#this was accepted behavior for women across centuries

[wonder-worker]

The most obvious means by which a queen might exercise influence at court was through her close contact with the king in much the same way as other nobles did, although the nature of such influence is impossible to judge because it does not leave records behind. That women would advise their husbands, even kings, was accepted and expected: Christine de Pizan maintained that the wise princess would urge her husband to discuss matters with his councillors, and encourage others to advise him. Jacobus de Cessolis, recognizing that queens would thereby be privy to important matters of state, advised that a queen's 'wysedom ought tappere in spekynge that is to wete that she be secrete and telle not such thynges as ought to be holden secrete'. Queens were of course not exempt from the traditional misogynistic fear of the power of women's words to lure men, as Eve had done, into sin and folly. The fourteenth-century author of The III Consideracions Right Necesserye to the Good Governaunce of a Prince warned

And how be it that a kinge or Prince shulde love his lady and wyf in maner as him self, yit it is nat expedient that he uttyr unto hir, and discloosc the sccrccs, grcctc conscillcs and greet thingcs that he hath doon for his estate and for his landc, nc that in such thing he be governed aftir hir at som tymc, but he shulde allc daycs reserve unto him self the lordship and souvereyntee, or ellys many perilles may betide.

But to be governed was not the same as to be advised and there was also a strong tradition and rich literature of women wisely advising their husbands at all levels of society. This included encouraging a husband to make peace with his subjects or to be more generous to the poor or the Church as well as the familiar motif of intercession in response to a particular plea.

— J.L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503

[rebelliousstories]

Kiss

ValenFics

Relationship: Cooper “The Ghoul” Howard x Reader

Fandom: Fallout

Request: No

Warnings: Fluff, Mention of Untoward Behavior Against Women, Violence, and Drinking

Word Count: 859

Main Masterlist: Here

Fallout Masterlist: Here

Summary: A ghoul and a normie walk into a bar…

Consider Donating: Here

The arid conditions of their home were miserable at best. Adding the lack of hospitality because everyone was out for only themselves, well, people were less than friendly. Traveling with a partner was unusual, especially when one was a ghoul. An infamous ghoul, at that.

But traveling into the next town with two pouches full of caps from their previous bounty, the duo decided to stop in to have a drink. It would be dark soon, but that did not bother wither one of them. Instead, they just quietly strolled into town as the sun was setting, and found the inn.

“Fancy a drink, cowpoke? My treat.” She offered the man, who tipped his hat towards her.

“I guess that’ll be alright.” The Ghoul replied, following her inside. The bar was a lively area this time of night as everyone wanted to come in for a drink. For a normal human, no one bats an eye. But for a ghoul, especially one of the most feared, everyone is stopping to stare at him.

“We’ll take a room for the night, and start us off with a bottle.” Cooper’s partner tossed a few caps on the counter, as they both sat down. He was still focused on the surrounding stares of contempt or indifference at his own being, and the confused ones towards her.

“You can stay.” The gruff barkeep grumbled. “You need to go, Ghoul.”

“He stays.” She barked out, shoving the caps over. “The bottle?”

When the man across the counter did not move, she began taking the caps away. “Fine. If you can’t give us what we need, we’ll take our caps somewhere else.”

“No!” In a flash, a larger hand covered her own, and tightly. Glaring up at him, she was just about to draw her gun from her side, when she heard a soft click come from her left.

“Now, that ain’t no way to treat a woman. Hand off unless you wanna wear a stump.” Cooper growled in that thick accent of his.

Snarling, the barkeep did just that. But he did make sure to snap at him. “We don’t welcome ghouls in here. Not in the bar, not in the rooms. Get lost. But you can stay, pretty thing.”

“He can’t stay?” She asked, in a tone that was laced thick with faux innocence. “You’ll accept my caps, but not allow my partner to stay? Tell me how that makes sense.”

“Just the rules, miss. But if you need a partner, my room is just above the shop.” Even though he tried to come across as smooth, she just felt her skin crawl. The yellowed- teeth, rancid smell, and dirty skin just added to her disgust. Yanking her hand from underneath, the woman leveled the barkeep with a deadly expression.

“I don’t need another partner.” She drawled.

In an instant, before anyone else realized what had happened, she had engaged The Ghoul in an intense lip lock. No one was more surprised by this than the man who she was actively kissing. Spending so long without the gentle touch of another, Cooper was unsure of what to do for the moment. But muscle memory kicked in, and after two centuries, he returned a kiss.

The lack of a nose made it a little weird, but not unwelcome. Textured lips met ones that were a lot smoother in an effortless dance. Cooper never truly realized just how touch starved he was before now, and he was sure to take his time to enjoy it. Far too soon, she pulled away, leaving the both of them breathless; and the rest of the bar, speechless.

“Now, I’m gonna take my caps,” as soon as she said it, so she did it. “And we gonna take our business elsewhere. If you don’t care to take my caps, then there’s no reason to stay. Come on, baby.”

Depositing the caps back into her pouch, she grabbed the gloved hand of her partner and went out into the night again. Once the air hit their skin, the pair let out equal sighs of relief. But soon, Cooper took back over to drag her into an alley nearby.

“The hell was that?” He barked the second they were out of view. Between the warm light of the street lamps around them, and the full moon ahead, there was enough light that he could see her clearly.

With a smirk on her face, she tilted her head up at him. “He didn’t want to take my money because I travel with a ghoul. I just wanted to show him that you were with me.”

Cooper huffed out a laugh as he shook his head. Without a word, he threw one hand to her waist, the other to the back of her head, and yanked her closer. For the second time that night, they were engaged in a wonderful kiss. It was a wonderful turn of events, but something that they could not stop even if they wanted to. Stood underneath the lights shining around them, The Ghoul and his human partner knew that their relationship was changing, and for the better.

[asciendo]

Resurgence of the Founding Chapter 2

Summary: Eren Jaeger is resurrected centuries after the Rumbling, only to find the world still in turmoil, with Eldians oppressed and Marleyans in control. The Jaegerists ask for his help in protecting their people, but there’s a catch: Eren must be bethrothed and father an heir with the power to end the cycle of Titans once and for all.

content: eren jaeger x female reader

Warning: smut, violence, swearing

Tag list: @vlsquuu 

Chapters: Chapter 1/Chapter 3/ Chapter 4/ Chapter 5

Y/N watched from her window as the entire town gathered in awe of Eren Jaeger’s arrival. Their faces were lit with hope, desperation, and a kind of reverence that sent chills down her spine. From her vantage point, she could see the crowd parting as he walked through, his tall frame tense and his sharp eyes scanning his surroundings like a predator assessing its territory.

Of course, she wanted her people's suffering to end. She had heard the stories of his past, the devastation, the sacrifices, and the victories that had defined him. But as much as she respected what he represented, the reality of his return left a bitter taste in her mouth. She didn’t want to be part of this.

Her fingers curled against the windowsill as she thought about the position she’d been forced into. Being the daughter of high-ranking Eldians came with privileges, yes, but now, it felt like a curse. Her parents, ever loyal to the cause, had been ecstatic when her name was put forward as one of the potential brides.

“You could be the mother of the savior’s heir,” her mother had gushed, eyes bright with pride.

Y/N had protested, argued until her voice was hoarse, but it had fallen on deaf ears. “This is bigger than you,” her father had said, his tone leaving no room for debate. “Eren Jaeger’s return is a gift, a chance to end this suffering for good. If he chooses you, it will be an honor.”

Honor. She wanted to laugh at the word. What honor was there in being reduced to a pawn, a vessel for someone else’s plan?

Now, as she watched Eren stride into the mansion—his mansion, as Lucian had announced to the people earlier—she felt a knot of dread tighten in her stomach. Her parents had already made it clear that they expected her to be on her best behavior when the time came to meet him. To smile, to charm, to accept her role without complaint.

But deep down, Y/N hoped—prayed—that he wouldn’t choose her.

Let him pick someone else, she thought desperately, her heart pounding as the weight of the situation pressed down on her. Someone who wants this. Anyone but me.

Her gaze lingered on Eren as the doors closed behind him. He looked angry, burdened, as though he carried the weight of the world on his shoulders. And maybe he did.

She turned away from the window, her hands trembling. Tonight, she would be called to join the other candidates for an introduction. Her parents had already laid out the dress she was to wear, a modest yet elegant gown meant to highlight her standing.

She stared at it now, hanging on the edge of her wardrobe, and felt a wave of bitterness rise in her throat. She didn’t want this. She didn’t want him. And yet, she had no choice.

Taking a shaky breath, she whispered to herself, “Please… don’t choose me.”

The grand hall was suffocating, filled with the hum of low murmurs and the sharp clink of glasses. Chandeliers hung overhead, their golden light casting long, dramatic shadows across the polished marble floors. Y/N stood at the far end of the line of women, each dressed to perfection, their postures impeccable.

The others whispered among themselves, some sneaking glances at Eren, who stood at the center of the room, engaged in conversation with a council member. His broad shoulders were stiff, his jaw set, as though the mere act of standing there was an endurance test.

Y/N let out a small sigh, her eyes darting toward her parents. They were seated among the dignitaries, their expressions carefully neutral, but their eyes spoke volumes. Her mother gestured subtly with her hand, her meaning clear: Smile. Look your best.

Y/N’s jaw tightened. She wouldn’t.

She felt a twinge of defiance, a tiny ember of rebellion in a situation where she otherwise had no control. If they wanted her to put on a show, they would be disappointed. She straightened her posture but kept her expression neutral, bordering on indifferent.

The woman beside her—a petite blonde with a dazzling smile—leaned in and whispered, “You’re not even going to try?”

Y/N raised an eyebrow but didn’t respond.

The blonde smirked, her voice barely audible over the murmur of the room. “Suit yourself. Less competition for the rest of us.” She adjusted the lace trim on her gown, turning her attention back to Eren with a practiced flutter of her lashes.

Y/N turned her gaze to him as well, though without the same eagerness. He looked tired, detached, as if the grandeur and the attention meant nothing to him. For a moment, their eyes met, and Y/N felt a jolt, like a sudden gust of cold air. His gaze was piercing, assessing, but it flickered away just as quickly.

The room quieted as the council member cleared his throat and gestured for the women to step forward. One by one, they introduced themselves, curtseying and offering rehearsed words of admiration for Eren and the cause. The line moved forward, each woman more polished and practiced than the last.

When it was Y/N’s turn, she stepped forward with deliberate calm, her hands clasped loosely in front of her. Her parents’ eyes bore into her from across the room, willing her to dazzle.

But she didn’t bow, didn’t offer any rehearsed speech. Instead, she met Eren’s gaze directly, her voice steady.

“Y/N,” she said simply.

For a heartbeat, the room seemed to hold its breath. Her lack of pretense stood in stark contrast to the others, and she could feel the weight of her parents’ disappointment like a lead cloak.

Eren’s expression didn’t change, but his eyes lingered on her for a moment longer than they had with the others. He tilted his head slightly, as if intrigued, before giving the faintest nod.

“Thank you,” he said, his voice low and unyielding.

She stepped back into line, her heart pounding. She couldn’t tell if she had just ruined her chances or secured them. All she knew was that, for now, she had survived the moment.

As Eren entered the grand hall, the weight of expectation pressed heavily on his shoulders. The grandeur of the scene—the glittering chandeliers, the hushed yet excited crowd, and the line of women before him—only deepened his disdain for the moment.

Lucian guided him to a chair at the center of the hall. He sat stiffly, his jaw clenched as he surveyed the eager faces before him. He didn’t want this. He never did. But what was another sacrifice for the Eldians?

The women stood in a pristine line, each meticulously dressed, their faces painted with nervous smiles and practiced charm. Eren’s eyes skimmed over them, each one blending into the next. None of them mattered to him.

Until he saw her.

She stood near the end of the line, quieter than the rest, her demeanor more subdued. Her jet-black hair framed her face, and her almond-shaped eyes gazed forward, though they didn’t sparkle with the same desperation as the others’. She wasn’t trying to impress him; in fact, she seemed to want nothing more than to be elsewhere.

Eren’s heart stilled for a moment.

She reminded him of Mikasa.

The resemblance wasn’t exact, but it was enough to stir something deep inside him—a familiar ache that he hadn’t allowed himself to feel in years. Her presence brought Mikasa’s memory flooding back: her quiet strength, her steadfastness, her loyalty. He knew it wasn’t her. It couldn’t be. Mikasa was gone, and yet, standing before him, this woman felt like a fragment of her had returned.

When she stepped forward and spoke her name, “Y/N,” her voice broke through his thoughts. He blinked, grounding himself in the present, though his chest felt heavy.

The other women followed, reciting their names and prepared lines. Eren barely listened. His focus kept drifting back to her—the only one who seemed untouched by the frenzy around her. She wasn’t here to vie for him, and that only intrigued him more.

When the last name had been spoken, Lucian stepped forward, addressing the room. “Ladies, you stand here today not only for the honor of being chosen but for the future of Eldians. Whoever Eren Jaeger selects as his betrothed will share in the burden of ensuring our people’s salvation.”

Excited whispers filled the hall, anticipation radiating from the women. All except Y/N. Her expression darkened slightly, a flicker of unease passing over her features.

Eren remained motionless.

Lucian glanced at him, signaling that it was time, but Eren didn’t immediately rise. Instead, he leaned forward, his elbows on his knees, exhaling deeply. His mind was already made up.

Pushing himself to his feet, Eren stepped forward, his boots echoing sharply in the silent hall. He didn’t spare a glance at the others, his eyes fixed solely on Y/N.

Her own eyes widened, surprise evident in her face as he stopped in front of her.

“I’ll take Y/N as my betrothed,” Eren declared, his voice calm yet unwavering.

The room erupted in gasps and murmurs, the women exchanging stunned looks. Lucian’s eyebrows briefly lifted, but he quickly regained composure, nodding approvingly.

Y/N, however, stood frozen, her lips parting slightly as if to protest, though no words came.

Eren didn’t look away from her. He didn’t know why he’d chosen her—whether it was her resemblance to Mikasa, her quiet presence, or something else entirely. But at that moment, it didn’t matter. She was the one, and nothing would change that.

[easy-edible]

Being Gay is African: A Historical Perspective

The assertion that homosexuality is a Western concept is a myth largely propagated by colonial influences and the import of Christianity. Historically, African cultures have recognized and included various forms of same-sex relationships and identities, which have only been obscured by later colonial and religious narratives.

