#to a lot of the inclusivity it purports

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

On Wednesday, a Montana judge blocked the state from enforcing a bathroom ban targeting transgender and intersex adults, which would have barred them from accessing many public restrooms. The bill—one of the first major anti-trans measures to receive a hearing in any state this year—passed the Montana House of Representatives on a party-line 58–42 vote earlier this year and was signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte on March 27. It faced intense opposition during hearings, including concerns about its direct impact on the state’s two transgender legislators, Representatives SJ Howell and Zooey Zephyr. Now, the law cannot be enforced, with the judge ruling that it was driven by anti-transgender animus and that the state failed to provide evidence it would achieve its stated goal of “protecting women.” “Decisions about how to express a person’s gender identity are personal and private, as is information about a person’s transgender or intersex status, anatomy, genetics, and medical history,” said the judge. “The Act fails strict scrutiny because it is motivated by animus and supported by no evidence that its restrictions advance its purported purpose to protect women’s safety and privacy.” The judge also ruled that the ban relied on an unscientific definition of sex that effectively barred intersex people from using any bathroom at all: “Under the Act, however, transgender people cannot use sex-separated facilities that correspond with their gender identity and intersex people cannot use sex-separated facilities at all.” House Bill 121 bans transgender people from using restrooms that align with their gender identity in all “public buildings,” broadly defined as any facility “owned or leased by a public agency.” This sweeping definition includes rest stops, public colleges and universities, schools, libraries, museums, state airports, publicly owned hospitals, park restrooms, and more. The law went into effect immediately upon Governor Greg Gianforte’s signature, forcing many transgender people across the state out of public restrooms overnight. Some state-owned or funded institutions, including the University of Montana in Missoula, quickly began complying with the law. The university removed gender-inclusive bathroom signage and relabeled them as male and female. The signs were taken down by student activists. University spokesperson Dave Kuntz acknowledged the charged emotions around the issue, stating, “We understand that emotions are charged around this issue, we have a lot of students who are frustrated by this law, we also have a lot who support this law.” Despite that claim, the student lobbyist for the Associated Students of the University of Montana, Hope Morrison, testified against the bill earlier this year, citing campus surveys showing strong support for equal rights for transgender students. Now, they will be blocked from enforcing the bill, with the judge ruling, “[the state] and their agents, employees, representatives, and successors are temporarily restrained and enjoined from enforcing the act, directly or indirectly.”

Good news: Montana’s transphobic bathroom ban bill HB121 got blocked by a Montana judge.

[coochiequeens]

They all have he/him on their lanyards and it’s extremely clear they identify as men and are here to take opportunities away from the actual women and [non-binary] attendees.”

By Reduxx Team September 28, 2023

A major networking conference focused on centering women in computing is facing backlash from some participants after a flood of males were allowed to attend, reportedly due to the event’s inclusivity policies.

Created in 1994 and inspired by the legacy of Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, the AnitaB.org Grace Hopper Celebration purports to “bring the research and career interests of women in computing to the forefront.” While the conference was historically focused on women, recent developments in its gender inclusivity policy saw its branding open up to “non-binary” participants as well.

In its most recent Press Release on the conference, AnitaB.org deemed it “the world’s largest gathering of women and non-binary technologists.”

But the week-long conference, which costs $650 to attend for students and academics but over $1,200 for the general public, is facing heat this year after some female attendees noticed a “significant number of men” attending the event.

In a now-scrubbed Change.org petition, one female attendee calls on the Grace Hopper Committee (GHC) to provide women who purchased the pricy tickets a full refund, and commit to banning men in the future.

“GHC (2023) is named after our pioneering female programmers, who have paved the way for gender equality within the tech industry. This event was established with the intention of empowering women by creating a safe space where they can connect, learn, and thrive. However, by allowing men to participate, GHC fails to uphold its own mission,” petitioner Agnes Lu wrote in the description.

The petition was uploaded on September 26, but deleted on September 27. A cached version of the page shows that it had collected over 2,700 signatures in the 24 hours it had been active. The reasons for removal are currently unknown.

Similar sentiment was shared on Reddit as a conference attendee posted “why are there so many men at Grace Hopper?”

Posted two days ago, the user wrote: “I’m seeing entire groups of just men, at a conference that’s sole purpose is to give opportunities to WOMEN and non-binary individuals in a male dominated field. I attended last year and did not [see] any male identifying student attendees. This is genuinely infuriating.”

The user goes on to articulate in the replies that there are a limited number of networking slots available and internships are fiercely competitive.

Like in the petition, the user claimed there was an obvious discernible difference between males and “non-binary” individuals, an issue that quickly became a point of contention in the comments.

“They could just be non-binary, gender queer, etc, or that could just be men trying to get a leg up. No way to know,” one user wrote in response, to which the original poster replied: “They all have he/him on their lanyards and it’s extremely clear they identify as men and are here to take opportunities away from the actual women and [non-binary] attendees.”

But the attempted defense was quickly undermined, with some users calling the original poster a “TERF” for failing to include gender-diverse non-binary people.

“Nonbinaries, including he/him nonbinaries, belong at grace hopper and are welcome there. TERFs like you are the ones who shouldn’t be there,” one comment reads.

“Lots of NB go as he/him. The only way you could possibly know is if you asked them,” another claimed.

