where to sit. He picks the lady that sat 2 small tables infront of you. He gently walks up and confidently asks if the seat is taken. She was really blunt. “I’m not into men.” She said and he froze. You hid your chuckle as a cute and small cough. His ears turned pink at this rejection he had never gotten before. “Are you serious..or do you just not want to talk to me…?” He questioned cutely. She held up her book bag where a Pride flag was sewn on. “Oh..okay…I’m sorry.” He said and walked away. He sat in the seat directly behind you. He texted you discretely.

“We have 22 hours before it detonates and if I don’t find out where it is…I’m dead…WE’LL ALL BE DEAD.” He texted me. You bit your lip, already knowing what’s coming. “I’ll text you where to pick me up.” You said and he started fidgeting in his seat. “No. That’s not what I meant. No.” He said but you were already out of your seat. You fixed your hair cutely, already telling what this girl was into.innocent…dainty…cute…you shivered at the thought. You were always naturally cute with people, but knowing you had to be extra cute terrified you.

You stood up and he sighed, tossing his phone on the table. You picked up your book and coffee along with your bag. You slowly approached. You tapped her on the shoulder and once her eyes met yours, they lit up. “H-hi. It’s okay if you say no…but, I was wondering if I could maybe…sit with you?” You stuttered and she smiled, clearing her paperwork from the other side of the table.

You sat down slowly and she leaned forward. “You are the most cutest thing ever. What’s your name, kitten?” She asked and you shivered. only Jungwoo calls me that. “Maya.” no it’s not. “You are the cutest little thing ever…why are you shaking?” She asked and you thought for a minute. “You’re just really pretty…way to pretty for me.” You said, running a hand through your hair. “Awe.” She said touching your hand.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You got in the car slowly and almost silently. Your eyes popped out of your sockets as they had been ever since you left her apartment. You slowly buckled in and he drove off, a pissed off expression etched onto his face. “Sector 4, building 8, floor 2.” You hummed into the silence.

He texted it and then looked at you once you both reached a stoplight. “Have fun?” He asked and you shook your head slowly as you stared at your shoes. “I need a bleach bath and a bible.” You muttered. He laughed the contagious laugh he possessed.

“She was into so much stuff I didn’t even knew existed.” You shook your head and shuddered at the thought. “Awe. You okay?” He asked and you nodded. “What are those?” He asked as he quickly grabbed your arms. “Rope burns.” You answered nonchalantly.

He just dropped your arm and hit you upside the head softly. “Yah, what did I tell you about on-ground missions?!” He said and you turned to him. “I literally walked in and she tied me like a pig from the ceiling. I didn’t ask and she didn’t even ask…she just…tied.” You said in a whine. He put his hand on your thigh and gripped,

“Well even if you are aloud to go on any more missions, which I’ll make sure you don’t, remember you’re mine as soon as you leave…geez…what am I gonna do with you?”

______________

WONG YUKHEI (LUCAS)

You both were undercover at a music store. Him as the nerdy university student, and you as the carefree and rebellious intern. When you’re touched though, the persona drops:

The bell dings as someone walks in and you sit with your feet propped onto the counter. “Welcome to Prokaryote Music…or whatever.” You said as you twirled your gum around your finger. Lucas rushed towards the group of shoppers. Highschoolers and older. “Hi welcome to the store. First timers or returning shoppers?” He asked. “Should I run your card numbers?” He asked as he took out the random hand-held machine from his back pocket.

You stood up, walking. “No, nerd. Let the people shop.” You said and flicked Lucas’ fake glasses. Some of them laughed as Lucas walked away to leave them alone. He played this role really well. You went to a random section and just began organizing.

You were approached by one of the people and they seemed pretty chill. They shared knowledge on the music you ‘liked’. You hadn’t realized till it was too late that he was very close. You were leaned over a bin of old records when you felt his hand slip between your legs and started to cop a feel.

You gasped at the unwanted feeling and before you could turn around to slap the guy, he was being taken to the ground by an angry Lucas.

“It’s going to be hard to cop a feel when you can’t feel anything.”

______________ LEE MARK (STRONG THEMES)

He was confused on why you had been so on edge lately. Yet once he found out, he wasn’t afraid to stop it:

You walked down the hall, reading a random book when he stuck his arm infront of your face and onto the wall. “Hey, wanna go catch a movie?” He asked once he caught you in the hallway. “Ye-I can’t.” You suddenly retracted. He squinted his eyes.

He quickly put his other arm up so you were encased. “What’s going on with you lately? Usually you would say yes before I even finished the sentence.” He said and you shrugged, looking down. “I know that you know. Just tell me.” He said but you stayed silent. “Do you think I’ll get mad or something?” He asked and you shrugged…but then nodded.

“Then tell me and I promise I won’t get mad.” He said and you still stared at the ground. He took your face in his hand. “Well when you get enough courage to tell me, I’ll be here.” He said and you nodded obediently.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“You shouldn’t be doing this. I’m still a minor.” Mark heard from behind a door. That made him freeze quickly. “Just shut up will you and take your shirt off, y/n.” He heard a voice say and his jaw and fist clenched.

“N-no. I don’t want to be bossed around by you anymore.” He heard your voice shake. “Do it or I’ll tell Mark about how big of a whore you are - stripping for other members.” He said and he was about to open the door. “No, please. I’ll do it, but please leave him out of it. He has too much to deal with.” You said and that’s when the door flew off it’s hinges.

He was just mad that he couldn’t protect you from this ‘member’.

“She’s a minor, dumba*s. Just wait till Tae hears about this.” Mark goes crazy, hitting and swinging on the man till he let’s it all out.

“The only reason I’m not ending your sorry ass right here, is because y/n is around.”

_____________

LEE DONGHYUCK (HAECHAN)

Both of you were equally feisty, yet you weren’t afraid of most things that you should be:

“Come at me, bi*ch!” You screamed at the girl you were in a fist fight with. School had just let out and she had been running her mouth. “You wanna talk? Well put your fists where your mouth is.” You told her, throwing your bag and sweatshirt down.

She rolled, her eyes, setting her bag down and her own coat. She grips brass knuckles in her hand but you weren’t going to back down. “Okay…you have brass knuckles…I have common sense.” You rolled your eyes and got into your beginning stance.

She started and took a couple swings, one of them landing a cut across your cheek. Others were telling you to calm down before the principal came, but you both were fired up and willing to lose it all.

You hit her a good time in her lip where it gushed open and started spurting. Arms wrapped around your body before you got another swing. “Dumba*s I told you no more fighting.” He groaned as he started carrying you away, one of the other boys getting your bag. “Hyuckie. Put me down, she wants to still fight.” You motion to her who’s still holding her weapon. Everyone knew you were dating a bad guy, so when him and his friends showed up to break up the fight, they began to shut up. “I don’t know what I’m looking at honey. You need to get better at fighting. My baby whooped your ass with her damn knuckles without you poor excuse of a weapon.” He said looking over his fake glasses. “You need to get better at stuff like this.” He finished and she questioningly raised her fists which raised giggled from you.

“Honey, put those damn things down. 1) you’re fighting a girl with no weapon so technically if you guys were to get in trouble, she could come at you for assault; not that she would. 2) you try to swing one more time I will personally lay your ass out; girl or not. You’re trying to hurt my baby with me present. Good luck with that Satan.”

3K notes · View notes

korranguyen · 6 years

Text

Some thoughts on romance in TDP and ATLA: What Does Rayllum Get Right?

Okay, I know this post doesn’t do much service to this claim, but I don’t love the idea of directly comparing ships to one another. Every relationship is different in the context it takes place, and it’s just as unfair to directly compare any two relationships as it would be to compare two different couples in real life: every person, and by extension, every character, is unique in their own way. Not to mention I’m a bit hesitant to write this because TDP just found its footsteps away from ATLA with the new season, and I honestly fear plaguing the lovely positivity of the TDP fan base with old wounds from the ATLA ship wars.

BUT since there are already a lot of popular Kataang/Rayllum comparison posts floating around, I feel the need to share my two cents on the bit as someone who wholeheartedly enjoys the trajectory of Rayllum, but had my... reservations when it came to the canonized romance in ATLA.

Instead of dwelling on those reservations, though, I’m gonna focus on talking about and validating the parts of the ships we do like (meaning both Zutarians and Kataangers).