Contemporary Conflicts and Historical Evidence

During his visit to Africa in 2015, US President Barack Obama highlighted the legal discrimination against LGBT individuals. In Kenya, he emphasized the importance of treating all individuals equally, irrespective of their differences. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta responded by asserting that Kenyan culture does not accept homosexuality. This sentiment is not unique and has been echoed by other African leaders such as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria, and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda. However, historical evidence contradicts these assertions.

Historical Examples of Homosexuality in Africa

Ancient and Pre-Colonial Evidence

Yoruba Language: The Yoruba language has a term, "adofuro," which describes someone who engages in anal sex. This term, which predates colonial influence, indicates an awareness of homosexual behavior.

Azande Warriors: In the 19th century, the Azande people of Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo practiced same-sex relationships where warriors would marry young men due to the scarcity of women. These relationships were socially accepted and included rituals and formal marriage customs​ (Face2Face Africa)​.

King Mwanga II of Buganda: King Mwanga II of Uganda openly engaged in homosexual relationships with his male servants before the advent of Christian missionaries who brought condemnation​ (JSTOR Daily)​.

Ancient Egypt: Paintings and records suggest that Nyankh-Khnum and Knum-Hotep, royal servants in ancient Egypt, may have had a homosexual relationship. These men were depicted in affectionate poses and shared a tomb, highlighting the acceptance of their relationship within their society​ (AfricaOTR)​.

Meru Community in Kenya: The Mugawe, religious leaders among the Meru, often dressed in women's clothes and married men. This role was not just accepted but integrated into the spiritual and social fabric of the community​ (AfricaOTR)​.

Anthropological Insights

Marc Epprecht, a historian, documents various forms of same-sex relationships across Africa that were ignored or misinterpreted by early Western anthropologists. These relationships ranged from love affairs to ritualistic practices. For example, among the Imbangala of Angola, same-sex relationships were part of ritual magic. Similarly, in South Africa, temporary "mine marriages" were formed among men working in mines during colonial times​ (JSTOR Daily)​.

The Influence of Christianity and Colonialism

The rise of fundamental Christianity, heavily influenced by American televangelists since the 1980s, has significantly shaped the contemporary African stance on homosexuality. Many Africans argue that homosexuality is against Biblical teachings, yet the Bible itself is not part of African historical culture. This adoption of a Western religious framework to argue against homosexuality demonstrates a significant cultural shift influenced by colonialism.

The Political Use of Homophobia

Populist homophobia has become a political tool in many African countries. Politicians gain votes by promoting anti-gay sentiments, creating an environment where hatred and violence against LGBT individuals are not only accepted but encouraged. This has led to severe consequences, such as corrective rapes in South Africa and oppressive laws across the continent.

Reclaiming African Heritage

To combat the dangerous narrative that homosexuality is un-African, it is crucial to retell and reclaim African history. African culture historically celebrated diversity and promoted acceptance, including various sexual orientations and gender identities. By acknowledging and teaching this true history, we can foster a more inclusive and equitable society.

Reaffirming our commitment to historical accuracy and cultural inclusivity is essential. True African heritage is one of acceptance and recognition of all its members, regardless of their sexuality.

[psychewritesbs]

Don't you think it's funny cause actual canon gay characters in BL manga/manhwa will say "I love you" but only the shounen bromance can spew out some of the most romantic shit akin to a 19th century poet writing a letter expressing his surpressed love for his lover 😭.....

ok but when you put it like that...

This is an interesting conversation to have because I am not sure it's so much about the demographics (shonen is more of a demographic than a literary genre although it does have certain characteristics that define it because of its intended demographic), as it is about writing skill and being able to show vs. tell.

Because, as a fujo who went through a thirsty fujo phase, I consumed a lot of bl. Like... A LOT. And I came out of that phase accepting the cold realization that I did not like most bl/yaoi because it is highly clichéd and relies on tropes entirely way too much.

Like I literally used to say "I read yaoi for the plot" because...

GIVE ME THE CHEMISTRY, GIVE ME THE DYNAMIC, GIVE ME THE DRAMAAAAAAAAA!!!!

To your point under the cut 😂 ...

Man, I just can't get over how well you put it.

Anyways, given how you framed your ask, so do you think it's a male perspective thing? I ask because I do recognize that sometimes the way male friendships are portrayed in animanga feels very intimate and very unique to Japanese media, although I could be wrong.

Because, if we're talking about the big battle shonen bl manga out there, jjk, naruto, bnha, hq, etc. are the big "offenders" and these are all male authors (well, we're not sure about hq). So I can see why you feel like these characters are able to express their perspective for each other in a way that you don't see in other manga.

Personally, I am a big fan of how CLAMP (who are all women and very possibly all queer) executes LGBTQ+ dynamics. An example found in a shonen manga that I particularly love is kurofai from Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle.

And the thing about this pairing is that you never hear them say "I love you." Instead you are shown through their behavior towards one another and the subtext how much they have grown to care for each other.

In addition to the majority of CLAMP's m/m dynamics (across a variety of manga published for different demographics), another couple of examples of gays I love include Tomoko Yamashita's pairing in Sankaku Mado no Sotogawa wa Yoru (although I didn't care for the ending), Yoneda Kou's Saezuru Tori wa Habatakanai, and obvs Sayo Yamamoto and Mitsurou Kubo's Yuri on Ice. I haven't read/seen Banana Fish but I understand that's another bl fan fave classic that is good.

So there are some good dynamics out there outside of shonen lol, you just have to dig for them like a maniac... or so I've been told ehem.

But even as masterful as CLAMP is at executing soulmate dynamics, if you specifically take itafushi for example, Gege's ability to vest that bromance with so much beauty is just off the charts something else. As a woman I find the container of this dynamic to be deeply aspirational. There's this shared and unspoken understanding between the two characters, not to mention love that... idk.. it just has this... je ne sais quoi.

idk... I am curious about more #thoughts on this because there's a lot going on here in terms of self-insertion into male characters, equality in dynamics, just so much to unpack.

Please feel free to send all the #thoughts to whomever else reads this!

Thanks for reaching out anon!!!!

[a-rose-tinted-life]

A Rose-Tinted Life

Episode Nine: The Benefits of Cinematic Inspiration

Hello, my darlings! Welcome back and thank you for reading “A Rose-Tinted Life”!

Today’s exploration delves into a marvelous invention that emerged in the mid-1890s — the advent of cinema. For the past century and a half, movies have graced the world with their presence, captivating audiences and providing a much-needed respite from the monotony of everyday life. With their unparalleled ability to transport, inspire, and educate viewers, movies have become a wellspring of motivation and a catalyst for personal growth and development.

Movies have served as a beacon of inspiration and philosophical guidance for personal development. By portraying characters who overcome daunting obstacles and achieve their objectives, movies ignite a spark within viewers, encouraging them to pursue their own ambitions and believe in their potential. Additionally, movie characters often act as role models, embodying certain values and behaviors that can pave the way for personal growth and triumph. By mirroring these virtuous traits, individuals can embark on a path toward fulfillment and success.

Movies have a remarkable ability to delve into the intricacies of human relationships and emotions, providing audiences with profound insights. Through their narrative and cinematography, movies offer a mirror for self-reflection, encouraging viewers to reflect on their own personal growth and development. By observing the complex emotional landscapes portrayed on the silver screen, viewers are prompted to delve deeper into their own emotions and relationships, fostering a greater understanding of themselves and the world around them.

Movies often provide profound insights into human nature, illuminating aspects such as the universal human desire for connection and belonging. “The Breakfast Club” serves as an exemplary illustration of this phenomenon, delving into the lives of five diverse high school students who, despite their surface-level differences, ultimately discover the power of friendship and camaraderie. Through its poignant storytelling and relatable characters, “The Breakfast Club” not only entertains but also imparts valuable lessons about the importance of understanding and embracing our innate human need for connection, acceptance, and belonging.

Some movies showcase the admirable quality of human resilience in overcoming adversity. A classic example of this is “Rocky,” wherein the main character, Rocky Balboa, triumphs against the odds through sheer grit and unwavering determination. In a mere two hours, the film illustrates the profound notion that human resilience allows us to rise above even the most formidable challenges, instilling in us a sense of hope and empowerment.

Movies have long served as a mirror to human values and behaviors, and “The Pursuit of Happyness” is a poignant example. Through its portrayal of the main character’s journey, the film highlights the essential role of honesty and integrity in shaping our lives and relationships. The protagonist’s unwavering commitment to his principles, even in the face of adversity, serves as a potent reminder of the value of standing by one’s convictions, no matter the cost.

Movies often serve as a fountain of inspiration and motivation across various facets of life. Whether it be career goals, romantic relationships, or personal aspirations, films can provide a wealth of guidance and wisdom. It’s not uncommon for individuals to find themselves drawing inspiration from movie characters and narratives as they grapple with the standards they set for different aspects of their existence. From the classic tale of Rocky’s triumph over adversity to the poignant portrayal of love in “The Notebook,” cinema holds the power to inform and inspire our standards in all areas of life.

“Hidden Figures” stands as a powerful example, recounting the untold story of brilliant African-American women who defied racial and gender barriers to make significant contributions to NASA’s space program. This film not only entertains but also inspires, showcasing the resilience and determination of these trailblazing individuals who triumphed over adversity to achieve success in their chosen careers.

“The Notebook” and “You’ve Got Mail” are exemplary films that delve into the intricate and touching realm of romantic relationships. By presenting characters navigating the ups and downs of love, these films offer a window into what it means to forge deep, meaningful connections. Whether it’s the epic love story of Noah and Allie in “The Notebook” or the charming online romance of Kathleen Kelly and Joe Fox in “You’ve Got Mail,” these movies not only captivate audiences but also inspire viewers to seek out and nurture heartfelt relationships in their own lives.

Movies like “The Theory of Everything” and A Beautiful Mind” show us people doing admirably courageous, empathetic, and resilient things. By watching these characters, we learn and get inspired — making the characters role models. By considering what they do and how they act, we reflect on our behaviors and try to be the best version of ourselves.

Movies not only provide entertainment; they also serve as a springboard for creativity and personal expression. Movie characters, from their outfits to their attitudes, can have a profound influence on our sense of style and self-presentation. Iconic looks such as Audrey Hepburn’s little black dress in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” or the rebellious punk-rock aesthetic in “The Craft” have served as sources of inspiration for fashion trends and interior design. These films remind us of the power of personal aesthetics and how it can shape how others perceive us.

Movies provide abundant inspiration for home decor and visual aesthetics through their imaginative sets, interiors, and locales. From cozy apartments in “Friends” to elegant mansions in “The Great Gatsby,” films set the stage for unique and inspiring home designs that viewers can replicate, such as lighting, color palettes, and composition.

My dears, while finding inspiration through movies can be a wonderful and uplifting experience, it is crucial to approach it with caution and mindfulness. By embracing the uplifting messages and positive aspects of films, we can enrich our lives and inspire personal growth. However, it is equally important to remember that movies are works of fiction and do not always reflect reality. As we seek inspiration for life, we must ensure that we distinguish between the realms of imagination and reality, so that we might find balance and wisdom in all our endeavors.

While movies may provide uplifting messages, they often show an idealized version of life and relationships, not always reflecting reality. Over-reliance on these portrayals could lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointment in real life. Therefore, it’s important to approach movie inspirations with an understanding of their limitations and a dose of realism.

Dear readers, while movies can offer valuable insights and provoke thoughts, it is important to remember that they are works of fiction and not always accurate representations of reality. Some movies may depict relationships or behaviors that are unhealthy or toxic, and if you find such aspects mirroring your own life, it is crucial to seek professional help immediately. A trained therapist or counselor can provide the necessary support and guidance to help you navigate any challenging or negative aspects of your life. As you embark on your personal development journey, it is important to approach movies and real-life situations with caution and mindfulness, and always prioritize your emotional and mental well-being.

To my dear readers, while movies can offer insights and motivation for personal growth, it is essential to approach them with caution. Although movies can spark creativity and teach us about human nature and the complexities of life, it is crucial to remember not to adopt unrealistic expectations or toxic behaviors portrayed in them. Instead, let their positive aspects, such as bravery, compassion, and resilience, guide you towards personal empowerment, love, and a meaningful life. May your journey be filled with hope, transformation, and the enchanting power of cinema as you navigate through your personal growth.

Until next time, my darlings…

Thank you so much for reading! Make sure to show your support and get updates by following my Instagram and X

Instagram: @arosetintedlife2024

X: @Arosetintedlife

[femenaces]

interaction with *any* field that doesn't consider its roots and biases is going to lack nuance.

It is my experience that most modern college-level anthropology courses (I took them at two universities) extensively deconstruct and lay out all the ways that the "forefathers" and initial practices of the discipline were incredibly biased and frankly racist. Trying to discredit my opinion by just assuming I have never "considered the roots and biases" of the discipline I have a degree in, as if I just have a head full of unchallenged 19th century colonialist nonsense-- I find that patronizing, inaccurate, and insulting. I'll add, one major trend in anthropology these days is "insider anthropology," where a member of a culture conducts research and analysis on their own culture. I read many of these during my time in school. Also prevalent in modern social science and history is the increased valuing of oral history from the peoples themselves. In both of these, you can still see misogyny present in these cultures clear as day. It is not just the old white man with a safari hat projecting his own misogynistic culture into his ethnographies. Misogyny is a worldwide and seemingly timeless trait of nearly all human societies.

it's primarily socialisation that causes the differences

Most people are exposed to the concept of socialization in high school sociology classes these days. It's a very prevalent topic of discussion in my experience even outside of academic circles. Again, I have a degree in a social science. Are you really defining socialization for me as if I have never heard of it before and don't understand it? Ironic, because I don't think you're prepared to follow the concept of socialization to two of it's obvious (in my opinion) conclusions. One of which is pretty standard fare in radical feminist analysis but is not the point of this post, so cover your ears so you don't become corrupted and I'll make the text real small like a footnote: Trans women are socialized male and trans men are socialized female. Putting on new clothing, injecting hormones, or having surgeries in pursuit of looking like the opposite sex do not erase a lifetime of socialization. I know this first hand, and I think a lot of even transgender ideology supporters do too, deep down. All it takes is having ever had a decent amount of transgender friends. My trans man friends almost all experienced significant trauma at the hands of men in their childhoods, were considerate, meek, and polite to a fault. My trans women friends consistently disrespected and talked over the trans men in the group, frequently made "jokes" (about porn mostly) that would put any woman off, were loud without self-consciousness, tried to "relate" to women in the group by reciting tropes and stereotypes about women they now apparently fulfilled, and well... I could go on but I'll just say, observing how little these dynamics differed from just straight up cis male-female interactions really opened my eyes. To deny this would be to deny socialization has a huge impact on people. You wouldn't deny that, right? Since you just said yourself that "it's primarily socialization that causes" the behavior patterns of men and women?

The second logical conclusion is more controversial, but it's this— So females are socialized to be subservient, quiet, self-sacrificing, mild-mannered, complacent, accepting of mistreatment with limitless forgiveness, while men are socialized to be bold, proud, violent, etc... but this socialization pattern had to arise from somewhere. So I asked myself, who started this? if you follow socialization down, down, down in history to the very beginning, did it arise out of thin air? Was it the women? Neither of those make sense to me. When I follow the concept of socialization back to the logical conclusion, it's men all the way down, all across the world.

idk how any woman can come out of an anthropology degree without having grown a new third eye about male nature

[hellomynameisbisexual]

In the book A History of Bisexuality, Steven Angelides raises an important question: How can we construct the history of an identity which, until recently and even now, is thought to not exist? As with any history of social movements and identities, it’s first important to understand that learning history can also inadvertently be a practice of erasure. This means that “documented” or more dominant experiences are usually the only ones included in the historical narrative. This is especially so in the case of bisexuality, as its existence as a category and label has been protested socially since the word first entered the historical record and even now faces denial of its existence. We know bisexuality and other identities in the Bi+ spectrum are inherent to the human experience, so it existed well before it was captured in the historical record. That is, bisexuality as an experience, identity, or concept didn’t begin at any one point in time. Nonetheless, it is useful and important to understand key milestones in modern Bi+ experiences.

Just as sometimes happens today, historical figures who had feelings or relationships outside of strict heterosexual confines were historically regarded as gay even though they may have been, or identified as, Bi+. This is due to the assumption that binaries are the only alternative (meaning, someone either is or is not). If we look across cultures, bisexuality has been commonplace — from ancient Greece to the Han Dynasty in China.

In the west, bisexuality as a word was first printed in 1982 in a translated book called Psychopathia Sexualis by Charles Gilbert Chaddock. As the book title hints, bisexuality was mainly being documented as a form of deviant sexual behavior. In his exploration of psychology, even Sigmund Freud wrote: “A man's heterosexuality will not put up with any homosexuality, and vice versa” — meaning that one can either be straight or gay, and nothing else. This helps to illustrate how deeply rooted bisexual denial has been in society. And yet, still we see traces of bisexuality captured throughout time, up until the adoption of Bi+ as a title for plural identity.

1920s and 40s: “Bisexual Chic”

The 20th century witnessed the beginnings of Bi+ identities in popular culture — albeit very marginally. Poet Edna St. Vincent Millay and singers Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith were among the earliest widely known people to be openly bisexual in the United States. One of the issues historians and queer scholars face when revisiting the Bi+ presence of the past is that we want to avoid making assumptions about people’s identities when we interpret history, because we don’t want to speak for them and misconstrue their lives. For example, the 1920s hosted an era of social experimentation, and the phrase “bisexual chic” emerged in reference to women’s desire to explore their sexuality with other women. While we may categorize this as bisexual behavior, what we must keep in mind is the strict patriarchal and homophobic structures of society at the time. Perhaps these women would themselves identify as lesbian, pansexual, or another title on the spectrum of sexuality — but since there was little social space to do so (as they may have felt immense pressure to marry and participate in a heterosexual lifestyle), they may be miscategorized as possibly bisexual. Therefore, despite the presence of what some would consider “bisexual behavior,” we cannot ever fully know how someone identified or if they had access to language that expressed their feelings, or the social support to explore themselves. Although not outwardly mentioned because of censorship, the film A Florida Enchantment featured bisexual characters (albeit with very offensive content). Bisexuality can also be found in a few literature references in the 1920s, mainly in the work of Virginia Woolf's Orlando: A Biography and Mrs Dalloway.

Ideas of sexual plurality (or the acceptance of more than one sexual identity in society) in mainstream America were largely introduced academically by the groundbreaking work of biologist and sexologist Alfred Kinsey in 1940, through his exploration of diverse sexual practices of men. His 1948 book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male introduced the realities of non-heteronormative (or not strictly straight) practices and relationships being had across the country with great numbers.

1960s and 70s: Queer Activism and Growing Research

Ideas of bisexuality as a distinct self-proclaimed identity, however, didn’t begin to reach mainstream awareness in the United States until the 1960s, alongside queer activism and the growing gay rights movement. Stephen Donaldson (Donny the Punk) and Brenda Howard (who later went on to found the New York Area Bisexual Network) became the most well known bisexual activists at that time. The San Francisco chapter of the Sexual Freedom League included bisexuality as a label when activists like Margo Rila, Frank Esposito, and Maggi Rubenstein began to push for their inclusion. Bi+ folks were undoubtably present at the Stonewall Riot and the first Pride March — as Brenda Howard, the mother of Pride, identified as bisexual.

More Bi+ exposure took place in the 1970s due to the cultural impact of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, both in the media and in the social work of activism. This was also impacted by a wave of celebrities who came out as bisexual, such as Lou Reed, and in movies with Bi+ undertones like The Rocky Horror Picture Show. The Bi+ community began to find each other and start creating alliances and collective actions for visibility. Newsletters like The Bisexual Expression and The Bi Monthly emerged, and spaces for bisexual services, counseling, and awareness began to be carved out — mainly in New York and San Francisco. New popular literature also began to hit the market, such as View from Another Closet: Exploring Bisexuality in Women by Janet Mode, The Twyborn Affair by Patrick White, and The Bisexual Option: A Concept of One-Hundred Percent Intimacy by Dr. Fritz Klein.

In 1974, Newsweek printed a special edition on growing curiosities of Bi+ identities, writing: “There is a new vibration to spring this year. While the birds and the bees are striking up their vernal hum, so are the boys and the boys and the girls and the girls. Bisexuality is in bloom.” Even famous anthropologist Margaret Mead petitioned for bisexuality to be seen as the human norm in the domain of sexuality — as sexology, or the scientific study of sexuality, began to be more flexible to encompass identities outside the gay/straight binary. This was echoed in Charlotte Wolf’s book Bisexuality (1977), which published interviews with 150 self-identified bisexual men and women and concluded that bisexuality was likely much more common than society had ever previously realized.

1980s and 90s: Moving to the Mainstream

The 1980s hosted more conversations about bisexuality in mainstream American culture, including a moral panic during the AIDS epidemic in which bisexual men were frequently blamed for the spread of AIDS. New solidarity networks like The Boston Bisexual Women’s Network, the Bay Area Bisexual Network, the Bisexual Resource Center (BRC), and BiPol, the first bisexual political organization. In 1984, BiPol held the first bisexual rights rally, outside the Democratic National Convention, while the First East Coast Conference on Bisexuality also took place with 150 people in attendance.

Although visibility was growing, feelings of bisexual exclusion also became more prominent. The article "The Bisexual Movement: Are We Visible Yet?" by Lani Ka'ahumanu appeared in the official Civil Disobedience Handbook for the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights. This article was the first about bisexuals and the emerging bisexual movement to be published in a national lesbian or gay publication. Shortly after, the first national bisexual organization, The North American Bisexual Network, was founded.

The 1990s kicked off bisexual awareness by declaring September 23rd Bisexual Pride Day. For the next decade, American mainstream culture saw an increase in Bi+ characters, books, and celebrities, as well as the creation of more Bi+ specific organizations across the country. The first bisexual kiss on television took place in 1991 on an episode of L.A Law, in which bisexual lawyer C.J. (Amanda Donohoe) kisses her female colleague colleague Abby Perkins (Michele Greene). A few years later, the character Nancy Bartlett (played by Sandra Bernhard) began to normalize bisexuality on the critically acclaimed show Roseanne, and even included an on-screen kiss.

As a response to growing curiosity and a lack of attention on bisexuality as a distinct identity, Ron Fox began the first large-scale research study on bisexuality in 1993, and the Klein grid expanded on the Kinsey scale to showcase more spaces and subjectivities in between strictly gay or straight. Alongside growing acceptance, bisexual people were wanting a symbol to unite themselves. The Bisexual Pride flag was first set to fly proudly in 1998 after being designed by Michael Page.

2000s: Growing Awareness

The 2000s showcased an explosion in Bi+ characters, media, and important measures in awareness and rights. By the turn of the century, the American Psychological Association (APA)'s "Guidelines on psychotherapy with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients" officially de-pathologized homosexuality and bisexuality, stating they are not a mental illness as previously regarded. Bisexuality began to be included in sexuality studies departments at universities, and more positive media began to focus on bisexual characters. In a groundbreaking report in 2011, the San Francisco's Human Rights Commission found that the biggest majority within the LGBTQ community were the Bi+ community. In fact, the Bi+ community accounts for more than half of those who now identify as LGBTQ. In recent times, access to terms such as pansexual, omnisexual, fluid and others have emerged to give more nuance to Bi+ experiences.

Despite this, bisexuality is still considered an invisible majority. As Miranda Rosenblum notes, “The bisexual+ movement has a long, complex, and often hidden history. As a whole, the history of LGBTQ people is rarely taught comprehensively in schools, addressed in the media, or easily accessible within popular culture. For bisexual+ individuals, it's worse. The ubiquity of bisexual+ erasure seeps into history too; prominent bisexual+ individuals of the past are rarely remembered as bisexual+ (recalled as gay or lesbian instead) and the contributions of bisexuals+ to the broader LGBTQ movement are overlooked. Retelling a history that is inclusive of bisexual+ people is an important way to affirm the validity and importance of the bisexual+ experience.”

In awareness, GLAAD now hosts an annual #BiWeek campaign, and there is a growing understanding of bisexuality as its own unique identity.

[uncommon-etc]

This was going to be called ‘a useful guide to writing LGBT+ characters in historic fiction’ but...

This now applies to everything over 30 years old, because of the drastic changes we’ve collectively gone through, and all of the progress that’s been made.

It’s awesome that there’s a renewed interest by writers of all stripes in filling the gaping void in literature where more queer fiction should be, but as someone who has encountered a huge amount of misconceptions and over-simplifications myself in researching how to accurately depict queer characters outside of a contemporary setting, I thought I’d put together three top-tips for other aspiring writers.

1. Dates of decriminalization are only half the story 

Here’s a map of decriminalization by country. Seems like exactly the kind of useful tool you might use to inform your writing, right?

Such maps should be taken with a pinch of salt, because they don’t show when anti-sodomy laws were introduced to those countries in the first place.

For instance, this map would imply that decriminalization was a fairly recent development in India, when the reality is that India didn’t have any laws against it until it was colonized by the British, and while the country doesn’t officially permit same-sex marriage, records of same-sex Hindu weddings go back centuries. Marriages between people from different castes were actually treated as more scandalous than same-sex relations between people in higher castes, and those who fall into the ‘third category’ (which includes trans, nonbinary and intersex people alongside effeminate gay men and butch gay women) were often given special status in pre-partition India. 

Colonizers usually failed to keep accurate records of the relationships and marriage practices they observed among those they colonized, except to remark on how barbaric and backwards they thought certain acts were, but there are always exceptions. Despite the high legal penalties for homosexual acts in the gulf states and across much of the Arab world, T. E. Lawrence kept detailed diaries during his travels in the middle east in the early 1900s in which he mentions witnessing not only sexual acts, but blatant gestures of romantic affection between the young Arab men he fought alongside. So, please don’t fall into the trap of thinking ‘my story features an Arab character, I need to make them very homophobic/uncomfortable around same-sex relationships.’

Polyamory and its role in Pacific Islander communities is frequently erased from history by those who sought to portray it exclusively - if at all - as one guy lucking out by having multiple wives. The reality is far more complex, with  Marquesas Islanders practicing Polyandry as well as Polygamy (i.e. women could have more than one husband.) Pre-contact indigenous Hawai’ians were probably one of the most sex-positive societies on earth, and while it’s important never to over-sexualise any minority group; ‘Sex between uncommitted individuals, paired individuals having lovers, liaisons, polyandry, polygyny, homosexual patterns of behavior, and such were all accepted practices (Malo, 1951, p. 74)’ 

Even in after Christianity spread to Europe and the Roman and Greek attitude to same-sex relations (which is a whole other essay I’m afraid) were drastically altered, certain practices are often overlooked...

In Sweden, in the early to mid 1800s, it became fashionable among the upper-classes for young unmarried people to take a same-sex partner, as a way to practice marriage without the risk of getting anyone pregnant. It’s part of the reason Hans Christian Andersen, (yes, the one who wrote the fairytales) got away with basically being openly bisexual. If he was seen kissing another man, people simply reasoned that he was being ‘childish’.

There’s a long-held joke in Finland about all Swedish men being gay, but it’s rooted in the fact that when Finnish women were sent to Sweden to learn domestic arts, attend high-society events, and eventually find a husband, they wrote home about how weird they thought it was that their new husband already had a ‘husband’, for practice.

In my mind there are far too many tragic same-sex love stories set in Europe around this time, won’t someone please write a charming rom-com about two guys who get away with it despite being increasingly more overtly gay because of weird customs like this?

I use the term ‘anti-sodomy law’ rather than ‘anti-gay law’ to keep things historically accurate, because the vast majority of European law in relation to homosexual acts never applied to women (something that was beautifully portrayed in the most recent season of Gentleman Jack), so if your character is a lesbian, her single biggest fear, from a legal standpoint, would be either being diagnosed with hysteria, or losing custody of any children she has from a previous relationship. There are no records of women being put to death on the grounds of having same-sex relations unless it was tied up in accusation of witchcraft. 