This essay, in a nutshell:

Two ships form an unlikely bond and find their peace in the midst of warring kingdoms fandoms. #amirite

What Rayllum Learns from Zutara

TBQH I surprised by how many embraced the Kataang/Rayllum parallels because the setup itself reminded me of Zutara— not Kataang. They share a similar origin story: Rayla threatens Callum in an attempt to pursue his little brother, just like how Zuko often pursued Katara to capture Aang. Their introductions are antagonistic, if not explicitly violent, but because the writers take the time to humanize both characters outside of these interactions, the audience understands that these conflicts happen because they’re driven by motivations from opposite sides of the war. Of course, when they are forced to become allies, it’s... not as smooth-sailing as you’d expect.

At its core, both Rayllum and Zutara are very cautious friendships. They don’t trust each other right away. It’s not perfect; they have their outbursts, reluctance to trust, and painful blows to their bond. But against all odds they eventually establish trust in each other. And because that trust isn’t just given, but needs earning, it takes its time dwelling on wounds necessary to transgress those lines and establishes extra depth in the meantime, making it well-earned and conducive to an understanding relationship. When they find their peace and friendship, it feels earned and respected on both sides, and both parties have a deeper understanding of each other than they could've had with a happy-go-lucky friendship.

Also, a side effect of the bitter work (sorry I had to lol) it took to to build that relationship, both Zutara and Rayllum have become especially in-tune with each other’s emotional cues. On the behalf of Zutara, there’s the moment when Katara comforts Zuko as he’s cowering in front of his uncle’s tent. She immediately recognizes that something’s wrong and approaches him about it:

Zuko opened up to Katara yet again about his insecurities and fears just like he did in Ba Sing Se. I love how easy it is for him. Zuko’s normally so guarded yet doesn’t mind being vulnerable with Katara. He’s so worried because he doesn’t see how Uncle Iroh can forgive him. It’s important that Katara’s the one encouraging him because she was also someone he betrayed that day. Someone who had faith in him to make the right choice, someone who changed for the better. She forgave him and she knows Iroh will too. That carries some weight with him.

-- Geektastic08

Because of how many more opportunities Rayllum than Zutara to show off their perceptiveness of each others’ emotions, I could name off a lot of similar moments-- but I’m going to go with when Rayla slices open the mummy on the Cursed Caldera. When she returns and anxiously gets to ushering people forward, Callum notices almost instantly that Rayla’s acting off and expresses his concern. And, of course, Rayla opens up that she did, indeed, see something “horrible”— immediately opening up to him on the fact she was afraid, almost instinctively overcoming her reluctance to show her fears and weaknesses as established from previous episodes when Callum is the one who asks about it.

Also, this:

"I know that face. It’s your dumb idea face.” =)

Another reason: balanced-out co-parenting is a thing (Ezran vs. the rest of the Gaang).

On a more grand-scheme note, their relationship actually also shares a lot of the same “thematic importance” as Zutara as a symbol of overcoming differences and bonding. As cheesy as this line low-key is (IMO), Harrow says:

“I ask you and your brother to reject history as a narrative of strength and instead have faith that it can be a narrative of love.”

Yeah, read by the human boy crossing foreign lands with a she-elf to return the Dragon Prince to his mother as a gesture of bonding elves and humans and ending the war between nations. Having faith that history can be rewritten as a narrative of love and compassion.

To top it off, Rayllum owns it when it comes to living up to the not-overtly-kissy romantic foreshadowing of Zutara.

This is an allusion to the established Moon symbolism from earlier in the episode. As painful as it was, finding out about the king winds up illuminating, and eventually fulfilling, the possibility of deeper relationship and understanding of trust they originally couldn't see (but was still there) when Callum crosses the barrier into the “light face” from the “dark, shadowed side”.

Also, this shipper’s haven scene:

Agh, yes.

What Rayllum learns from Kataang

Okay, so one of the bigger (and very understandable) issues with Zutara is that all of their development (aside from “Crossroads of Destiny”) happens very late in the last season. No matter how solid the moments we do get are, there simply isn’t enough time to fully wash away their damaged terms only a couple episodes prior, much less transgress necessary lines before a healthy relationship can occur. Whether or not their build-up does justice for their relationship arc as friends, by the end of ATLA, Zutara’s negative interactions still outnumber their positive ones by a sheer majority, so pushing that relationship into romance so soon comes with negative implications. (Which is where the Book 4 rumors seep in, but let’s not touch those today)(Anyway, even as a person who generally supports Zutara, I don’t advocate for that relationship to be “endgame”, or even as a part of canonized material because romance that soon after establishing that trust wouldn’t have conducive to a healthy relationship.)

On the other hand, Kataang gets a lot more credit in the time department. Because their friendship is established in such a positive light from the very first episode, Kataang has the benefit of faith from their countless endearing moments capturing a casual, comfortable friendship we can know and love, and then can grow nostalgic about over time. Even when their angrier moments play out, they usually fizzle out in the pool of happier memories they already have, so such instances are easily forgivable from the majority of the audience.

Now, despite initially being at odds with each other, Rayllum is established early enough to have the advantage of 5/6/7 seasons under its belt to build to that healthy relationship. Even in the less-immediate circumstances of their trust, the show still leaves plenty of time to fill with the necessary builds and prove their friendship through positive interactions. This is evidenced by the fact that by the end of Season 2, their negative interactions— even Rayla’s original position as Callum/Ezran’s killer— is water long down the bridge.

(Random tangent: To all who believe Zutara is an unforgivably abusive ship because of Katara’s and Zuko’s previous enemy relationship, let me pitch this to you: Rayla literally corners Callum and holds a blade in his face, about to kill him in the second episode yet Rayllum is very inarguably not abusive. The issue with Zutara isn’t that it’s inherently a sour relationship because they used to be enemies, it’s that there’s a dire lack of time to ease the ratio of interactions of Zuko hurting Katara to him helping her before the end of the show where starting that immediate relationship would have come with poor implications. In the case of Rayllum, Rayla actually gets a very extended chance to make that up in a larger span of time and exceeded those numbers two weeks ago long ago)

Thanks to all that screentime, maybe if our Season-2-Shipper-Scenes can be read as glimpses of a possible building crush early on like Kataang’s, that’ll stir up some of the heartstring garble later that it did with Kataang, too (for some, at least).

Rayllum’s interactions share the lovable silliness of Kataang. When it comes to picturing your ideal, sugarcane relationship, we will often find our soft spots in the couples who spend the most time smiling, laughing or being casually friendly with each other.

Also, here’s an interesting parallel: Katara was Aang’s primary support through his loss, just like Rayla was for Callum. Also, both Katara and Rayla struggled to hide the fact from their “romantic counterparts” at first, in fear of hurting newfound friendships with people they cared about, only to have this backfire later. However, I’d say it’s interesting to note that because Callum is almost 3 years older than Aang and thus arguably in a different phase of maturity (older childhood at 12 vs. teen at almost 15), the way they processed that realization took remarkably different forms between the two characters. Breaking the news to Callum meant surfacing more relationship-based questions about trust, meeting its resolution in a heart-to-heart conversation about honesty and hurting people you care about. On the other hand, because Aang is still, for most purposes, a child, that recognition on Aang’s part, as well as the honesty/lack of censorship on Katara’s part, doesn’t exist as much as an expectation in that relationship. Consequently, Aang’s grief process in “The Southern Air Temple” was wholly Aang-centric, coming to life in a display of rage and pain before he comes to accept his new position as the avatar and the last airbender in the arms of his new “family”. (I actually think the most obvious comparison to Aang here is Ezran, who became angry and ran away when he found out about his father’s death, then returned with a fuller understanding of the newfound individual responsibility he must face despite not being ready for as a growing kiddo. But that’s a discussion for another time; maybe I’ll write something on that later).

Of course, the aforementioned covert foreshadowing of the Zutara ship comes coupled (pun intended) with the overt romantic foreshadowing of the Kataang ship! Because what kid (or kid in the heart) doesn’t let out the giddy squeals over that.

Also, it’s the male and female lead. Everyone’s gotta love those characters! Bet you money all the 2010s children who watch TDP are gonna get hella attached to that stuff and rack up the tears on how well-elaborated those characters were and how perfect they were for each other through thick-lens nostalgia goggles when they grow up. That’s just how dat shit works.