2. But in case you think the past was actually a rosier place to be gay than its usually portrayed...

So there was this one scene we all loved in the first season of Torchwood:

Basically, Jack and Tosh travel back in time to a tea-dance during WWII, where Jack meets the man whose identity he assumed when he left the time-agency. Even though he knows the other Jack will die the next day, the two of them have a connection, and they end up dancing together, in front of the other shocked guests, before the rift re-opens, returning Jack and Tosh to the present day.

The thing is, it would never actually happen.

It pains me to say it, but overt declarations of queer love in that era were few and far between, and when they occurred, they were severely punished. Many gay men with convictions for ‘public indecency’ in the 30s, 40s and 50s never did anything indecent, they were dobbed in by neighbours, colleagues, and jealous ex-lovers.

In fact, if you were a man of means, with a preference for other men in Britain before the outbreak of WWII (and before the nazis started raiding gay-bars) your safest route to not being arrested was to travel to Berlin, where hookups between men were generally ignored by the authorities amidst all the other chaos that plagued the Weimar republic.

If you want to write dramatic PDA moments between queer characters in pre-decriminalization times, be my guest, but don’t make them inconsequential, don’t cheapen the memories of those who were brave enough to risk arrest and literal torture through chemical castration by implying it’s not a big deal.

Quiet, subtle moments of affection can be just as effective, and far more believable. In order to write well-rounded, smart-thinking characters, it’s vital that you make them assess and contextualize their own relationships, and find ways around the obstacles of their times, rather than acting like it doesn’t matter.

A lack of appreciation for subtlety is part of the reason so many people missed the relationship between Captain Klenzendorf and Fred Finkel in Jojo Rabbit being intentionally queer-coded. Think about it, you’re two dudes who clearly have something going on, but you’re constantly surrounded by nazis, what are you going to do, french-kiss? Their constant close-proximity to each other, coupled with the little physical touches, and the moment one of them almost feeds the other one an iced-bun, make it pretty clear they’re more than just friends and colleagues. 

My hero Tove Jansson and her life-partner Tulikki had a secret passageway in the attic between their two studios in Helsinki, so that they could visit each other late in the evening without arousing any suspicion, but during their summers, they lived on an otherwise uninhabited island out in the gulf of Finland, where they were free to do as they liked.

If you want your characters to be free to be openly and unreservedly affectionate towards each other, take them out of society for a little bit and put them somewhere beautiful where there’s no-one else around. It’s part of the reason rural scenes in films like God’s Own Country, and Brokeback Mountain are so effective, they remind modern audiences that the relationship is not the problem, other people’s attitudes are.

3. Get your terminology right, even if it’s going to irk a modern audience

No-one would have called themselves, or anyone else ��gay’ pre-1950s, unless they meant happy. No-one would have had access to the latest dictionary of acceptable terms and monikers for different LGBT+ identities. In an official context, gay men were separated into ‘inverts’ and ‘perverts’ (non-practicing and practicing homosexuals, though the invert label was generally only applied to those who sought help to ‘cure’ themselves, so it was pretty subjective). Pre-1950s terms in English were mostly innuendos (’he’s a friend of dorothy’s’, ‘he reads walt whitman’ and ‘he wears sensible shoes’ were all popular, alongside more well known ones like ‘he swings the other way’ or ‘he bats for the other team’). 

The term Bisexual was first coined (in the English speaking world) in 1859, but it wasn’t originally used to refer to those who experienced sexual attraction to men and women. Instead, the anatomist Robert Bentley Todd used it to describe those with primary or secondary sex characteristics that contradicted their assigned gender, and who would go on to be labelled hermaphrodites before we had much understanding of intersex people.

Please, I’m begging you, don’t write a novel about a magnificently bisexual Victorian dandy who goes around calling himself bisexual, not only is it not historically accurate, he’s going to get some funny looks and a possible ban from his local ‘gentleman’s club’. There’s a reason Lazlo Cravensworth in What we do in the Shadows, despite being one of the most bisexual characters ever written, never actually uses the word. You don’t need to, ‘show, don’t tell’ as the saying goes. 

Though the term ‘asexual’ is older than most people think (as is pansexual) it isn’t realistic to assume characters without access to the internet or the complete works of Alfred Kinsey will know or understand any of the terms we use for mspec identities today. If they acknowledged attraction to more than one gender, (or in some cases lack of attraction entirely) they would have been more likely to use ‘queer’ as a catchall, because the line between acceptable and deviant was squarely drawn over the perceived gender of the person you were said to be having relations with.

I see plenty of discourse regarding Arthur Conan Doyle’s work claiming Holmes and Watson have a queer-platonic partnership, I don’t disagree, but they would never have called it that.

One of my perpetually unfinished WIPs features an asexual character, and much as I desperately wanted, for my own sanity as a representation-starved ace, to have him say the word right from his introduction, it wouldn’t have been realistic, or contextually appropriate in the late 90s, so I had him discover the term twenty years later, as I did with most of my other LGBT+ characters.

This doesn’t mean a character thinking ‘I feel so broken and ostracized from everyone else, what’s wrong with me?’ it may just mean that although they know exactly who they are, what they want, and what they are or aren’t into, they don’t know there’s a word for it yet. H.P. Lovecraft remains a controversial figure in fiction, mainly down to the overt racism of some of his horror-stories, but his relationship history is interesting in that he married, but never had kids, then eventually separated from his wife who by all accounts he wasn’t very interested in. Because the word ‘asexual’ wasn’t ever used in biographies written in his life-time, I remember one introduction to his works describing his sexuality as ‘lazy’ which I found hilarious.

If you want to write non-binary characters, but are understandably aware of the fact that having someone state their pronouns in an interaction with another character wasn’t the done thing until very recently, here are several tips that could work in your favour:

- give that character a nationality/language background which uses gender-neutral pronouns as standard. If your character is Finnish for instance, and someone tries to say ‘he’ or ‘she’ they can correct them by saying ‘your language is so ridiculously gendered, I don’t like it, I’m sticking with ‘han’ for now’ (there are no gendered pronouns in Finnish, ‘han’ applies to men and women)

- take your cue from the way Jim is written in ofmd, A+, 10/10 splendid portrayal of an nb character in 1717. It feels natural and organic to their character development, without seeming forced or shoe-horned in as a ticked-box for representation.  

- give them a title that they worked to earn and are quite rightly proud of, the first few times they’ve corrected someone using the wrong pronouns by swapping in that title, the other character (and by extension the audience) will get the message.

- since the first use of singular ‘they’ in the English language dates back to the 12th century there’s nothing to stop you using it, but it would work better and be more believable on a character whose gender presentation is deliberately unclear or androgynous. For trans people prior to modern developments in gender-reassigment pronouns would have been chosen, like everything else, to pass as well as possible, because passing could be a matter of life and death.

None of this is designed to stop you writing joyful, blatantly queer love stories about all of the different ways, throughout history, that humans have formed relationships and experienced attraction. I have no desire to rain on anyone’s parade. As stated, we’re more likely to be written out of history entirely than we are to be written badly, but if, like me, you care about historic details and want to write the best, most believable story you can, please do you research.

[entity9silvergen]

I recently asked reddit for some LGBT history from countries other than the US. Here’s what I got:

Germany

The Weimar Republic was surprisingly accepting of "alternative lifestyles."

During the Weimar Republic, Germany had a pretty active LGBTQ scene, with some major films and songs being produced, despite it still being illegal at the time. However, there was also a push to decriminalize homosexual behavior which sadly wasn't passed as the Nazis came to power.

This was based of two factors: after WW1 the authoritarian culture of Prussia sorta received a long overdue pushback. People were kinda sick of it, especially since these losers led them into a seemingly pointless war to begin with. Second: A LOT of men died in WW1 - and the army did not exactly prefer LGBT people. So with a lot of regular folks dead, the percentages of the total populace was sorta shifted. This also pushed the women's rights movements at the time for a similar reason.

Magnus Hirschfeld was helping trans people transition, crossdressers get crossdressing 'licenses', and generally advocating for and helping the LGBT community in the early 1900s in Germany. Nazis ended up raiding and burning down his research institute.

Hirschfeld was a gay polyamorous man. He was one of the first advocates for trans and gay rights but his work was destroyed by the Nazis.

The institute he headed even did the first modern gender affirming surgeries. The institute was destroyed and many people who were there (including the first known person to undergo complete MtF surgery) were killed by the nazis and the place was little more than bombed out ruins at the end of the war.

More information on the institute

Pre Nazi interwar Germany (Weimar Republic)  was pretty open when it came to not only sexuality, but also gender identity. The Nazis put a stop to that & tried to destroy any & all research into either, but, for a brief moment, it was there.

Russia

Pretty sure all Russian LGBT history was erased before we even had a written language, but Russia almost got gay marriage legalized in the first soviet constitution (didn’t happen bc Stalin)

The early soviet period (pre-Stalin) is sometimes called “the first sexual revolution” as opposed to America’s “sexual Revolution” of the 60’s. Broad women’s suffrage, female employment and education, parental leave, advancement of GSM rights & decriminalization of abortion. This unfortunately did not stand the test of time & reactionary sentiment.

Additional Source

UK/ Britain/ England 

The lead singer of Judas Priest is gay. The commenter’s father thought it was kinda funny because it didn’t match with his biker aesthetic, but the commenter doesn’t think he considered how much leather he wears on a daily basis

Hell bent for Leather was a track off Killing Machine. It was written by lead guitarist Glenn Tipton (who is straight), but it's fun to find alternative meanings in Priest songs. A second commenter likes to pretend a lot of the lyrics Halford sings are gayer than they actually are.

A couple people mentioned how uncomfortable it was seeing Ru Paul interact with British drag queens because he barely knows anything about British culture.

Ru Paul got angry that a British drag queen hasn’t seen the Golden Girls because “it’s gay culture” and then not five minutes later someone had to explain to him who Alan Turing was.

Alan Turing, who was an incredibly noteworthy figure (He made the Enigma codebreaker machine, which broke the code that was used by Nazis during the war and basically sped up the war by a significant margin. He also set the foundations for artificial intelligence, one achievement he was named for: the Turing Test), was homosexual and prosecuted multiple times because of it

Shakespeare was probably bisexual (some of his sonnets had homoerotic subtext/were sent to a younger man). Plus, Hamlet is gay as fuck. 

Sonnet 46 was very gay. Here’s a link!

King James 1st was corrupt and used his position to promote his gay lover to higher positions than he should've gotten. 

The 13 year old king James 6th of Scotland and 1st of England fell in love with a 37 year old catholic Franco Scottish man. The king gave the older man so much free shit that other lords started getting salty and his lover ended up converting to Presbyterianism out of loyalty to his young lover. He also fell in love with a man who ''was noted for his handsome appearance as well as his limited intelligence.'' 

Clearly James was into himbos, and women too.

He had a secret tunnel connecting his bedroom to George Villiers’s bedroom.

His relationship with Villiers was basically common knowledge and a source of much amusement and mockery. He also once said that his relationship with Villiers was equivalent to the relationship that Christ had with John the Baptist

Much more recently, there's obviously JKR and the banning of puberty blockers and Margaret Thatcher opposing LGBTQ+ rights by passing a law meaning you couldn't 'promote homosexuality'. 

Prince Philip was a racist twat (and probably a huge homophobe knowing him).

Gay marriage only became legal in 2014.

The Wolfenden Report was published in 1957, and it recommended the decriminalization of homosexual acts between consenting adults. It was a huge topic of public debate, and ultimately led to the Sexual Offences act of 1967, which legalized sexual acts between consenting men aged 21 or over in England and Wales (sexual acts between women were never explicitly criminalized). Scotland decriminalized sex between men in 1980, and Northern Ireland in 1982. 

For a totally batshit real-life bit of gay history, check out the show A Very English Scandal. It's about a politician, Jeremy Thorpe, who put a hit out on his former lover who was threatening to go public with the fact they had had a relationship. 

Austria

Gay marriage was legalized in Austria about 3 years ago. The worst thing is that it'd have staid illegal if the Supreme Court wouldn't have jumped in and declare it to be unconstitutional.

Austria did have something called "partnership" which was where gay couples could officially register with the state as couples but not receive any of the benefits of married het people

They still have super backwards Transphobic laws requiring for example "real life experience" to get even diagnosed. Basically you're forced to be and live as feminine/masc as possible and a doctor them judges if you're femme or masc enough. It's torture

Australia had widespread, over 60% approval of gay marriage for well over a decade before the government legalized it. The governments were actually going against the people for a very long time by denying it.

Taiwan/ Hong Kong/ Mainland China

When Taiwan recently legalized gay marriage, their official statement was something along the lines that they were casting off Western-imposed values and returning to their own traditional values and the entire western lgbt community ridiculed them in a "if that's what you need to tell yourself" sort of way but it's actually the truth. 

Prior to western colonization, the Imperial Chinese attitude toward sexuality was not dissimilar to Greco-Roman attitudes in that a man must marry a woman to beget legitimate heirs but whatever else he does on the side is his own business. It wasn't until Victorian colonizers came along and imposed homophobic attitudes on China that China started treating gays like abominations. In Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China, as indeed most of the world, homophobia is a western value imposed by colonizers.

Bonus history: there is an actual saying in Arabic that was in widespread use across the Middle East and North Africa for thousands of years from classical antiquity until European colonization. The saying goes "Women are for babies, [young men] are for fun."

The commenter specifies that this means “college-aged twinks,” not children

Another commenter speculates about when homophobia arose in China and how. They also add that in Rome, bottoms were stigmatized. 

There’s a story of Emperor Ai of the Han dynasty & him cutting off his sleeve for his boyfriend

There is also a god worshipped in Taiwan, the Rabbit God Tu'er Shen, whose domain is managing love and sex between same-sex attracted people. He is meant to be the incarnation of a soldier from the 17th century, who fell in love with an imperial inspector and spied on him bathing, and was tortured and killed by that official because he was offended by the spying. A villager from the soldier's hometown dreamed that Tu'er Shen appeared to him and said that because his crime had been love, he had been appointed to manage the affairs of gay people. The villagers erected a secret temple to the soldier, and people have been praying to him ever since.

South Africa

South Africa became the first nation in the world to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in its constitution. It was also first country in Africa to legalize same sex marriage in 2006. What really set them back for so long was apartheid.

There is some speculation that that Shaka Zulu was gay since he never took any wives

South Africa's post Apartheid constitution was the first in the world to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1996.