TL;DR If Zutara was too “dark” or “intriguing”, or “bound to make six year olds cry” (as Ehasz himself supposedly said in a class at UC Berkeley; lol), Rayllum re-illustrates that arc with the cushiness of a clear, lovable path and the positive-interaction-to-death-threat ratio, audience faith, (love for small critters,) and longer friendship screentime of Kataang.

Rayllum shares all of the literary nuances of Zutara and the sweet lovability of Kataang. And then adds its own little sparks of healthiness.

It’s a ship built for everyone to fall in love with.

I honestly don’t care whether this winds up being a very strong friendship or a romantic relationship (though I’m inclined to believe from the narrative that it’s the latter), but no matter the direction the show takes, I love their relationship so much and have full faith it’ll be done right.

Let me know if I missed anything else! I know I might be missing the narrative importance and/or parallels others might see in Kataang because I’m a bit biased to Zutara as the poster of this multi-ship analysis (though I tried my best to counteract it for objectivity), so especially if you’re a Kataanger, let me know what you’ve noticed and I’ll be happy to add it in.

positive/non-warring reax only please :)

#kataang #zutara #rayllum #the dragon prince #tdp #writing/criticism

503 notes · View notes

terfslying · 5 years

Text

‘ROGD’ is done. Debunked. Over. Here’s why.

I’ve posted before that ‘ROGD’ isn’t proven by any means, but might indicate some stuff. But it looks like I was wrong - there are so many more methodological flaws with ROGD than I thought, and it doesn’t even have a shred of reliability. This info was found via a link sent to me by @dumatsquiet

Article: Methodological Critique of Littman’s (2018) Parental-Respondents Account of ‘Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria’

Published in: ‘Archives of Sexual Behaviour’ as commentary 22 Apr. 2019. This journal is peer reviewed and is the official publication of the ‘International Academy of Sex Research’.

Author: Arjee Javellana Restar, a PhD student from the Department of Behavioural and Social Science at Brown University in Providence, USA. This article on her seems a little outdated but it indicates her main areas of study are public health and behavioural interventions for LGBT, trans and gender-non-conforming people of colour.

Tbh there are probably a lot more problems - these are the highlights that I could reasonably easily quote and make out in Restar’s paper, and I am not by any means an expert in this area. But that being said, lets begin!

Littman’s premise was available to parents before they completed the survey, allowing them to self-select & introducing bias into the way parents would respond

“The premise of the study is also stated at the beginning of the consent form […] and introduces risk for participant’s self-selection bias and survey response bias. […] Providing this premise prior during the consent process provides an opportunity for motivating a specific group of parental-respondents, particularly those who agree with the premise, to elect to participate in the survey. Furthermore, providing the premise of the study in this way sets expectations of the survey before parental-respondents can even begin to provide their answers, which can bias their response towards support for the premise.”

Despite the fact that the parents were asked if their children had ‘ROGD’, they were given absolutely no criteria or definition for what ‘ROGD’ was

“Littman asked parents to indicate based on their observation if their adolescent child has “ROGD” and whether it started during or after puberty. Littman also provided definitions for “gender dysphoria,” “transgender,” and “coming out/announcing as transgender,” but not specifically “ROGD” and “puberty.” It is unclear whether parents were informed how “ROGD” and puberty were operationally defined and conceptualized in this paper. Specifically, what makes gender dysphoria a sudden or rapid phenomenon solely based on parents’ accounts of adolescents and young adults’ announcement of their trans identities?”

Littman asked the parents to diagnose their children based on a simplified-language version of the DSM criteria. The simplified language used was never made public, and we have no idea if it had bias.

“Littman also asked parents to perform two independent ‘diagnoses’ of their child’s gender dysphoria using DSM-5 criteria for gender dysphoria in (1) childhood and (2) in adolescence and adulthood (i.e., current age); Littman also noted that the language for these measurements was simplified or adapted for parents. Littman neither provided examples of this simplified version of the DSM-5 nor offered evidence about whether best-practice methods for measure adaptation were used prior to administering the survey […] Without methodologically confirming the new versions of these two independent diagnostic criteria prior to administration of the survey, instrument bias may have been introduced.”

Littman asked parents to DIAGNOSE their kids. That in itself is a problem. Weirdly enough, psychiatrists actually are trained in stuff that your average parent doesn’t know!

“[A]nother fundamental methodological error Littman makes is using parental-respondents accounts of ‘ROGD’ to generate interpretations and conclusions about clinical conditions like gender dysphoria. Part of the DSM-5’s diagnostic measurement for gender dysphoria also requires an evaluation of its association with clinically significant distress. Unless parents in this paper received formal training and have licenses to conduct clinical psychiatric diagnoses, parents enrolled were not classified to classify any persons, including their children’s gender dysphoria. […] As such, relying on parental-respondents’ accounts introduces a significant bias that affects their ability to ‘diagnose’. It has been previously suggested that parents are less capable of conceptualising and interpreting their children’s emotional and physical experiences in a manner that is conducive to an operational report, such as an online survey.”

The parents’ retrospective diagnoses were based on their memory (completely unvalidated by outside sources) from up to 6 years prior to the survey

“Asking parents to recollect information on this time frame [up to 6 years prior] places a substantial burden on memory. […] While developmental research has utilised recall methods in the past (Dex, 1995; Hardt & Rutter, 2004) the paper did not provide information on whether there were any tests performed to examine the accuracy of the recall information.”

The sample of parents was heavily skewed towards white, college-educated, middle-aged parents, and specifically sought out parents already advocating ‘ROGD’ as an idea from 3 websites with prior discussion of the idea.

““The parental-respondents displayed a very narrow demographic stratification despite being sampled from a very specific venue: 82.8% were female sex at birth, 91.4% were White, 99.2% were non-Hispanic, 66.1% were aged 46-60, and 70.9% had attended college. Notably, 86.5% believed their child’s trans identification is not correct, and recruitment relied heavily on three particular web sites known to be frequented by parents specifically voicing out and promoting the concept of ‘ROGD’. Thus, these are not just ‘worried parents’ but rather a sample of predominantly White mothers who have strong oppositional beliefs about their children’s trans identification and who harbour suspicions about their children having ‘ROGD’. […] There is very little evidence that this sample is representative of the diverse parents of trans youth and young adults.”

“While descriptive studies frequently use convenience sampling, there is a clear distinction between convenience sampling and biased sampling that is not acknowledge by Littman. […] As noted earlier, Littman recruited specifically on three Web sites solely because these venues are attracting a specific demographic of parental-respondents who are already subscribed into, are selecting into (i.e., self-selection bias), are promoting the concept of ‘ROGD’, and agree via consent form with the premise of the study.”

Littman did not control at all for bots, trolls, multiple identical responses, multiple responses from the same parent, etc. etc. She also provided no information on if any parents filled out multiple forms, as they were permitted to.

“In addition, as the survey was administered online, Littman made no mention of best-practice strategies for conducting web-based survey. For example, there was a lack of description of online security against robots and/or Internet ‘trolls’. […] There was no description in the article that conveyed the survey had a de-duplication protocol that flags possible multiple responses from the same parental-respondent […] In fact, as evident in the consent document, LIttman decided not to collect IP addresses and explicitly stated that multiple responses from the same parental-respondent who reported having more than one child they suspect to have ‘ROGD’ were allowed [… but] Littman did not provide any evidence for controlling or weighting for multiple children from the same family in the analysis and failed to report whether any parental-respondents did indeed have multiple children they observed to have ‘ROGD’.”

Littman invented her own methods of measuring distress, function at school, coping mechanisms, etc. and none of them were validated.

“Littman made no references or citations to other valid instruments [than the DSM simplified for parents] and problematically used non-validated measures throughout the paper to support the study premise and hypothesis. For example, as Littman was interested in coping mechanisms, for which there are an already established battery of validated measurements available, it is questionable that Littman chose to craft survey questions without any statistical psychometric validation instead of using or adapting validated coping measures.”

Littman reported the parents had pro-LGBT attitudes in 2 areas, but neglected to include information on the additional LGBT attitudes gathered by the test used in the method. These items included whether they would support or oppose transgender non-discrimination laws.

“Littman reported that 85.9% [of parents] were in favour of [gay marriage] and 88.2% believed that “transgender people deserve the same rights and protections as others.” However, these were only two of the four gender and sexual minority-related attitude items included in the survey. IT is unclear why these two specific items were selectively reported. The two items not reported concerned parental beliefs around whether it is a good or bad thing (or neither) in society that more gay and lesbian couples are raising children, and whether parental-respondents would support or oppose a law to protect transgender people from discrimination in employment and housing.”