South Africa was also the 5th country in the world and only country in Africa to legalize same sex marriage in 2005.

Even before that the Constitutional Court ruled that sexual orientation was not relevant when deciding child custody in 2002.

Transgender folks have been allowed to change their sex in the population registry since 2003.

Conversion therapy is not illegal yet and public opinion still needs some work.

Spain

In Spain gay marriage was legalized in 2005, now they are considered one of de gay-friendliest countries in the world. The commenter is a lesbian and has never been closeted or directly experienced discrimination for being a lesbian.

In July 2005, Spain became the third country in the world to explicitly legalize gay marriage, after a thirty-year struggle following the fall of Franco's dictatorship, during which most activism was carried clandestinely (as it was illegal).

From 2007 onwards, Spanish [binary] trans people can legally correct the name and sex fields of their IDs and currently, there's a push for a law that would allow for legal recognition of non-binary Spaniards.

Despite the dictatorship in the 60s, there were cinemas that specialized in gay meet ups. Trans women also had ways to get passports so they could go to the US for surgery.

Ireland

In Northern Ireland, same sex marriage only became legal in 2020 and the leader of the most popular party is homophobic transphobic racist and sexist af. In fact, the majority of the party are but some of the quotes from the biggest party leader are depressing.

Same-sex marriage was only legalized in Ireland in 2015. Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1993. 

When Ireland legalized same sex marriage by popular vote in 2015, it was still something you got horribly bullied for in schools if you were out. Queer people got an apology from the Taoiseach in 2018, for the suffering and discrimination we faced from the State prior to the legalization of homosexuality.

In the case of trans rights, in 2015 the Gender Recognition Act was signed into law. It allows legal gender changes without the requirement of medical intervention or assessment by the state as long as you are over the age of 18. 

Ireland has fines and jail time for anyone found guilty of attempting conversation therapy. 

Ireland has seen a lot of progress in LGBT rights in the last 6 years but even up to the 2000s, citizens left their family members and friends to rot for being LGBT+. It still happens all over the country, especially in circles that are still fanatically Catholic. As the Catholic Church has lost the iron grip on the country, people have become more accepting of the LGBT+.

India

The Kamasutra(ancient text on sexuality etc.) has an entire chapter dedicated to homosexuality

The Arthashastra, a 2nd century BCE Indian treatise on statecraft, mentions a wide variety of sexual practices which, whether performed with a man or a woman, were sought to be punished with the lowest grade of fine. While homosexual intercourse was not sanctioned, it was treated as a very minor offence, and several kinds of heterosexual intercourse were punished more severely.

Sex between non-virgin women incurred a small fine, while homosexual intercourse between men could be made up for merely with a bath with one's clothes on, and a penance of "eating the five products of the cow and keeping a one-night fast"

Milk, curd (cheese), ghi (clarified butter), urine, and dung are the five products of a cow

The commenter adds that this is not a terrible punishment.

The Mughal Empire mandated a common set of punishments for homosexuality, which could include 50 lashes for a slave, 100 for a free infidel, or death by stoning for a Muslim

On 6 September 2018 the Supreme Court of India invalidated part of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code making homosexuality legal in India

Prior to the British colonization of India homosexuality was not all that looked down upon when compared to what happened when the British took over and instituted anti gay laws.

The Hijra (literally means third gender) were seen as normal and have been accepted since long before Christ, as evidenced by the Karma Sutra. The British took videos of them to take back to demonstrate how the Desi were “barbaric”.

Bonsia

In Bosnia, there was a one pride parade that ended with religious extremists ruining it and the police not doing anything. It was supposed to be 5 maybe 3 days long but ended in like 1 or 2.

The Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe mapped out the entire night sky with only his eyes. It laid the foundations of many later scientists, such as Isaac Newton. He was a very rich nobleman, so much so that he owned 1% of Denmark's money. He had a pet dwarf that apparently could see the future, which sounds pretty gay. He was also part of the Elefant Ordning, which consisted of rich and strong Danish men.

Philippines 

Despite many attempts to legalize same-sex marriage, the Philippines still didn't budge. Being gay in itself is legal, but same-sex marriage still isn't.

Philippines ,the most Catholic Country in Southeast Asia, has held the largest Pride Parade in Southeast Asia.

Serbia

Serbia didn't have history from about 16th century to 1800's when the 1st revolt happened and failed till 1813's... Then yet another in 1830's for semi independence from Turks, and full in 1836

During the last lingering Ottoman rule over autonomous Serbia, Serbia was one of the very first few countries to have legal mostly everything... it then got removed with like 3 constitution changes and then it didn't move forward for a looong time

Switzerland

Would you have thought that small, conservative Switzerland was a center of the international gay community during the mid-20th century? The magazine "Der Kreis"- the circle - was the only queer magazine in the world that kept publishing during WWII. It was edited in Zurich and distributed internationally, which often meant illegal smuggling, even into nazi Germany. The magazine's annual ball was attended by hundreds of gay men from all over Europe each year. The whole thing was kept strictly secret from the public, though it was known and tolerated by the police.

The Kreis club disbanded in 1967, as repressions grew heavier after a number of murders in the scene had caught the public's attention. By then, other European and American groups took its place, publishing their own magazines.

They made a movie about it.

More info about Der Kreis

As of today, Switzerland doesn't allow gay marriage. A country-wide referendum will be held this fall on gay marriage.

The commenter speculates that gay marriage will be legalized.

A few people expressed surprise that Switerland is socially conservative and several people explained that women’s right to vote was only place in the 70s.

There’s a movie about it

Turkey

A Muslim Persian (born in modern day Turkey) philosopher/mysticist named Mewlana who is known for his sayings on acceptance and love for one another was gay! He had exchanged letters with his instructor Shams and wrote homoerotic poems to him! In Turkey this is ignored by many due to the country's stance on homosexuality

More information

Norway

The commenter’s hometown and the neighboring town arranged their first pride parade/event in 2017, which is a big deal for a small place and one of the local priests went livid and went straight to the newspaper and social media to condemn it. A local rapper wrote a short and to the point article in the newspaper calling him out for all kinds of things which was a great read. Then to top it off, the priest arranged for a "Jesus Parade" in protest to be held the day before the pride parade. Only like five people walked in it, not including the priest of course because he happened to be on vacation in Spain that week. The pride parade itself was a success though! It's become an annual event. Covid has put some breaks on it though, but they're making a documentary this year about the pride celebrations.

Hungary

Hungary has no same sex marriage or transition rights

Police are unkind to protestors

During “commie times,” being queer was illegal so queer people went to the gulag

Belgium

Same sex marriage was legalized in Belgium in 2003 (right after the NL who were the first in the world). The commenter says that same-sex marriage has always felt possible and she is confused about other countries’ actions.

Poland

Polish president on public assembly: 'LGBT is not people, this is ideology'.

Denmark

WHO took their sweet time declassifying being transgender as a mental illness, so Denmark got sick of waiting and became the first country to stop classifying it as an illness.

Australia

In Australia same-sex marriage wasn't legal until 2017.

Portugal

Portugal is know for having one of the most (if not THE most) peaceful revolutions in history back in the 60's, with only 4 deaths total.

Canada

Operation Soap.

Mexico

To learn more, watch Dance of the 41 on Netflix.

Netherlands

NL was one of the first countries to legalize gay marriage in 2001

Sweden

In Sweden they used to classify Homosexuality as a disease during the 20th century so in protest people would call in too gay to work.

New Zealand

When same sex marriage was legalized, the parliament broke into song.

The song

Other

Homosexuality is illegal in 73 countries, some by death or life in prison.

Only one country in Asia has legalized same-sex marriage: Taiwan

FNAF is older than same-sex marriage in the US

Condor Operation

I think this is some important stuff so please reblog so more people can see! And, if you would like to add to or correct anything here, feel free to do so!

[dwellordream]

“The ideal relationship that young women in the postwar decade were hoping for was what historians have dubbed "companionate marriage." The term is usually used to describe a marital ideal that incorporates characteristics such as companionship, mutual affection, and respect between spouses. In the early twentieth century, this was certainly not a new notion. According to some historians, the idea that marriage should be based at least in part upon affection and mutuality has been a feature of Western beliefs ever since the Reformation. Yet in the early decades of the twentieth century the significance ascribed to emotional ties between spouses grew to unprecedented heights. 

Simultaneously, new ideas about the role of sexuality in marriage came to replace older ones, and popular understandings of what constituted proper behavior for husbands and wives began to shift. In that sense, the era witnessed the emergence of a new marital ideal, and among its key advocates was the generation of women who came of age in the 1910s and 1920s. At the core of these young women's marital ideals were trust, sharing, and companionship. Much like generations before them, they envisioned the ideal marriage as a partnership, but in contrast to their mothers and grandmothers they rejected gender difference and gender complementarity as the basis for this partnership. 

While they expected husbands and wives to fulfill gender-specific roles and responsibilities within marriage, they defined the ideal relationship as one of equal and fundamentally similar partners who shared a deep emotional intimacy. As one young woman noted six months before her wedding in 1920, "I would . . . only want to marry a man who sees me as his beloved, his companion and friend, a participant and advisor in all that life brings." 

Using similar language, another young woman expressed the same hopes for her marriage. "The thought of sitting with my dearest friend in our own home, enjoying each other's company, quietly pondering the events of the day—that is one of the things I look so much forward to," she confided in a letter to her sister a few months before her wedding in 1924. "I will want to hear everything that is on his mind. [I will want to be] his friend, his assistant, his fellow conspirator on our journey through life."

Further differentiating their beliefs from nineteenth-century notions of an ideal marriage was the emphasis young women placed on physical intimacy. If their parents' generation had shied away from displays of physical affection, young women denned the ideal relationship as one characterized by emotional expressiveness, romance, and affection. In the words of one "happily married young wife," "tenderness and caresses— those are the things that sustain a marriage." Never, she counseled other women, should they "be stingy with or embarrassed by your love."

By the 1920s, new sexual ideologies had also filtered into young women's consciousness. By then, references to Freudian psychology and the writing of European sexologists were common even in popular magazines, and Danish sex reformers had already for years insisted on the importance of sexual enjoyment for both spouses in marriage. Not surprisingly, young women therefore incorporated pleasurable sexual relations as a key component in their marital ideal. As one young wife argued in 1920, "Marital relations, the complete giving of oneself to the other" ought to be the foundation for "a deep and beautiful shared life."

According to another young woman, marital success depended on "physical passion, a deep, mutual longing toward complete intimacy and abandonment of oneself to the other." "If this [passion] is not present," she continued, "it is not advisable to enter into marriage since [sexual relations] otherwise easily will make the woman feel degraded, the man disappointed, and daily life together will start crumbling." By the late 1920s, the notion that sexual passion was essential to marital success had become so widely accepted that when the Copenhagen newspaper B.T. in 1930 invited its readers to submit their answers to the question "What makes a marriage happy?" the winning essay emphasized exactly this aspect. 

"It is important that the two [spouses] are erotically compatible," the prize winners "A. L. and wife" noted. "Otherwise," they added, "their happiness will collapse sooner or later." Understandably, the generation of women who had insisted on being pals with men before marriage also carried this ideal with them after their weddings. In contrast to older patterns of separate, gender-segregated work and leisure activities for husbands and wives, they conceived of the ideal marriage as one in which spouses led deeply intertwined lives, sharing not only bed and board but also free time, hobbies, and interests. 

"A husband and a wife should share with each other every aspect of their life . . . and in a good marriage they will naturally want to do so," "Mrs. Marie" declared in 1925. Other women agreed, arguing that a "good marriage is built on true friendship. Shared interests allow a husband and a wife to continue to be good friends. .. . It is therefore of vital importance for a marriage that spouses have good interests in common." In the course of the postwar decade, then, young women, bent on freer, more exciting lives than those of their mothers, came to conceive of the ideal marriage as an intimate, egalitarian, sexually pleasurable partnership between like-minded individuals sharing, and enjoying, their lives to the greatest extent possible. 

If women who came of age in the postwar decade were particularly enthusiastic in their embrace of this marital ideal, the ideal itself did not necessarily derive from within their circles. In the 1910 and 1920s popular writers, journalists, psychologists, sexologists, advice columnists, and marriage counselors across the Western world promoted this vision of an ideal marriage. In their eyes, the norms and values that had shaped nineteenth-century marriages had simply become obsolete. Not only did asceticism and self-control seem increasingly old-fashioned in an emerging consumer culture, but patriarchal authority also seemed to violate new, more modern sensibilities. 

The gradual decline of separate spheres and experiments with cross-gender camaraderie had made emotional distance between spouses inappropriate. And in the light of new knowledge about the human mind and the human body, the kind of sexual repression that supposedly characterized nineteenth- century marriages had become outdated. In the twentieth century, such behaviors no longer had their place, and like the Scandinavian legislators who passed the marriage reform bills, they believed it necessary that marriages be reformed if the institution was to survive. Up against older norms, they therefore championed intimacy, romance, and camaraderie as the true foundations for a happy marriage, and young women adopted many of their ideas from these sources.

Surely, some young men must have been as interested as their female peers in this new marital ideal, but if that were the case, it was not something to which its many advocates paid much attention. Instead, the vast majority of the experts who played such a crucial role in the conceptualization of the new ideal seemed to rely almost entirely on women to carry out their vision. With few exceptions, they directed their counsel toward wives—not husbands or even couples—implicitly delegating to women the responsibility for translating the new ideal into reality. In part, this reflected conventional expectations of women as patrons and regulators of emotional life. As one advice columnist explained, "It is, after all, a good wife who holds the key to family happiness."

But by focusing their attention on women, marriage reformers also acknowledged that wives had a particular interest in promoting change. While companionate marriage was supposed to promote greater satisfaction for both spouses, they were keenly aware that women had more at stake in this issue. As one marriage counselor astutely noted, "Because the husband will have to give up some of the privileges he has previously had in the home, he can in most cases not be expected to lead the effort." In many ways, young women and professional experts therefore depended upon each other in their efforts to reform marriage. 

Throughout the postwar decade, young women eagerly read their tracts and listened to their recommendations, and the woman who wrote to an advice columnist, "I have asked my husband to read your answers," was certainly not the only one who sought to take advantage of professional expertise. Experts, on the other hand, quickly realized that even husbands who professed an interest in freer, more egalitarian relationships did not necessarily feel the same urgency about realizing these ideals as the women they married, and wisely enough, they therefore turned their attention toward female audiences, commending them for their willingness to take on what one journalist solemnly called "this great new labor of love."

But despite such occasional praise, marriage reformers tended to be more critical than supportive of the women who shared their ideals. Having delegated to them the responsibility for creating new marital relationships, they quickly proceeded to translate that responsibility into a duty and obligation, and when marriages failed, they typically placed the blame on wives. As one marriage counselor lectured young brides, "A husband's love . . . is a fragile flower that must be tended by gentle hands. If all women owned such gentle hands, marriage would not be such an unstable enterprise."

Because of their alleged responsibility in this area, women were, for example, more and more frequently made to bear the brunt of criticism when husbands lost interest in their wives. As one 1923 headline in a women's magazine asked, "Whose Is the Fault? Doesn't the Reason for the Many Divorces Often Lie in Women's Lack of Ability to Renew Themselves?" Over and over again, experts identified wives' carelessness with their looks as a key source of marital problems. Describing the near demise of one marriage, one magazine columnist typically noted that "during her engagement [the wife was] always dressed up, and her hair was always waved and carefully set." 

After the wedding she "slackened off" and began to appear "at the breakfast table with greasy cold cream on her face, curlers in her hair and wearing slippers," inevitably alienating her husband's affections. Only because she mended her ways, insisted the writer, did the marriage survive. As a result, marriage manuals often included beauty advice, and beauty experts often presented themselves as substitute marriage counselors. In addition, women were repeatedly reminded to retain their appeal as partners in conversation. This entailed, experts argued, a general open mindedness and at least some knowledge of events outside the domestic sphere. 

"A woman might possess plenty of admirable qualities," one magazine cautioned, "but if she cannot talk about anything besides her household, if she does not read anything, and if she does not know anything beyond the grind of everyday life, then no intelligent man will be able to stand her in the long run."" When one young wife somewhat indignantly asked an advice columnist whether "a husband has the right to be disgruntled just because his wife is mostly preoccupied with housework," she should therefore have expected the lecture she was about to receive. 

"Your husband is right," the editor of the column answered her. Today, a wife's duty extends far beyond cooking, baking, and washing. Like her husband, she ought to be interested in all forms of cultural enrichment available to her. She should not just be a washboard, a broomstick, and a wooden ladle. It is her responsibility to be her husband's intellectual match, and she should be interested in those cultural aspects that give life depth and nourishment and provide material for conversations that move beyond ordinary everyday nonsense. .. . In the end, it is the latter that creates the foundation for good fellowship—for marriage itself.

Obviously, married women were not encouraged to expand their minds because of the gratification they might find in this, but because of the pleasure it would bring their husbands. In the blunt words of one columnist, "[A] wife should be interested in the world outside the home if she wants her husband to be interested in her." Simultaneously, wives were encouraged to tone down their own problems and concerns. Specifically, they should never talk about housekeeping. "Meet him with a bright smile and a loving welcome," one marriage counselor suggested. "Do not immediately launch into a detailed description of all your worries and calamities." 

Adding to this general advice, another writer explained that "when a husband goes out frequently, it is because he is bored to death of listening to an endless monologue about the butcher and the baker and the grocer and the high prices on everything and about the children who always fight etc. in one never-ending gray monotony. No men like to listen to all that. . . . The wise wife therefore keeps her worries and troubles to herself." Obviously, if wives were to engage their husbands in the kind of intimate conversation they were longing for it would be on terms set by men. Only if they adopted interests and issues deriving from men's world and experiences could they with some justification expect their cooperation. 

Popular magazines, marriage manuals, and advice columns soon added yet another requirement to the list of criteria for being an attractive wife. From the mid-1920s, they began to bring up the issue of marital sexuality, reminding women of the importance of being active and interested sexual partners for their husbands. In itself, this emphasis on sexual pleasure in marriage was not entirely new. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, sexuality had generally been presented as a positive feature of marriage for both spouses. What was remarkable about the postwar discourse on marital sexuality was the change in tone. 

Prior to the 1920s, marriage and sex manuals had been aimed at men, typically giving them advice about how best to initiate young wives into marital sexuality without alienating their affection or crushing their desires. In the course of the 1920s, advice givers shifted their focus from men to women, admonishing wives not to neglect their sexual duties. From the mid-1920s, women were repeatedly reminded of their obligation to retain their spouses' erotic interest or suffer the consequences. If a husband fell in love with another woman, "saving his affection and politeness for her and taking his bad temper out on his wife," it was, one expert warned, most likely "because [the wife] no longer dresses up to please him."

A modern wife should, others claimed, "also be a mistress" and "at all times seek to captivate her husband." "Never be cold, indifferent or unwilling to give yourself to your husband if you want to preserve his love," one advice columnist warned. "It will alienate [him] and only bring unhappiness into your home." By the end of the decade, wives were not only expected to engage in marital sexuality with pleasure, but had in fact been accorded the responsibility for maintaining an erotic atmosphere within the home and providing sexual fulfillment for their husbands. In the course of the 1920s, experts of all kinds thus heaped a dizzying array of new duties and responsibilities on married women.”

- Birgitte Soland, “From Pragmatic Unions to Romantic Partnerships?” in Becoming Modern: Young Women and the Reconstruction of Womanhood in the 1920s

[starr-fall-knight-rise]

Humans are Space Orcs, “I Have Seen.”

Wrote something easy and more similar to my original stories today. I hope you like it. 

I have been thinking about taking a couple days off from writing these stories, since I have been working non stop on this and the book for over a year now, so I am considering taking a break for about a week so I don’t burn out. I haven’t decided yet, so we shall see, but I hope you all have a great day.

I have a job no one knows about.

I don’t think anyone would be surprised if they heard about my job. I don’t even think they would care all that much.

None of this explains why my work station is in the basement of a nondescript government bunker on a death planet…. A!36. I can’t explain why I need three codes to get into my office, or why I go through five locked doors, or why I am not allowed to tell anyone what I do on pain of termination and imprisonment. 

You would assume, perhaps that I am a spy, and involved in some covert cloak and dagger espionage against other species and nations: you would be wrong.

You might assume I am a weapons developer, but you would also be wrong.

Perhaps you think I spend my time wire-tapping on important calls between species and recording important information.

None of this is really the case.

In fact, what I do is quite safe and relatively simple, plenty of other non-humans are doing it of their own accord and plenty more humans do it on a regular basis. What I do is not illegal, it is not espionage, it wouldn’t even phase you.

If that is the case.

Why do so many of my coworkers go missing?

Why are there absent desks every few months?

Why can I not make any lasting friends?

Management always give excuses to those of us who are left.

They left for mental health reasons.

THey moved on to a different job.

They are moving up in the company.

They had to be let go.

All things generic and all things that wouldn’t generally raise suspicion… unless they happen so frequently as us.

You may be wondering at this point, what it is I do for a job.

Perhaps, you think, it is very boring and unfulfilling that I would go insane from sheer boredom.

No, I actually find my job quite interesting.

Perhaps you think my job forces me to watch very disturbing and violent things…. And I suppose that could be close to the truth, though no one forces us to watch the videos if we don’t want, and no one makes us read the material if we cannot handle it. In fact, there are those of us who specialize in that sort of thing.

I do.

I am a specialist in historical xenopsychology.

I study human history.

When I say that I study human history, I do not mean as in a passing fancy. I do not simply read their school children’s textbooks and accept everything I see as truth, no, every day , I come into work and it is my job, to learn about everything that has ever happened in human history, to the best of my ability.

It is my job to know the good, the bad, the ugly, and the monstrous.

I work from day to night, cataloguing and filling my brain with all the information I can before recording it as a lecture on aura drives, which are then stored away for future use in a deep backup system under the surface of this planet.

I have followed human history since the beginning of time.

And I have marveled at it.

Much of my research is flawed, I know. Human history has always been biased, history being shaped and molded by the winners of conflict. Much of what else I know stems primarily from scholarly work humans have done on their own species, looking back the centuries and making assumptions about what they were doing.

While this is a good insite -- humans trying to explain the behavior of other humans-- it isn’t necessarily correct.

For this reason, it is my job to study every piece of information that comes across my desk.

Due to a government agreement between the galactic assembly and the United Nations of Earth, I was given access to the rebuilt library of Alexandria and all of its electronic files which include photos and information on the original documents that they keep in sealed vaults below the library.

I have read every account of human history, and every second hand interpretation of human history that I could possibly find in my time working here.

I have read Darwin and his early theory regarding evolution. I have examined his evidence, which include images and diagrams of the human body spanning centuries. My determinations were made just the same as the rest of them. Humanity was a tree-living species that found its evolutionary niche through walking and the use of opposable thumbs.

This ability to walk, in tandem with the use of hands eventually gave rise to the slow swelling of the brain in comparison to other animals. Human evolved primitive tools, and even more primitive religions, societies and rules.

They developed art early on, painting on the walls of their caves, in the darkness of night surrounded by their fires.

I have read about their befriending of animals in that same darkness. Man’s slow molding of the wolf into the dog - a species designed specifically for the needs of man.

I have attempted to read every account of every atrocity ever inflicted on humanity.

I have read of wars, and battles, Marathon, Thermopylae, Kadesh, D-day, Vietnam, Korea, Russo-Japanese, World wars I, II, III,  and IV and the Panasian War. 

I have witnessed in images and first hand accounts the chilling discoveries of natural disasters gone back thousands of years. Pompeii, Mt. St Helens, Katrina, Tsunamis, earthquakes, the fire of london, 1887 yellow river flood, the 3130 California earthquake, and Haiti earthquakes. 

And I have studied and witnessed every atrocity man has ever committed on its own people. The Mongol hordes, the crusades, Mayan and Aztec sacrifices, The Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, mustard gas, 9/11, slavery in the America, the Trail of Tears, The Bataan Death March, the Berlin wall, Civil war, the French revolution, Nanjing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I tore a hole in humanity and looked inside to see your rot. 

I study the maggots that crawl under your skin.

Don’t confuse me with someone who fears you, or is even disgusted by you. You have committed thousands of horrors, yes this is true. But humanity is not a polished gem, it is an uncut stone marred by dirt and debris, but beautiful in a way that can hardly be explained.

You scrub away the rot only to find more underneath, yet you continue to scrub, in a futile attempt to better yourselves.

It is a beautiful thing if not in vain.

I do not judge you for your crimes because I have also seen your achievements. I watched you survive  the dark ages, I learned your philosophy from the greek world which brought the beauty of democracy and equity in later forms. I watched the enlightenment of the Renaissance, and have seen your beautiful artwork from each period of time. 

I have witnessed your great nations and empires rise and fall, Assyria, Byzantine, Rome, Britain, Egypt, Mongole, Aztek, Soviet Union, The chinese Dynasties and the Communist parties. The United States, and the Asian Co-Prosperity Collective

I have seen your bravery and your loss.

I have learned about the good that walks your earth.

Humans who stood up to tyrants.

I have even examined your stories of creation, of deities who molded humans from clay or dust, watched your world come into form in seven days, or ride on the backs of giant animals. I have seen the gods gift you with fire and learned the teaching of your martyrs over the centuries. Men and women slain and stoned or pulled away by spirits. I have learned of crucifixion, death and rebirth as well as reincarnation and a return to the very fabric of the universe itself.

I see everything.

I see everything. I see it all in my dreams laid out before me like a tapestry following each woven thread through the ages. I thought if I looked back, I could know as much as I possibly could. If I dug deep enough, I would be able to see your secrets.

And I have discovered you.

I see you hiding in there.

I know what you are.

Come out, come out.

And I won’t stop until it is all over and your cities crumbled into dust and bone.

…

…

I am being called into my manager’s office. Perhaps I too am ready to go up in the company.

...

I will be back soon…

Deus 

[cruisingthedemimonde]

America’s Gay Men in WW2

World War Two was a “National Coming Out” for queer Americans.

I don’t think any other event in history changed the lives of so many of us since Rome became Christian. 

For European queers the war brought tragedy.

The queer movement began in Germany in the 1860s when trans activist Karl Ulrichs spoke before the courts to repeal Anti-Sodomy laws. From his first act of bravery the movement grew and by the 1920s Berlin had more gay bars than Manhattan did in the 1980s. Magnus Hirschfeld’s “Scientific Humanitarian Committee” fought valiantly in politics for LGBT rights and performed the first gender affirmation surgeries. They were a century ahead of the rest of the world.

The Nazis made Hirschfeld - Socialist, Homosexual and Jew - public enemy number one.

The famous image of the Nazis burning books? Those were the books of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee. Case studies of the first openly queer Europeans, histories, diaries - the first treasure trove of our history was destroyed that day.

100,000 of us were charged with felonies. As many as 15,000 were sent to the camps, about 60% were murdered.

But in America the war brought liberation.

In a country where most people never even heard the word “homosexual” , historian John D’emilio wrote the war was “conducive both to the articulation of  a homosexual identity and to the more rapid evolution of a gay subculture. (24)” The war years were “a Watershed (Eaklor 68)”

Now before we begin I need to give a caveat. The focus of this first post is not lesbians, transfolk or others in our community. Those stories have additional complexity the story of cisgender homosexual men does not. Starting with gay men lets me begin in the simplest way I can, in subsequent posts I’ll look at the rest of our community.

Twilight Aristocracy: Being Queer Before the War

I want us to go back in time and imagine the life of the typical queer American before the war. Odds are you lived on a farm and simply accepted the basic fact that you would marry and raise children as surely as you were born or would die. You would have never seen someone Out or Proud. If you did see your sexuality or gender in contrary ways you had no words to express it, odds are even your doctor had never heard the term “Homosexual. In your mind it was just a quirk, without a name or possible expression.

In the city the “Twilight Aristocracy” lived hidden, on the margins and exposed their queerness only in the most coded ways. Gay men “Dropping pins” with a handkerchief in a specific pocket. Butch women with key chains heavy enough to show she didn’t need a man to carry anything for her. A secret language of “Jockers” and “Nances” “Playing Checkers” during a night out. There is a really good article on the queer vernacular here

And these were “Lovers in a Dangerous Time.”

In public one must act as straight as possible. Two people of the same gender dancing could be prosecuted. Cross dressing, even with something as trivial as a woman wearing pants, would run afoul of obscenity laws.