Littman’s responses indicate that pubertal blockers and cross-sex hormones are too easily available; but this completely contradicts significantly more methodologically-sound research that indicates the opposite.

“Littman found a small portion of the parents sampled (23.8%) reported that “[their] child was offered prescriptions for puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones at the first visit”. This finding is alarming given that it runs contrary to WPATH’s Standards of Care as well as in contrast with the current literature. Some studies [on the topic] have documented difficulties of accessing hormones and care due to multiple barriers, including limited and delayed access to pubertal blockers and cross-sex hormones, and a lack of access. Other studies have found that providers are substantially less comfortable or reluctant in providing hormonal care. As such, it is important to elucidate the results of the Littman paper in light of its methodological limitations as well as alongside the body of transgender health literature.”

Littman claimed to follow ‘grounded theory approach’, but included her hypothesis in the consent form. ‘Grounded theory approach’ is based on the idea that you shouldn’t develop your hypothesis until you have the data.

“Littman states the use of a ‘grounded theory approach’ to analyse open-ended responses […] The a priori biases present in LIttman’s framing of the study and methodological biases identified in the sampling approach, informed consent language, and item selection violate the essential principles of grounded theory. A hallmark and a necessary research process of grounded theory is the inductive analysis of data (rather than deductive theory-driven analysis) in order to formulate a hypothesis”

#terf safe #tag for sources #rogd #long post

225 notes · View notes

emisonme · 6 years

Text

How shit works.........

OK Guys, let me explain how all this shit REALLY works. When you make the choice to sign a contract with a Record Label, you usually know you are signing away some of your rights, from creative control to image control. Why? Because, once you sign a recording contract, with a Label, you become a Brand. You become the Brand that produces the product, the record Label has agreed to invest in and market.

To market and sell your music, people will mold your PUBLIC image, to your managed Brand, and market you and your music to the demographic, that will consume your brand and genre of music.

The professional team, you hire, Manager, Agent, PR team, etc, are the ones that manage your Brand. They, in conjunction with the marketing and A&R departments of the Labels, will mold your PUBLIC image, that will capture the interest and imagination, of the demographic they will market your product to.

Now, let’s talk about the contracts. First, there isn’t a contract out there, that can’t be re-negotiated, if you have the knowledge, and a good Attorney willing to advocate for you. In fact, with contracts where the albums are optioned, it is general practice for there to be a re-negotiation with each option. Of course, if you don’t have that knowledge, and your management and attorney are advocating for the label, then you are stuck with the contract you signed, originally.

On to the legality of contracts. Not all contracts are legally binding. As I’ve stated before, a minor can’t sign a legal binding contract, even with the consent of the parent. A child can not sign away their legal rights, and a parent can’t sign their child’s legal right’s away.

When a minor signs a contract, it’s what’s called a “voidable” contract. It’s up to the minor, to honor the contract or not. But, there is a caveat. The minor can only opt out of the contract, while still a minor. Once the minor reaches 18, adulthood, it becomes a legal binding contract, and they are legally bound to abide by it.

So, with all the Astroturfers out there trying to convince you that Camila, or any of the girls, had to re-negotiate their contracts when they turned 18, just know they are blowing smoke up your ass. That’s why THEY waited until after June of 2015, to start derailing the 5H train.

Dinah Jane’s 18th birthday, was June 22, 2015. She was the last member of the group, to become an adult. They had to wait, until they were all legally bound to their contracts, to really start implementing the plan. They couldn’t have allowed Camila to release a solo project, and tell the other girls NO, while one of them still had a voidable contract.

That’s why things seemed more happy and free within the group, in 2013, 2014, and part of 2015, because there was still the potential of one of the girls bolting. The worse part, for the Labels, was they could have bolted free and clear. They would not have had to utilize the “Leaving Member Clause”, and they could not have been taken to court for breach of contract. The Labels and Management, had to be a little more lenient, until all the girls were legally bound by their contracts.

What makes a contract legally binding? You have to be 18 or over, you have to be of sound mind, and you have to be a willing participant. You can not form a binding contract, for illegal activities, or through illegal means. (Examples: you can’t contract a drug deal...You can’t force someone to sign a contract, through coercion or blackmail, for those are illegal activities.) It is also ill-advised to give someone an ultimatum, to force them to sign. If you can prove, you were put under “duress” to sign, it will be deemed a void contract.

Of course, the Music Industry uses these illegal means of keeping their artists under control, all the damn time. It’s up to the artist to decide, if what THEY are using against them is worth it, if they want to pursue legal action, or not. That’s one of the reasons why in most, if not all Entertainment Industry contracts, there is a stipulation included, that if you want to fight something or think you have been wronged, you have to go through arbitration instead of litigation . Arbitration is conducted in private, and results can be kept confidential. This is more for the benefit of the Big wigs, than the artists, because we all know when the Industry wants the public to know something, they have no problem “leaking” it. If the Industry wants the public to think something, they have no problem faking shit and "leaking" it.

The next question is, how does all this pertain to PR contracts? You CAN NOT force someone to sign a PR contract. You can NOT force someone to have ANY intimate relations, of any kind, through a contract. That would be, at best harassment or prostitution, at worst assault or rape, ALL ILLEGAL ACTS.

So, how do the Labels or their Managers get Artists to willingly conduct PR stunts, or Agree to sign PR contracts? One of the reasons a celebrity will contract a "public relationships" is so they can keep their private life private. Usually, it is their Manager or A&R who convinces them, this is the best way to handle the situation. There is also, the well known "beards" to hide a celebrities sexuality. A celebrity is convinced, and or manipulated, into thinking a "beard" is the best way to go, to hide their sexuality...Of course, they are also manipulated into thinking, if they are Gay, they better keep their mouths shut. If they are attracted to all genders, that's better. You can come out, you just have to PR up with the opposite sex.

The media sees a private celebrity, as a prime target. If you are keeping everything private, you must have something to hide, therefore, the paps and media will try and discover your secret. If you want to keep your private life private, you give them something else to focus on.

The Paps and the Media, are like a dog. If you give a dog a bone, they are happy. They don't give a shit if it's a fake bone, or a real bone, just as long as it's a bone. The Media don't care if the "relationship" is fake or not, just give them something to photograph, report on, gossip about, and they are happy. If a celebrity goes out of their way, to avoid the media/paps, they will hound your ass until you give them something, or they get something you don't want them to have.

When a celebrity needs to get media attention, for whatever reason, be it a product they are trying to sell, or just to gain some notoriety, they are convinced/manipulated into thinking a PR relationship, again, is the best way to go. Why? Because in actuality, IT IS. Like I've said before, the media will report on a relationship, before they will report on a single/album. They are more than happy, to report on your project after they gossip about your "private life".

If you have a manager, that has your best interest at heart, they will help you conduct these damn PR stunts in a way that is less stressful on you, and your private life. I've already discussed the types of PR relationship contracts, in a previous post, so not going to rehash that.

So, knowing all that, how were the labels and management able to have so much control over Fifth Harmony? The answer is quite simple. Simon Cowell, and Syco/Sony owned Fifth Harmony. He manufactured the group. He owned the rights to the girls images and the group, through their X-Factor contracts. He owned the Fifth Harmony Brand, and the Trademark. What Simon/Syco/Sony wanted from 5H, they got from 5H. Period!

How was Simon/Syco/Sony able to get 5H management to go along with their plan, and NOT have the girls best interest at heart, like a good manager is supposed to do? That's simple, as well. Syco/Sony made a deal with Front Line Management in 2011, to manage some/all of the X-Factor USA's finalists. Front Line Management was run by Irving Azoff, and two of the managers working with them, was Jared Paul and Janelle Lopez.

So yes, Simon chose 5H's management for them, from the start. They made a deal of who would manage them, and how they would be managed... Unfortunately, the girls had to pay the bastards 15/20% of their earnings, to do the Labels bidding.

In mid 2014, Jared Paul ventured out on his own, bringing Janelle Lopez with him. This is when he created Faculty Productions. How did JP keep the girls as clients? JP was a partner in AGP (Azoff, Geary, Paul) Management. AGP was a division of Front Line Management Group. When JP ventured off on his own, he got to take his clients with him.