The only spaces we had for ourselves were dive bars, run by organized crime. But even then one must be sure to be circumspect, and act straight. Anyone could be an undercover cop. If a gaze was held to long, or lovers kissed in a corner the bar would be raided. Police saw us as worthy candidates for abuse so beatings were common and the judge would do all he could to humiliate you.

Now Michael Foucault, the big swinging french dick of queer theory, laid out this whole theory about how the real policing in a society happens inside our heads. Ideas about sin, shame, normalcy, mental illness can all be made to control people, and the Twilight Aristocracy was no different.

While cruising a park at night, or settled on the sofa with a lifelong lover, the thoughts of Priests and Doctors haunted them. “Am I living in Sin? Am I someone God could love?” “Is this healthy? Have I gone mad? Is this a true love or a medical condition which requires cure?”

There was no voice in America yet healing our self doubt, or demanding the world accept us as we are. And that voice, the socialist Harry Hay, did not come during the war, but it would come shortly after directly because of it.

Johnny Get Your Gun… And are you now or ever been a Homosexual?

For the first time in their lives millions of young men crossed thousands of miles from their home to the front.

But before they made that brave journey they had another, unexpected and often torturous journey. The one across the doctor’s office at a recruiting station.

In the nineteenth century queerness moved from an act, “Forgive me Father I have sinned, I kissed another man” to something you are, “The homosexual subspecies can be identified by certain physical and psychological signs.” 

These were the glory days of patriarchy and white supremacy, those who transgressed the line between masculine and feminine called the whole culture into question. So doctors obsessed themselves with queerness, its origins, its signs, its so called catastrophic racial consequences and its cure.

“Are you a homosexual?” doctors asked stunned recruits. 

If you were closeted but patriotic, you would of course deny the accusation. But the doctor would continue his examination by checking if you were a “Real Man.”

“Do you have a girlfriend? Did you like playing sports as a kid?”

If you passed that, the doctor would often try and trip you up by asking about your culture.

“Do you ever go basketeering?” he would ask, remembering to check if there was any lisp or effeminacy in your voice.

Finally if the doctor felt like it he could examine your body to see if you were a member of the homosexual subspecies. 

Your gag reflex would be tested with a tongue depressor. Another hole could be carefully examined as well.

Humiliating enough for a straight man. But for a gay recruit the consequences could be life threatening.

Medical authorities knew homosexuals were weak, criminal and mad. To place them among the troops would weaken unit cohesion at the very least, result in treachery at the worst. In civilian life doctors had much the same thing to say. 

The recruit needed a cure. And a doctor was always ready. With talk therapy, hypnosis, drugs, electroshock and forced surgeries of the worst kinds there was always a cure ready at hand.

Thankfully the doctors were not successful in their task, one doctor wrote “for every homosexual who was referred or came to the Medical Department, there  were five or ten who never were detected. (d’Emilio 25)”

Here’s the irony though, by asking such pointed and direct questions to people closeted to themselves it forced them to confront their sexuality for the first time. 

Hegarty writes, “As a result of the screening policies, homosexuality became part of wartime discourse. Questions about homosexual desire and behavior ensured that every man inducted into the armed forces had to confront the possibility of homosexual feelings or experiences. This was a kind of massive public education about homosexuality. Despite—and be-cause of—the attempts to eliminate homosexuals from the military, men with same-sex desires learned that there were many people like themselves (Hegarty 180)”

And then it gave them a golden opportunity to have fun.

The 101st Airborn - Homosocial and Homosexual

“Homosocial” refers to a gender segregated space. And they were often havens for gay men. The YMCA for example really was a place for young gay men to meet.

Now the government was already aware of the kind of scandalous sexual behaviour young men can get up to when left to themselves. Two major government programs before the war, the Federal Transient Program and the Civilian Conservation Corps focused on unattached young men, but over time these spaces became highly suspect and the focus shifted to helping family men so as to avoid giving government aid to ‘sexual perversion’ in these homosocial spaces.

But with the war on there was no choice but to put hundreds of thousands of young men in their own world. All male boot camps, all male bases, all male front lines. 

The emotional intensity broke down the barriers between men and the strict enforcement of gendered norms.

On the front the men had no girlfriend, wife or mother to confide in. The soldier’s body was strong and heroic but also fragile. Straight men held each other in foxholes and shared their emotional vulnerability to each other. Gender lines began to blur as straight men danced together in bars an action that would result in arrest in many American cities.

Bronski writes, “Men were now more able to be emotional, express their feelings, and even cry. The stereotypical “strong, silent type,” quintessentially heterosexual, that had characterized the American Man had been replaced with a new, sensitive man who had many of the qualities of the homosexual male. (Bronski 152)”

Homosexual men discovered in this environment new freedoms to get close to one another without arousing suspicion.

“Though the military  officially maintained an anti-homosexual stance, wartime conditions nonetheless offered a protective covering that facilitated interaction  among gay men (d’Emilio 26)”

Bob Ruffing, a chief petty officer in the Navy described this freedom as follows, ‘When I first got into the navy—in the recreation hall, for instance— there’d be  eye contact, and pretty soon you’d get to know one or two people and kept branching out. All of a sudden you had a vast network of friends, usually through  this eye contact thing, some through outright cruising. They could get away with  it in that atmosphere. (d’Emilio 26) ”

Another wrote about their experience serving in the navy in San Diego, “‘Oh, these are more my kind of people.’ We became very chummy, quite close, very fraternal, very protective of each other. (Hegarty 180)”

Some spaces within the army became queer as well. The USO put on shows for soldiers, and since they could not find women to play parts, the men often dressed in drag. “impersonation. For actors and audiences, these performances were a needed relief from the stress of war. For men who identified as homosexual, these shows were a place where they could, in coded terms, express their sexual desires, be visible, and build a community. (Bronski 148)”

“Here you see three lovely “girls”

 With their plastic shapes and curls.

 Isn’t it campy? Isn’t it campy?

 We’ve got glamour and that’s no lie;

 Can’t you tell when we swish by?

 Isn’t it campy? Isn’t it campy?”

The words camp and swish being used in the gay subculture and connected to effeminate gay men.

I would have to assume, more than a few transwomen gravitated to these spaces as well.

Even the battlefield itself provided opportunities for gay fraternization. A beach in Guam for example became a secret just for the gay troops, they called it Purple Beach Number 2, after a perfume brand.

This homoerotic space was not confined to the military, but spilled out into civilian life as well.

Donald Vining was a pacifist who stated bluntly his homosexuality to the recruitment board as his mother needed his work earnings, and if you wanted be a conscientious objector you had to apply to go to an objector’s camp. He became something of a soldier chaser, working in the local YMCA and volunteering at the soldier’s canteen in New York he hooked up with soldiers still closeted for a night of passion but many more who were open about who they were. 

After the war he was left with a network of gay friends and a strong sense of belonging to a community. It was dangerous tho, he was victim of robberies he could not report because they happened during hook ups, but police were always ready to raid gay bars when they were bored. “It was obvious that [the police] just had to make a few arrests to look busy,” he protested in his diary.  “It was a travesty of justice and the workings of the police department (d’Emilio 30).״

Now it might seem odd he was able to plug into a community like that, but over the war underground gay bars appeared across the country for their new clientele. Even the isolated Worcester Mass got a gay bar.

African American men, barred from combat on the front lines, were not entirely barred from the gay subculture in the cities. For example in Harlem the jazz bar Lucky Rendevous was reported in Ebony as whites and blacks “steeped in the swish jargon of its many lavender costumers. (Bronski 149)”

The Other War: Facing Homophobia

“For homosexual soldiers, induction into the military forced a sudden confrontation with their sexuality that highlighted the stigma attached to it and kept  it  a  matter  of special  concern (d’Emilio 25)”

“They were fighting two wars: one for America, democracy, and freedom; the other for their own survival as homosexuals within the military organization. (Eaklor 68)”

Once they were in, they fell under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: “Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.”

Penalties could include five years hard labour, forced institutionalization or fall under the dreaded Section 8 discharge, a stamp of mental instability that would prevent you from finding meaningful employment in civilian life.

Even if one wanted nothing to do with fulfilling their desires it was still essential to become hyper aware of your presentation and behaviour in order to avoid suspicion.

Coming Home to Gay Ghettos

“The veterans of World War II were the first generation of gay men and women to experience such rapid, dramatic, and widespread changes in their lives as homosexuals. Bronski 154”

After the war many queer servicemen went on to live conventionally heterosexual lives. But many more returned to a much queerer life stateside.

Bob Ruffing would settle down in San Francisco. The city has always been a safe harbour for queer Americans, made more so as ex servicemen gravitated to its liberated atmosphere. The port cities of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles became the prime destinations to settle. Vining’s partner joined him in New York, where they both immersed themselves in the gay culture.

Other soldiers moved to specific neighborhoods known for having small gay communities. San Francisco’s North Beach, the west side of Boston’s Beacon Hill, or New York’s Greenwich Village. Following the war the gay populations of these cities increased dramatically.

The cities offered parks, coffee houses and bars which became queer spaces. And drag performance, music and comedy became features of this culture.

These veterans also founded organizations just for the queer soldiers. In Los Angeles the Knights of the Clock provided a space for same sex inter racial couples. In New York the Veterans Benevolent Association would often see 400-500 homosexuals appear at its events.

A number of books bluntly explored homosexuality following the war, such as The Invisible Glass which tells the story of an inter racial couple in Italy, 

“With a slight moan Chick rolled onto his left side, toward the Lieutenant. His finger sought those of the officer’s as they entwined their legs. Their faces met. The breaths, smelling sweet from wine, came in heavy drawn sighs. La Cava grasped the soldier by his waist and drew him tightly to his body. His mouth pressed down until he felt Chick’s lips part. For a moment they lay quietly, holding one another with strained arms.”

Others like Gore Vidal’s The City and the Pillar (1948), Fritz Peters’s The World Next Door (1949), and James Barr’s Quatrefoil (1950) explored similar themes.

In 1948 the Kinsey Report would create a public firestorm by arguing that homosexuality is shockingly common. In 1950 The Mattachine Society, a secretive group of homosexual Stalinists launched America’s LGBT movement.

References:

Michael Bronski “A Queer History of the United States”

John D’emilio “Coming Out Under Fire”

Vivki L Eaklor “Queer America: A GLBT History of America”

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

The Lesbians

In 1947 General Eisenhower told a purple heart winning Sargeant Johhnie Phelps, “It's come to my attention that there are lesbians in the WACs, we need to ferret them out”.

Phelps replied, “"If the General pleases, sir, I'll be happy to do that, but the first name on the list will be mine."

Eisenhower’s secretary added “"If the General pleases, sir, my name will be first and hers will be second."

Join me again May 17 to hear the story of America’s Lesbians during the war.

[xxgoblin-dumplingxx]

All the Way Down: One

Thor stopped at the edge of the woods and leaned against a tree. In the distance, he could hear the sound of a forge. 

One that he’d called home, however briefly. However long ago.

But now? He was a king without a country. He had a people in need of refuge. But no country to house them. And… He needed a friend. Someone who might be able to tell him where to go. 

Or what to do. 

But. How would he know if he was going to be welcome?

He supposed not getting a battle axe or a dagger to the chest was a good place to start. And so he took a deep breath. He could see the activity in the manor house and the yard beyond. And he wondered if it was you, or your father Trebuchet in the forge. 

The last time he’d been here, it had been Trebuchet. The old smith had looked at him with knowing eyes and told him. A prince of all people that he could sleep in the hay loft. And that if he came anywhere near his daughter he would personally remove his balls and have them bronzed. 

He snorted and headed slowly across the yard. 

For good or for ill, he was here. And now? It was time to face the music. 

Thor stopped, just inside the forge and watched the woman working the billows. Streaked with soot and sweat. Her hair was escaping from its bonds and curling from the heat. And her eyes reflected the flames. And for a moment, Thor couldn’t breathe. 

It had been two centuries and nothing had changed. 

She looked exactly as she had when he left. Except perhaps… more wise. Her eyes held a light that didn’t shimmer. But glowed softly. 

“Y/N?” Thor said softly. 

You hadn’t given an indication that you knew he was there, continuing to work the blade you were shaping. But at his voice, your head snapped up, eyes narrowed. 

“Odinson,” you say warningly, brandishing your hammer in your left hand. 

Thor holds his hands out placatingly, “I’m not here to fight,” he said.

“Too bad,” you growl starting forward, a still hot blade in one hand and your hammer in the other. 

“Y/N,” Thor siad backing up. He didn’t want to fight with you. He truely didn’t. Your entire life was weaponry. And he didn’t doubt that it would be difficult to disarm you without hurting you. Or getting hurt himself.

“How dare you come back here,” you hiss. “You were a monster. You were terrorizing our villagers. We broke your curse. And you repaid me by what? Taking my maidenhead and going home?”

Thor froze. He hadn’t realized. He had never even considered that he might have been your first lover. Or that you might be long married with a husband who wouldn’t  take kindly to his reapperance.  “I’m sorry,” he managed after a moment, through bloodless lips. Thor loved women. Women were magical creatures in their own right and the thought that his actions might have hurt one in someway… He was appalled. 

“Oh, you’re sorry,” you scoff, brandishing a still hot blade. 

“I am,” Thor said, kneeling, hands out, as he leaned stormbreaker against a wall. “I never meant to hurt you. When you came to me I thought- I thought that you had done this before.”

“You told me that you love me,” you spit at him. But through the fury, he can see the hurt, lurking . Squatting like a toad in your chest. 

“I did- I still do,” he said. “And I’ve missed you.”

“You’ve changed, Thor,” you murmur.

“I have,” he answered, smiling sadly. “And I just- This is the closest place I have to home. Now that Asgard is gone. And mother and father.”

You lower the blade and toss it onto the work table and Thor smiles a little. Even in your fury you could never kick a man while he was down. That hadn’t changed. “I hadn’t heard,” you tell him, “I’m sorry.”

“Thank you,” he said softly, accepting a hand off the ground. It was the same he remembered. Strong and capable. Work roughened with callouses and old scars. 

Thor took your hand and brushed his lips across the back of your hand, “Still no needle point, my lady?”

“Father would haunt me,” you snort. 

“Haunt you?” Thor said softly. 