It wasn't as simple as just taking them from Front line/AGP to Faculty, though. New company, new contract. JP had to re-sign Fifth Harmony to his new company, Faculty. Since the 5H Partnership was formed by then, this contract would have been negotiated and signed between Faculty and the 5H Partnership.

Fifth Harmony's attorney, didn't exactly have their best interest at heart either. Eric Greenspan was the groups attorney, through the release of their Reflection Album. Eric Greenspan's law firm had a deal with X-Factor, to represent ALL X-Factor contestants.

So, it's pretty easy to see, how the deck was stacked against the girls, from the start. They had absolutely NO ONE from the Music Industry, or associated with the Music Industry, on their side. Everything was arranged, to be most advantageous for Simon/Syco/Sony.

300 notes · View notes

sixtyfivehundredmiles · 5 years

Text

A crack in the Great Lakes Compact? Approved water diversion prompts pushback

The Great Lakes hold quadrillions of gallons of water. Is allowing one more company to take water from them such a big deal?

Yes, say groups worried about the slippery slope of Great Lakes' diversions.

A controversial plan to divert 7 million gallons of water a day from Lake Michigan to the proposed site of a factory in Wisconsin, run by Foxconn, an international manufacturer of electronics, was upheld by an administrative law judge earlier last month. That hasn't ended opposition to the plan by environmental groups or settled worries that this decision is the first crack in the Great Lakes Compact, a regional agreement to keep 21 percent of the world's surface freshwater where it is now: within the Great Lakes basin.

Controversial diversions from the basin have been approved in the past, but opponents claim this diversion is strictly for industrial purposes and violates the Compact. Though much of the water used at the proposed factory will be returned to the Great Lakes basin, opponents worry the precedent set will open the door to more harmful diversions in the future.

The Great Lakes Compact, enacted in 2008, is still young and relatively untested.

"One of those [diversions] is not going to make or break the health of the Great Lakes," Peg Sheaffer, the director of communications for Midwest Environmental Advocates, the organization leading the opposition, told EHN. "If we set the precedent that other states follow, the cumulative impact of multiple diversions could have a significant effect."

The Great Lakes Compact says that Great Lakes water must stay within the basin, except for public water supplies in cities or counties that straddle the boundary. A diversion to a city outside the basin but in a straddling county must be reviewed and approved by the governors of all eight states bordering the Lakes and the premier of Ontario, the only Canadian province bordering the lakes. A diversion to a straddling community—a city which the basin boundary passes through—only needs the approval of the home state.

Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, the future home of Foxconn, is a straddling community.

But there are hundreds of straddling communities around the Great Lakes basin, Sheaffer said.

More cell phones, more water

Foxconn is building a massive plant to manufacture LCD screens—for tablets, mobile devices, computers and other uses— in Mount Pleasant, so Racine, Wisconsin, which provides Mount Pleasant with water, applied for a diversion to serve the site. That application was approved by Wisconsin in April 2018 and challenged shortly after by Midwest Environmental Advocates and several other groups. That challenge was denied in June, but further appeal is possible.

Both sides of the debate acknowledge that the amount of water to be drawn from Lake Michigan—7 million gallons a day—won't negatively affect the level or health of the Great Lakes. Lake Michigan holds 1,180 cubic miles of water. At a rate of 7 million gallons a day—ignoring the 4.3 million gallons the application says will be returned to Lake Michigan via Racine's wastewater processing facilities—it would take more than 150,000 days to remove one cubic mile of water.

But opponents argue that the diversion isn't allowed under the Great Lakes Compact. The argument hinges on interpretation of two paragraphs in the Compact and the definition of public water supply.

First, the Compact says water can be transferred outside the basin within a straddling community "provided that, regardless of the volume of Water transferred, all the Water so transferred shall be used solely for Public Water Supply Purposes within the Straddling Community."

Second, a public water supply is water distributed through treatment, storage and distribution infrastructure that serves "a group of largely residential customers that may also serve industrial, commercial, and other institutional operators."

Opponents say the water used outside the basin must be used primarily for residential purposes.

The argument that the Compact allows a diversion like this—because it's being added on to existing residential infrastructure, even if it is serving commercial customers outside the basin—is "really unreasonable," Sheaffer said.

"Diversions were never intended to aid and abet industrial development outside the Great Lakes basin, and that's a really important distinction," Sheaffer added.

Aerial photo showing both lakes Michigan and Huron. (Credit: Stuart Rankin/flickr)

Others don't think the diversion actually tests the limits of the Compact.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources "ensured compliance with all requirements of the Great Lakes Compact as well as all federal and state laws," Adam Freihoefer, the water use section chief in the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' drinking water and groundwater bureau, told EHN in an email. "The DNR feels that the consistent adherence to the requirements of the Compact is one aspect that makes the Compact strong after 10 years of implementation."

When the application was submitted, other Great Lakes states asked Wisconsin to further explain how the diversion met the definition of public water supply purposes. One of those states, Michigan, feels that Wisconsin has now adequately explained its decision.

"Any proposed diversion of Great Lakes water deserves the highest level of attention and review," Emily Finnell, Great Lakes Senior Advisor and Strategist in Michigan's Office of the Great Lakes, told EHN.

Because few diversions have been approved under the Compact, each new application offers details that haven't been encountered before and requires care, she said.

Proponents of the approved diversion say it clearly counts as public use. Despite the fact that the water used outside the basin will be for primarily commercial uses, it is part of the larger Racine water system that mostly serves residential customers.

"It's important to note that 92 percent of Mount Pleasant is within the Lake Michigan water basin and is already served by the Racine Water Utility and that the vast majority of those served are residential users," Keith Haas, General Manager of the Racine Water and Wastewater Utilities, wrote in a public statement at the time of the application. Haas also pointed out the water needs of the thousands of Foxconn employees who will staff the factory, which will be served by the diversion.

Any water sent to or from Foxconn will pass through Racine's facilities. Haas isn't concerned about what's still unknown: the exact amount of water Foxconn will need or how contaminated the wastewater will be.

"It's nothing we're new to here," he told EHN. "It's just another industry that will be treated the same as the other industries we work with."

Racine Water and Wastewater Utilities already receives wastewater from close to 40 other industrial sites which must pretreat the water to remove certain pollutants, Haas said. Although he doesn't know how much wastewater will be sent back by Foxconn or if it will need to be pretreated, Haas said it has to meet local, state and federal standards, especially with the extra scrutiny from opponents at every step of the process.

"This will be the most transparent pretreatment application in the history of the country," Haas said.

"People are afraid of the unknown. Today they're afraid of wind. Tomorrow they might be afraid of Foxconn," Haas said, referencing recent windstorms in Racine.

Opponents of the deal say they aren't afraid of Foxconn specifically. They're concerned about the future protection of an invaluable source of water.

If Foxconn had located entirely within the basin, Midwest Environmental Advocates wouldn't have a problem with their water use, Sheaffer told EHN in an email.

Averting a future crisis

Beachgoers at Port Stanley Beach on Lake Ontario. (Credit: Gary Paakkonen/flickr)

The Great Lakes Compact is a unique agreement because it was formed before the crisis it addresses.

Although agreements meant to stop future diversion were on the books, in the 1990s the patchwork nature of regulations allowed the government of Ontario to approve a plan by the Canadian Nova Group to ship water from the Great Lakes to Asia.

"This was the classic straw that broke the camel's back," Peter Annin, author of The Great Lakes Water Wars, a book about the decades-long argument about where Great Lakes water is used, told EHN.

The Great Lakes Compact drew a clear line—the boundary of the Great Lakes basin—to contain Great Lakes water, Annin said.

Wisconsin isn't new to controversial diversions outside that boundary.

Waukesha, Wisconsin, applied for a diversion which was approved in 2016 after a review process by all the Great Lakes states and provinces. In a long and heavily contested application process, Waukesha had to revise its application to cover a smaller area and withdraw less water—8.2 million gallons per day—before it was approved.

In 2009, New Berlin, Wisconsin, was granted the first diversion: 2.142 million gallons of water per day.

While the Great Lakes are massive and the Compact is firmly in place, other bodies of water thought too big to fail have been altered forever by diversion, Annin said.

The Colorado River no longer reaches the ocean, prompting the seven states who rely on its water to recently draft greater protections for its use. The Aral Sea is 10 percent the size it was in the 1960s before the Soviet Union siphoned off most of its water for irrigation.

"The idea that massive water bodies can be permanently transformed is not a fanciful one," said Annin, who directs the Mary Griggs Burke Center for Freshwater Innovation.

Although depleting the Great Lakes is a credible but distant threat, the chances of one diversion or another harming the lakes are still low. The largest diversion in the Great Lakes' history, which, since the early 1900s, sends 2.1 billion gallons of Lake Michigan water to the Mississippi River every day via the reversed flow of the Chicago River, lowered Lakes Michigan and Huron 2.5 inches below their natural levels. A few more diversions the size of the Chicago River could drop lake levels a foot which, in addition to the six feet that levels naturally fluctuate, could disrupt shipping on the Great Lakes, Annin said.

On top of that, Annin and other researchers see the world leaving a century of oil and entering a century of water, in which conflict and human movements are driven by freshwater availability, not oil reserves. Peter Gleick, cofounder of the Pacific Institute which studies solutions to water challenges, wrote that the Syrian refugee crisis was, in part, a climate-driven water crisis.

"It's true that from a Great Lakes perspective this water diversion issue is not some wolf at the door now. What's remarkable about the Great Lakes Compact is that it's this multijurisdictional, bipartisan agreement adopted in the absence of a crisis on behalf of future generations," he told EHN. "And that doesn't happen very often."

(source: Andrew Blok, Environmental Health News)

#great lakes #lake michigan #great lakes compact #environment #news #wisconsin #foxconn

1 note · View note

helshades · 5 years

Note

Sweetie :) the British supreme court ruled in favor of Sweden's expatriation request in May 2012. Julian was then granted "asylum" at the embassy in August 2012. Cut the bullshit already.

Harshie :( Quoting myself:

‘Eventually, he appealed to the recently-created Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: his request was rejected two years later, in May 2012.[…] On 19 June 2012, the Ecuadorian foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, announced that Assange had applied for political asylum, that his government was considering the request, and that Assange was at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Just before Assange was granted asylum, the UK government wrote to Patiño stating that the police were entitled to enter the embassy and arrest Assange under UK law.’

Kudos on your contradiction skills, duckie. You… accidentally rock at enabling people? I guess??

Rejection of the appeal: BBC News, 30 May 2012, ‘Julian Assange loses extradiction appeal at Supreme Court’

Concerning the asylum (sans quotation marks):

Quoting The Telegraph, 24 June 2012, ‘WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to remain in Ecuadorian Embassy’:

‘In a statement outside the Embassy where Assange has spent the last week, Susan Benn from the Julian Assange Defence Fund said he had been advised that asylum law took precedence over extradition law and would not accept the invitation to attend a police station.

She said: “Mr Assange has been advised that he should decline to comply with the police request. He’s in good spirits. He’s very grateful for the support shown to him by the people of Ecuador and so many others from around the world.”

She added he would stay at the Embassy while his application for asylum is processed and said it was only a matter of time before the US launched an extradition bid.

“This should not be considered any sign of disrespect. Under both international and domestic UK law asylum assessments take priority over extradition claims,” she said.

[…] Assange is under diplomatic protection in the embassy and cannot be arrested by police unless he steps outside the building in Knightsbridge.’

Quoting The Guardian a bit earlier:

‘Julian Assange remains inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London after seeking asylum in the country on Tuesday.’ [Tue. 19 June 2012]

‘The Foreign Office has confirmed the embassy is diplomatic territory, and that while Assange remains there he is “beyond the reach of police”. But the Metropolitan Police says he will be subject to immediate arrest if he attempts to leave the building because he has breached his bail conditions.’

Also in The Guardian:

‘Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents the WikiLeaks founder in the US, said Assange and his legal team considered it highly likely that he would face an onward extradition to the US if he were sent to Sweden.

“The concrete reality [is] that he was facing a political prosecution in the US, he was facing the death penalty or certainly life in jail. Faced with that, he had extremely limited choices.”

Barring a last-ditch appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, Assange could have expected to be extradited imminently, after the supreme court rejected the last of his attempts to resist removal to Sweden over accusations of sex assaults made by two women in August 2010.

The Assange team believes the US is likely to seek to prosecute him on espionage charges, which carries a potential death penalty, and that his chances of resisting any such extradition warrant would be more difficult in Sweden, where he would not receive bail during investigations into the alleged sex crimes and where his lawyers believe political and public opposition to a US extradition claim would be weaker.’

The US empanelled a secret grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks and Assange in May 2011, but has not issued any requests for his extradition to the UK or Sweden. However, Ratner said both he and Assange believed it was “more likely than not” that a sealed indictment had been drawn up.

Assange’s legal adviser Jennifer Robinson said in February that she and Assange had discussed the possibility of his seeking political asylum. Ratner said he had had no warning of the plan, however.’

And still in The Guardian, but in an opinion column:

If one asks current or former WikiLeaks associates what their greatest fear is, almost none cites prosecution by their own country. Most trust their own nation’s justice system to recognize that they have committed no crime. The primary fear is being turned over to the US. That is the crucial context for understanding Julian Assange’s 16-month fight to avoid extradition to Sweden, a fight that led him to seek asylum, Tuesday, in the London Embassy of Ecuador.

The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama’s party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange’s lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination.

For several reasons, Assange has long feared that the US would be able to coerce Sweden into handing him over far more easily than if he were in Britain. For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying.

For another, that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).

Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny. Ironically, even the US State Department condemned Sweden’s “restrictive conditions for prisoners held in pretrial custody”, including severe restrictions on their communications with the outside world.

Assange’s fear of ending up in the clutches of the US is plainly rational and well-grounded. One need only look at the treatment over the last decade of foreign nationals accused of harming American national security to know that’s true; such individuals are still routinely imprisoned for lengthy periods without any charges or due process. Or consider the treatment of Bradley Manning, accused of leaking to WikiLeaks: a formal UN investigation found that his pre-trial conditions of severe solitary confinement were “cruel, inhuman and degrading”, and he now faces capital charges of aiding al-Qaida. The Obama administration’s unprecedented obsession with persecuting whistleblowers and preventing transparency – what even generally supportive, liberal magazines call “Obama’s war on whistleblowers” – makes those concerns all the more valid.

No responsible person should have formed a judgment one way or the other as to whether Assange is guilty of anything in Sweden. He has not even been charged, let alone tried or convicted, of sexual assault, and he is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The accusations made against him are serious ones, and deserve to be taken seriously and accorded a fair and legal resolution.

But the WikiLeaks founder, like everyone else, is fully entitled to invoke all of his legal rights, and it’s profoundly reckless and irresponsible to suggest, as some have, that he has done anything wrong by doing so. Seeking asylum on the grounds of claimed human rights violations is a longstanding and well-recognized right in international law. It is unseemly, at best, to insist that he forego his rights in order to herd him as quickly as possible to Sweden.

Assange is not a fugitive and has not fled. Everyone knows where he is. If Ecuador rejects his asylum request, he will be right back in the hands of British authorities, who will presumably extradite him to Sweden without delay. At every step of the process, he has adhered to, rather than violated, the rule of law. His asylum request of yesterday is no exception.

Julian Assange has sparked intense personal animosity, especially in media circles – a revealing irony, given that he has helped to bring about more transparency and generated more newsworthy scoops than all media outlets combined over the last several years. That animosity often leads media commentators to toss aside their professed beliefs and principles out of an eagerness to see him shamed or punished.

But ego clashes and media personality conflicts are pitifully trivial when weighed against what is at stake in this case: both for Assange personally and for the greater cause of transparency. If he’s guilty of any crimes in Sweden, he should be held to account. But until then, he has every right to invoke the legal protections available to everyone else. Even more so, as a foreign national accused of harming US national security, he has every reason to want to avoid ending up in the travesty known as the American judicial system.

— Glenn Greenwald, 20 June 2012.

#note that i bother for people who may actually be capable of reading more than two sentences #since apparently that is not your case #answers #nonnies #julian assange #politicial asylum for julian assange #free julian assange

1 note · View note

the-mira-life-project-mtf · 5 years

Text

Distraction Is The Key! (My MtF-H.R.T. Journey)

HOMESICK

The first time I’ve ever dealt with homesickness was when I went to collage. I completely skipped community collage and went into university to seek my degree in science and felt the sting of being separated from my family. I remember them helping me move into my dorm and when everyone was done...they walked away...leaving me in the window watching as they disappeared out of sight. That night, I never slept, I was too wound up to place my mind into sleep induced hypnosis.