“He died, not long after you left us… Though not before-”

“Not before he found out that we’d been lovers,” Thor finished, cringing. 

“He was furious but… Thankful enough it didn’t result in a child.”

Thor exhaled slowly and kissed your hand again. “Did you never marry?”

You laugh and shake your head, “No one would have me after you were done with me.”

Thor cringed again and took a deep breath, “I’m sorry.”

You shake your head, “There was a certain freedom in being unmarrigable,” you tell him. “It meant that I was free to care for the old man. And carry on his work.”

“What of your dreams?”

“This is all I ever wanted,” you tell him. “To protect the manor. And the people who call it home… And to perhaps be a beloved Auntie to my sisters’ children.”

Thor beamed, “Oh, I’m sure you’ve accomplished that.”

“Much to Maggie’s chagrin,” you answer over your shoulder as you go to stoke up the fire in the forge once more.

He didn’t question if you got lonely. Or if you missed having a man to warm your bed. You were passionate. Even in your inexperience. And he could imagine that you’d be more so now. Now that you had had the freedom to be on your own and to live by your own rules. Without the pressure of being a model of proper courtly behavior. He knew that you probably did. And that you had probably taken other lovers. But for the moment, all he wanted to do was watch you work. To admire the musculature of your arms and back. The focus. The artistry. 

The craft of a blade being forged from raw metal. It was a pleasure all it’s own. And, not for the first time, he wondered what part you had played in forging him into who he was meant to be.

[yinxyanq]

Back and forth, Naressa kept dwelling on how to approach the board members about her case, walking up and down, with her mind tangled. She glanced down at the time, sighing as the time neared, and with the meeting around the corner, she felt like a kid again. Her mind travelled to a different time, and she saw her father’s face...

“Nene, que haces? Por que no te mueves, mi hija?” Nando walked over to a young Naressa as she stood backstage, hyperventilating. “Respira, cariño...” He kneeled down next to her, rubbing her back gently. “Breathe in, 1... 2... 3... And out... 2... 3...” The pair began their breathing exercises, and the heart that once wanted to jump out of little Naressa’s chest slowed down...

“In... Out...” Naressa took her deep breathes trying to calm herself, eyes closed, focused on the memory of her childhood. A knock on the door snapped her out of it, and she looked up at her reflection in the mirror. “One moment!” Naressa turned off the tap that had been left running when she zoned out, before composing herself. “Para ti, papi.” She whispered to herself as she looked in the mirror a last time then she headed out, face held high as if she had it in the bag.

When Naressa walked into the room, she glanced over the room taking in the faces of the people who held the fate of her family's legacy in their hands, before breathing in slowly. The noise was blocked out when it was her turn to speak, and as she sat on her seat, it was as if she could not feel her own body, as if her heart had dropped and only she could save it with her plea.

"Good afternoon. As you know, my recent behavior has brought us to this stage and I very much appreciate your understanding and willingness to hear my plea... I want to first apologise to everyone present, as there are no excuses for my disregard for the company's established image, and so with that, I want to take responsibility and assure you that I have learned from my mistake. In hindsight, my behavior was distasteful, not due to my clothing, but how I carried myself thereafter. Though not in accordance to traditional wear... Gentlemen, it's the 21st century and we must not forget that we must reflect the times." Clearing her throat, she half smiled trying to pretend she did not feel awkward about her stance. "I advocate for my placement as the head of Nunez pipelines in my father's stead, and instead of pleading without reason, I will tell you that what you see as a mistake is exactly why I should be the first considered for his replacement."

With the nerves kicking in, Naressa stood up to her feet and perfected her posture, wanting to come across as assertive as possible. "With times changing, this company cannot continue to reflect itself as backwards and outdated, but instead, if it so is to sustain itself through the times that come and go, it has to match the present, and that is showing that a woman who is a feminist and confident can be accepted without being penalised in a way that will diminish her position. By deliberately ruling out the Nunez family due to such a simple thing as choice of clothing, you have showed that the company believes that women are reduced to their appearance rather than their ability."

A sly dry chuckle escaped her, as she knew she would either be crucified or celebrated. But when it came down to it, she had nothing to lose. Naressa began to walk as she spoke, ensuring eye contact with every single member as she continued to deliver her stand point. "I am a confident, independent, proactive person, who prides herself in the legacy of what my family has created, and even so, I cannot ignore that we have failed to evolve in some areas, and with that, I would put to use all my skills to ensure we keep going forth. There were concerns about stability and lack of knowledge on my part, and here I assure you that you could not find a more determined person than the person whose family's name lies on the line, this company is personal to me in a way that it won't be to any other candidate you may consider."

"My misstep in your eyes was but a highlight to our misstep as a company. What you penalise me for now is a reflection of your rejection of progression. For this, the world will penalise you for your shortcomings should you proceed to fuel a patriarchal system that is outdated and degrading to the women of this industry." As she settled back down, Naressa sighed, almost relieved she had gotten out the most of it. "The truth is, gentlemen, you need me. You need someone who will not fear going against tradition, and that will prolong the sustainability of this company. You need Naressa Nunez, because the future is female. Because the future will not care for the conservative approach to dressing, but instead what we can do for the world, what we can do for progression. So, with that, I plead the board comes to its senses for the sake of salvaging this company... Nunez Pipelines without a Nunez will just not last, because we, the Nunez, are the heart of the foundations that keep this going."

@biqpapa​ @vvlegacy

[sexytiime]

I was looking at books on Marxism + Feminism online and came across the book:

Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Toward a Unitary Theory

A woman named Susan Rosenthal wrote this 3-star review. I just skimmed it and wanted to share here to see people’s thoughts. I have not read the book myself but I am curious about this review.

“Takes us down the wrong road”

Reviewed in the United States on March 15, 2014

Can marxism guide us in our struggle against women's oppression? In her preface to "Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Toward a Unitary Theory," Lise Vogel acknowledges the value of marxist theory:

"I remain convinced that the revival of Marxist theory, not the construction of some socialist-feminist synthesis, offers the best chance to provide theoretical guidance in the coming battles for the liberation of women". (p.ix)

At the same time, she argues,

"...that the socialist tradition is deeply flawed, that it has never adequately addressed the question of women..." (p.2)

These two statements reveal the strength and weakness of Vogel's book.

The book's strength lies in its marxist analysis of the labor necessary to reproduce the working class, the portion of that labor performed by women in the home, and the role of men in the sexual division of labor.

The book's weakness lies in its description of how capitalism organizes reproduction as a "system of male domination." With this description, Vogel retains the core of capitalist (bourgeois) feminism, that the liberation of women requires a cross-class women's movement organized separately from men.

Ferguson and McNally's 24-page Introduction supports Vogel's concept of a "male-dominant gender-order."

"It is not biology per se that dictates women's oppression; but rather, capital's dependence upon biological processes specific to women - pregnancy, childbirth, lactation - to secure the reproduction of the working class. It is this that induces capital and its state to control and regulate female reproduction and which impels them to reinforce a male-dominant gender-order. And this social fact, connected to biological difference, comprises the foundation upon which women's oppression is organized in capitalist society." (p. xxix)

Dishonest

To support her position, Vogel refers to the writings of 19th and early 20th century socialists. She quotes August Bebel, "women should expect as little help from the men as working men do from the capitalist class," and Eleanor Marx and Edward Aveling in The Woman Question,

"Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers." (p. 108)

She concludes that "the idea that women's situation parallels that of workers suggests a strategy of parallel social struggles for freedom" (p. 108).

This entire section is dishonest. Vogel ignores Bebel's description of upper-and-middle-class women and working-class women as "enemy sisters," and his explicit recommendation against women in antagonistic classes organizing together, except for united-front actions that benefit all women.(1)

Vogel also disregards Eleanor Marx, who could not be more clear on the matter:

"For us there is no more a `women's question' from the bourgeois standpoint than there is a men's question. Where the bourgeois women demand rights that are of help to us too, we will fight together with them, just as the men of our class did not reject the right to vote because it came from the bourgeois class. We too will not reject any benefit, gained by the bourgeois women in their own interests, which they provide us willingly or unwillingly. We accept these benefits as weapons, weapons that enable us to fight better on the side of our working-class brothers. We are not women arrayed in struggle against men but workers who are in struggle against the exploiters."(2)

In other words, socialists do not counter-pose women's liberation to the needs of the revolution; we use women's liberation to achieve the revolution.

Class matters

Vogel describes, but does not seem to understand, Clara Zetkin's class-based approach to women's liberation which is that all women are oppressed, but not all women have the same interest in ending capitalism. Women in the capitalist class are denied "free and independent control over their property," a condition that can be remedied by legal equality under capitalism.

In the middle and professional classes, women strive for equal access to education and employment compared with the men of their class. They call on capitalism to fulfill its pledge to promote free competition in every arena, including between women and men. These women form what is commonly called the `bourgeois' women's movement because they limit their demands to legal reforms.

Working-class women also seek legal equality with the men of their class, but such equality would only mean the right to equal exploitation. The liberation of working-class women requires an end to labor exploitation, and that can be achieved only by uniting with working-class men.

Theoretically and practically, the question of women's liberation peaks during the Russian Revolution. Vogel describes Lenin's emphasis on the importance of freeing women from "domestic slavery" so they could participate fully in the revolutionary transformation of Russian society. Achieving this required a two-fold process: socializing domestic labor and engaging men in housework. The latter required a systematic campaign against male chauvinism. Could such a campaign succeed?

Vogel observes that the capitalist system pays men more so they can support child-bearing women in individual family units. She concludes that this creates a system of male domination, or patriarchy. She writes,

"a material basis for male supremacy is constituted within the proletarian household... [providing] a continuing foundation for male supremacy in the working-class family." (p.88)

Vogel neglects to mention that the higher male wage comes with a price. `Family obligations' tie men to jobs they might otherwise leave. Men are legally bound to support women and children, even after they have left their families and formed new ones. And "dead-beat dads" can be imprisoned for not paying child support.

The key question is whether putting men in a financially-dominant position requires them to personally dominate their homes. The one does not automatically follow from the other. A superior financial position does not create male domination in the family, it only creates the opportunity for it.

Individual men can choose what to believe and how to treat others. Some men take advantage of their financial position to dominate women and children. Others do not. Consequently, the sexual division of labor under capitalism does not qualify as a system of male domination over women that can be compared to the system of capitalist domination over workers. The antagonism between women and men can be eliminated by re-organizing society. The antagonism between capital and labor is irreconcilable. As long as capital exists, labor will be exploited.

A system of sexism

Some socialists argue that "the current use of the term patriarchy...merely describes a system of sexism."(3) We certainly do suffer a system of sexism; every woman can testify to that. However, patriarchy implies a system of domination by men, while a system of sexism implies that society is dominated by sexist ideology. The difference is important.

A system of male domination implies that all men benefit from the oppression of women, whether they choose this or not. A system of sexist ideology allows individual men (and individual women) to choose whether to adopt or reject sexist beliefs and behaviors.

The failure to distinguish between individual interests and class interests lies at the heart of the debate over whether men benefit from women's oppression and whether women should organize separately from men.

The working class can never achieve socialism unless most women fight for it. Therefore, as a class, working-class men cannot benefit from women's oppression. However, the system of sexist ideas gives individual men the opportunity to do so. Some men embrace this opportunity; other men reject it.

Capitalism pressures all workers to abandon their class interests for the promise of personal gain. White workers can take advantage of Black oppression to advance themselves, or they can choose to fight racism. Individual workers can accept management bribes to get ahead, or they can choose to join a union, and so on.

Male superiority is the booby prize that capitalism offers men to sweeten the bitter taste of class exploitation. As Vogel notes,

"The ruling class, in order to stabilize the reproduction of labor power as well as to keep the amount of necessary labor at acceptable levels, encourages male supremacy within the exploited class. "(p.153)

While capitalism "encourages male supremacy," many men reject this role because it hurts the women they love, and it blocks them from enjoying egalitarian, cooperative relationships.

The individual man has no choice about whether or not the women in his life are oppressed; capitalism ensures that they are. However, individual men can choose either to take advantage of women's oppression or to share the burdens of the home and join the fight to socialize domestic labor.

Class comes first

The socialist challenge is to convince working-class men to put their class interests first, to convince them that whatever benefits they gain from women's oppression pale in comparison with the benefits they could have by rejecting sexism and fighting alongside women to end capitalism and all of its oppressions.

In contrast, Vogel, Ferguson and McNally offer a pseudo-marxist argument for a cross-class movement of women organized separately from men. This concession to bourgeois feminism betrays the interests of working-class women.

Any mixed-class movement of women must betray its working-class members. When working-class women demand socialized childcare, their privileged sisters moan about paying higher taxes. When working-class women demand more pay, their privileged sisters oppose the rising cost of hired help. The only `feminism' that can liberate all classes of women is the `feminism' that is based on the goals of the working class.

As Lenin argued with the Jewish Bund, advocating the right of oppressed groups to organize independently is different from promoting independent organization on principle. As a tactic, independent organization can advance the struggle against oppression within the working-class. As a principle, the independent organization of women deepens antagonisms between men and women and undermines working-class unity.

If the goal of this book was "to provide theoretical guidance in the coming battles for the liberation of women," then it takes us down the wrong road. To argue that women must organize separately from men is pessimistic and self-defeating. As Vogel documents, both women's oppression and men's role in this oppression are rooted in capitalism. Therefore, only a united working-class fight can uproot it.

There is nothing flawed or lacking in the socialist tradition of women's liberation; it simply does not meet the needs of privileged women who seek to end their own oppression without destroying the class system that enslaves their working-class sisters.

The value of Vogel's book lies in her confirmation that the sexual division of labor, male-female relations, and existing family structures are not based on biology but on the particular historical form that capitalism has chosen in order to ensure the reproduction of the working class. While not original, this hopeful message is worth repeating:

No biological barriers prevent women and men from working together to reshape the world to meet their needs. Only capitalism stands in the way.

Notes

1. Cited in Draper, H. (2011). Women and Class: Towards a Socialist Feminism. Center for Socialist History, pp.234-5.

2. Cited in Draper, H. (2011). Women and Class: Towards a Socialist Feminism. Center for Socialist History, pp.287.

3. Marxism, feminism and women's liberation, Sharon Smith, Socialist Worker, January 31, 2013.