For the first week, I felt lost, confused, unsure, unclear, perplexed, disconnected, isolated, distanced away from all that I knew. I was living with complete and total strangers as I spent hours in my room pacing back-and-forward like a caged wolf at a community zoo. It took almost a month to get over the sickness.

It certainly did feel like a sickness too! I could not eat for a few days, then when I did eat, it was the wrong food. I felt weighted down, depressed as each step felt like a thousand pounds. Slowly, my sleep caught up to me as I accumulated a serious sleep-debt!

I was homesick and by week two, I found myself walking the whole campus’s perimeter each day, going off trail to climb the loose earth and weeding the flowerbeds to distract my mind. It is easy to distract yourself when you can escape the house, however, it isn’t so easy when you are trapped inside.

The worst homesickness I’ve ever felt was when I was very young and I was very sick. I was hospitalized and when the night came, my family left, even with me begging them to stay...isolated to my room, isolated to my bed...the only way to escape the homesickness was to sleep...but when you are homesick, sleep isn’t that easy and time seems to go by slowly!

LEAVING CERTAINTY

Most people my age have already went through the process of leaving home for a life of their own; either tired of following their parents rules or falling in love with another and forming their own family. I, however, like most of my generation are remaining at home...mooching off our parents to get along...that wasn’t my life! I was expected to remain as I was the only male member of your family and it was my duty to maintain the house and property and take care of my family. This is quite common in Asian countries, but not in America.

However, my transgender nature has made living at home dangerous as my family are continuously waging a verbal war against the LGBT...and me...without knowing it. However, with no finical security, inability to work, and battling a terminal illness...my life will always require me to piggyback off of another to survive and I’ve learned to make myself useful.

The moment has finally come; the moment I leave my old life behind and move onward to a new life. I sadly feel bad for my biological family: They shall never experience the unconditional love that I have...or be truly free of the social binds that hold them down.

However, there is fear...I am leaving certainty...a life that I’ve built in the last 25 years for a life that has no certainty. Who knows, in two years, my new family might tell me to move on. It is a risky gamble, but at this moment, at the cusp of my transformation...I have to leave.

EXPECTATIONS & DISTRACTIONS

I am already expecting that the first two months of my new life will be a wild roller-coaster of emotions. I will be constantly trying to find my niche in the family that I can bud from and blossom my new life. I know that the soils are fertile as there is always love and caring. I feel...secure there...knowing that if I can’t breathe, they won’t question me or shun me. Actually, it is the exact opposite, they would feel hurt if I did not let them into my life.

This is why I think the homesickness will only last for two months and as the warm summer months approach, I will find ways to distract myself from feeling blue.

Writing: Ever since junior high, I have always been writing. Clearing my head of distracting thought. Composing research and writing works of fiction, science fiction and fantasy. At home, my writing is frown upon as I am expected to be outside working when I should not. At my new home, the focus is that I stay inside to safeguard my health as the end goal as a bilateral lung transplant.

Gardening: At home, I am in-charge of all the gardening and farming that my grandfather once did. However, I don’t wish to make a business out of it and would like to tend to my own flowers, vegetable and fruit-bearing plants. A garden is like a child, it need constant care or it will die.

Sound-Technology: At one time, one of my paths could have sent me to Oregon to seek a career in sound-technology. I was very good at my job in high school...learning techniques to make the worse singers sound like gold. Luckily, my new family are singers, musicians and performers...and I expect they will have the same expectations for me once I am adopted as every child is expected to perform somehow in the group. The one area that they need help is sound technology...and if I can become good once more...I will have an opportunity to re-join a band.

Cystic Fibrosis Advocate: Ever since 2015, my whole life has been set on the path to fight and advocate cystic fibrosis. Personally, I feel indebted to paying a life for a life. I should have died back in 2015, but because of Amanda Carlene’s compassion to see that I got on the correct path...she saved my life when I was infected with an aggressive strain of aspergillus. Oddly, this was the same time my desire to correct my gender flourished...contesting to what many say...I am Amanda’s legacy. This is why I dedicated my middle name to Amanda, calling myself Mira Carlene.

Beautification Of My Home: The place that will become my home certainly needs to be cleaned up. Much has been done to the place! When Mitch and Michelle first rented the property, the house was a disaster, filled with animal excrement, fleas and garbage. With the house livable once more, the property has been neglected as they are too tired to attend to the 8 acres of land. In my two years of coming over, I have greatly improved the property beyond measure and have plans to beautify the lands for our guests as Mitch has plans to build a camp...if he can only win the lottery.

Damming The Creek: Almost 60 feet down into a ravine runs a creek that I want to dam and form a pond. I have a love of water and bodies of water as a Scorpio! Back in 2018, when our pump-house fail...we were in bad need for water. I had envisioned creating a shallow pond for collecting water, creating a water fall and giving our dog, Chance, a place to wade before he died. Damming the creek is still my pet project...including building a trail system for the family to hike and to open access to the upper canyon.

Turning The Barn Into A Workshop With a Garden: Although I don’t see a garden happening this year, (as there is much work needed to be done!), but I need to organize and clean up the mess that is called the barn. When the family moved from Key Center to Victor, whatever could not fit in the house now lays in the barn. There are four stalls (once used for horses) that can be turned into four workstations: One as our tool shop, one for allowing Mitch to return to making rock art, one for storage and one for gardening. I’ve already bought LED lights to brighten the barn up as it is pretty dark in there!

Re-purpose The Chicken Coup: Into what...I don’t know...but I am thinking storage and a tool-shop.

Being A Daughter To The Children: One of the things I could never have is children...and the opportunity to step into the role of Big-Sister for the children has already happened as I am learning to get comfortable with them and teaching the youngest son all my skills...as my grandfather taught me.

Re-Focusing On Mira: All my life, I’ve been dedicated to focusing on others, letting myself go; neglecting my therapy and doing things my doctors frown upon. When the whole transgender thing out of the way, and having their blessings, I am free to re-focus on being just Mira.

Renewing My Faith: With a new start, I also want to rekindle my faith. I have been following Mitch and Michelle to their church; and while it is nice to sit with the ones who love you, I just have not settled into the faith of a baptist. I was raised Lutheran and probably die a Lutheran. I have been to all types of domination including: Baptist, Episcopalian, Jehovah Witness, Catholic, Masonic, Lutheran and New Age faiths...each one different. I’ve even read the Hebrew Torah and the Islamic Qurʾan. I found religion and faith intriguing, and being so close to death...desirable. At this moment, there are two Lutheran churches I am thinking of visiting: North Bay Lutheran in Allyn and Christ Lutheran in Belfair, however, North Bay is closes to where I live.

Going Through The Preceding’s: The process of having a full name change is somewhat...complicated! Most transgender individuals will decide to change their first name, some will drop their middle man if it does not suit their genders, and rarely change their last name. I will be going for a full legal name change...which is only half the battle! If approved, then you need to contact the SSD, DVM, Banks, Creditors and Debtors, Clinics, Insurance Companies for Medical and Car, and then the non-vital departments and stores like Costco, Bi-Mart or even the CFF! I’ve been down this road once before, when I was 18, and looks like I will be doing it again. At this moment, I am already using the name of Mira with my closes friends and will change all my social media platforms to Mira Carlene in May.

Continue The Foundation: The ability to continue the foundation has been my biggest goal since I’ve came into my new family’s life. Before I contacted them, I wasn’t aware that they were almost not going to do the CFF Walk, which they have done in memory of Amanda and Jessica who both passed away from cystic fibrosis. I was the sign they were asking for, and I did not want that type of attention, so I remained distant, but also needed to ‘know’ them. They were special to me, even though we only meet twice. Sadly, the foundation had fallen into ruins long before I came into the picture. The people who help start the foundation were the same ones who sank it...it was tragic!

In 2018, Michelle approached me about taking over the foundation as it found a new reason to exist and was willing to donate proceeds to me, but I turned it down. In 2019, the foundation had just turned seven years old...seven years since Amanda passed away...and I had been considering restarting the foundation. I was focusing on holiday craft shows and events to sell and raise awareness.

Take for example, just last year, over 80,000 people attended the Kitsap County Fair, which means 40,000 people would see our booth, and even if they did not buy a thing, they will leave with those two words in their memory: Cystic Fibrosis. Amanda was all about advocacy when I knew her and now that was my reality. Ironically, I am fulfilling both of their memories and promises to their father.

1 note · View note

romancatholicreflections · 6 years

Photo

28th December >> Fr. Martin's Gospel Reflections / Homilies on Matthew 2:13-18 for the Feast of the Holy Innocents, Martyrs: ‘He had all the male children killed’

The Feast of the Holy Innocents, Martyrs

Gospel (Europe, Africa, New Zealand, Australia & Canada)

Matthew 2:13-18

The massacre of the innocents

After the wise men had left, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother with you, and escape into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, because Herod intends to search for the child and do away with him.’ So Joseph got up and, taking the child and his mother with him, left that night for Egypt, where he stayed until Herod was dead. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken through the prophet:

I called my son out of Egypt.

Herod was furious when he realised that he had been outwitted by the wise men, and in Bethlehem and its surrounding district he had all the male children killed who were two years old or under, reckoning by the date he had been careful to ask the wise men. It was then that the words spoken through the prophet Jeremiah were fulfilled:

A voice was heard in Ramah,

sobbing and loudly lamenting:

it was Rachel weeping for her children,

refusing to be comforted because they were no more.

Gospel (USA)

Matthew 2:13-18

He ordered the massacre of all boys in Bethlehem.

When the magi had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.” Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt. He stayed there until the death of Herod, that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled, Out of Egypt I called my son.

When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi. Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet:

A voice was heard in Ramah,

sobbing and loud lamentation;

Rachel weeping for her children,

and she would not be consoled,

since they were no more.

Reflections (4)

(i) Feast of the Holy Innocents, Martyrs

There is a strong contrast in the gospel reading between God’s efforts to preserve the life of Joseph and Mary’s child and Herod’s efforts to kill their child. The angel of the Lord prompts Mary and Joseph to flee into Egypt for their child’s protection. Herod orders all the male children under two to be killed in the Bethlehem area to ensure the death of Joseph and Mary’s child. God is always at work in our world to preserve and enhance life in its various forms, especially life at its most vulnerable. We tend to be at our most vulnerable at the beginning of our lives, in our mother’s womb and in the first months of life, and also at the end of our lives when we often have to deal with sickness in one shape or form. The gospel reading this morning suggests that there are other forces in our world that, like Herod, work to eliminate life, especially when it is at its most vulnerable. Our calling from God, our mission in life, is to keep aligning ourselves with God’s life giving work. The feast of the Holy Innocents reminds us that far too many innocent lives have been and, indeed, are being slaughtered. The sobbing and loud lamenting at the loss of innocent life that is referred to at the end of the gospel reading is all too familiar to our ears today. Yet the forces for life that have been released into the world through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus remain stronger than the forces of death. As baptized believers we can each make those forces for life, that Spirit of life, tangible and visible in the way we live and relate to others.

And/Or

(ii) Feast of the Holy Innocents, Martyrs

A few days after celebrating the birth of a child today’s feast recalls that passage in Matthew’s gospel that describes the death of children. There is a lot of darkness in today’s gospel reading, all of it due to the ruler of the time, Herod the Great. Because of him, innocent children are put to death and the family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph become refugees, fleeing to Egypt for their safety. The story has a contemporary ring to it. We think of situations in today’s world where those in power are bringing death to others, including children. We recall the thousands of people who have been made refugees because of the cruelty of some. Today’s feast reminds us that Jesus was born into a violent world, where those in power were often ruthless in their efforts to protect their own position. The birth of Jesus brought a light into that dark world, the light of God’s love. The first reading declares: ‘God is light; there is no darkness in him at all’. Jesus’ life revealed a different kind of power to the power of those in authority at the time. His life and his death revealed the power of love, a love that was self-emptying in the service of others. Our calling is to allow this love to take flesh in our own lives. It is in this way that, in the words of the first reading, ‘we live our lives in the light, as God is in the light’. The calling to allow Jesus, the light of God’s love, to shine in and through our lives, is a noble but challenging one. We will often fail in our living out of this calling. We sin, but as the first reading says, ‘if we acknowledge our sins, then God who is faithful and just will forgive our sins’. There is darkness in each one of us but the darkness does not define us because the light of God’s mercy is always stronger than the darkness of our sins. God remains faithful to us and keeps on calling us to bring the light of his Son into the darkness of our world.

And/Or

(ii) Feast of the Holy Innocents, Martyrs

Matthew’s story of the birth and early childhood of Jesus is painted in much darker colours than the story that Luke tells. It is Matthew who reminds us that Jesus was born into a world where the powerful people of the land, men like Herod, abused their power, even to the point of shedding innocent blood. Herod the great who tried to do away with the child Jesus would find his counterpart in Pilate who puts the adult Jesus to death. The first reading says that ‘God is light’. Yet, Jesus, God-with-us, was born into and lived in a world where darkness was much in evidence, especially within those who exercised political power. Jesus came as light into darkness, as God’s light into a darkened world. He came as a revelation of God’s love into a world where the darkness of hatred often reigned. He remains a light in our darkness to this day; his life, death and resurrection continue to shine as a beacon in our sometimes dark world. He promises that whoever follows him will never walk in darkness. We look to him to enlighten and guide us, to show us the way we need to walk if we are to be true to our deepest identity as people made in God’s image. We can also rely on him to scatter the darkness that resides in all of our lives. The first reading assures us that ‘if anyone should sin, we have our advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ… the sacrifice that takes our sins away’. We often say that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. In sending his Son into the world, God has done more than light a candle; he has kindled a fire within our darkness, the fire of his love which will never die away.

And/Or

(iii) Feast of the Holy Innocents, Martyrs

The portrayal of King Herod in this morning’s gospel reading is that of a ruler who is prepared to lash out at even innocent children to defend against what he perceives to be a threat to his power. There have been many such figures down through the course of history, even up to recent times, rulers who are prepared to sacrifice any number of innocent people to ensure that they stay in power. This form of kingship, the kingship of Herod, was the polar opposite of the kingship that Jesus came to proclaim, the kingship of God. Here was a kingship which finds expression not in the oppressive use of power but in the humble service of others. The child Jesus who escaped from Herod’s tyranny went on as an adult to say to his disciples, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant’. None of us will ever act like Herod, but none of us can afford to be complacent either; we can all be prone to dominate in one way or another. The first reading this morning declares, ‘if we say we have no sin in us, we are deceiving ourselves and refusing to admit the truth’. We have to be alert to the ways we can fail to take that path of humble, self-emptying, service of others which is the way of Jesus, the way of God.

And/Or

(iv) Feast of the Holy Innocents, Martyrs

We know from the historical sources of the time that Herod the Great had a reputation for eliminating anyone whom he considered a threat to his power. He became increasingly paranoid towards the end of his long reign and had several of his own sons killed because he suspected they were plotting to depose him. The picture that Matthew gives us in this morning’s gospel reading of Herod as a ruthless tyrant is in keeping with what we know of Herod’s character. Herod could not tolerate anyone who might be considered King of the Jews, even if the King in question was a recently born baby and, so, in an effort to ensure this baby would die he ordered the killing of all babies of a similar age. Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth and infancy has a much darker quality than the account we find in Luke’s gospel, with its angels and shepherds, and its people of faith like Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna. Matthew suggests that Jesus was born into a world where those in power were ready to sacrifice innocent people if necessary, to ensure their own political survival. As a consequence, the family of Joseph, Mary and their infant son Jesus became refugees in the land of Egypt, far from their own home. We cannot but think of all those who have been made refugees today because of the abuse of political power. Today’s gospel reading suggests that what sustained this family during this vulnerable time of displacement and exile was their faith. Their faith was a light which shone in their darkness. It was Joseph’s relationship with God which helped him to discern the best path to take for his family, and especially for his young son. He emerges from the pages of Matthew’s gospel as a strong, caring and faithful father and husband. Sometimes in our own lives, when other people throw us into a dark place by their self-serving actions, our faith is the only light that can sustain us. Because the Word has become flesh, his light will always shine in our darkness, and as John reminds us in the Prologue to his gospel, no darkness is ever dark enough to overcome that light.

Fr. Martin Hogan, Saint John the Baptist Parish, Clontarf, Dublin, D03 AO62, Ireland.

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Parish Website: www.stjohnsclontarf.ie Please join us via our webcam.

Twitter: @SJtBClontarfRC.

Facebook: St John the Baptist RC Parish, Clontarf.

Tumblr: Saint John the Baptist Parish, Clontarf, Dublin.

ReplyForward

2 notes · View notes