On X (formerly Twitter), users debated how males could be “gate-kept” from the conference without being exclusionary, to which few solutions were provided.

The conference was held in Orlando this year, in tradition with previous years, but has announced it will relocate for the next iteration due to changes to recent state legislation regarding LGBT people.

In a statement on their site, AnitaB.org claims that Florida has introduced an “onslaught of legislation that not only devalues women and non-binary people and, at the intersections, those who live as members of the LGBTQIA+ community but is also aimed at erasing Black history.” It states that the 2024 conference is being arranged to be held in another location.

One of the featured speakers this year was trans-identified male Sasha Costanza-Chock, who describes himself as a “researcher and designer who works to support community-led processes that build shared power, dismantle the matrix of domination, and advance ecological survival.”

Costanza-Chock spoke on a panel with Alejandra Caraballo, a trans-identified male attorney, on the “Intersection of Tech and Social Justice.” The panel was described as “diving into the critical intersection of technology and social equity and explore how technology can inadvertently become a barrier for underserved groups.”

[thebreakfastgenie]

I can tell a lot of the "zero COVID" people online are not serious because they're so attached to the word "pandemic." If you are trying to advocate for people who are immune-compromised, you should know that endemic viruses are very serious for immune-compromised people! Influenza and even the common cold have made immune-compromised people extremely isolated for their own safety forever. If you've ever been immune-compromised or loved someone who was you know this! "Endemic" does not mean "not serious." I think advocacy for public health policies that take the needs of immune-compromised people into account is important, especially now that technology (including a lot of advances that happened during COVID) provides us with more options to balance inclusivity and safety. That's why it's so frustrating when I see content online that purports to be doing that and just isn't!

[meikuree]

FINALLY someone who didn't 100% love BES. I did enjoy some of it but I lean on the "disliked it on the whole" side and it's been so weird seeing everyone praise it to high heavens. I take it that you enjoyed it more than I did (I did not like a lot of the 3D visuals, unfortunately, so the visuals don't really redeem it for me), but I'd love to see some balanced takes from you anyway <3

anon, you're in good company! honestly i've been baffled by the blandly, one-note positive reception to this (30% of my grief has to do with BES's base story, and 70% has to do with uncritical fannish responses), because... to be uncharitable... I have some big problems with its construction. feel free to come off anon and kvetch in my DMs if you want, I'll probably share your sentiments. sorry for how long i've taken to answer this!

to be fair the show does some things right and I think its achievements/innovations in art style and animation are to be lauded; I'm not going to speak over that when I'm not an expert on animation or media theory, but it's a bad sign when praise about any media amounts to "well, it looks pretty" or hinges so heavily on its aesthetics. to be extremely clear this doesn't fully apply to BES, because it does have deft character work, compelling characters, and some impressive cinematic instantiation/inhabitation with its attention to setting and detail -- i was pleasantly surprised by the inclusion of deets like yaki-ire etc etc. -- but even on its purported selling points of japanese historicity and nuanced narratives about race, sexuality, gender, revenge, etc. I think it fails. it has glaring blindspots.

tldr: BES suffers from some (white) american/french narratorial sensibilities that kneecap the full potential of its story

or: BES pinged as an insufferably american and/or ahistorical rendition of its japanese building-blocks to me in some ways

it's probably just a case of misaimed audiences, and This Show Not Being For Me, but I've been baffled by:

how seamlessly some scenes around sex work and brothels and eroticism in this show slide in with orientalist tropes about japan being the Weird Sex and Kinky country despite the japanese-american creator at its helm, who's also spoken out against tropes like that -- until a buddy gave some context that those undertones seem to have been inspired by bande dessinées (french comics) with not-unsimilar tropes that may have been transplanted carelessly into BES by the studio

and this is what I mean by 'american/french' sensibilities -- I don't mean american/french in the most skin-deep representational sense, as in the studio that made it is an american-french one or whatever, as 'representation' is too often conceived on tumblr to be limited to, but on the deeper epistemological level of its worldview, frameworks of sexuality/race, and the cultural terrain it's working off or conversing with. BES includes storylines/arcs/even mawkish dialogue far more reminiscent of those in american cartoons. which is not an issue except of one of taste, but fannish responses holding it up as a groundbreaking commentary on race are orbiting a different universe imo

more egregiously it sustains overtones of that american favourite about the grand, Super Existential! Super Inevitable! and intrinsic clash of Cultures and Civilisations with a big C (a highly discredited idea in critical academic circles now, thankfully, no thanks to samuel p. huntington)

I almost wish the show had maintained a greater separation from IRL analogues or just invented a fresh fantasy universe because why set it in edo-era japan if you're not going to engage with the sociocultural norms, or narratorial traditions of that era

see: literary genres around jitsuroku (revenge narratives), how revenge would have been treated as a tool of sociocultural legitimisation then, the apparent forgettance of the entire history of nanban trade and the fact that japan as a geographical entity was not technically ethnically homogeneous, or only homogeneous from a hegemonic pov, given the existence of the ainu, the kingdom of ryukyu, and northern communities of hokkaido although tbf japan's borders probably didn't include them

i was hoping for an internal critique of or just more nuance about the 'japan = ethnically homogenous' narrative in the show and was more disappointed as it went on -- imo it's a narrative often most stridently parroted by the japanese government for nation-building interests and by others to avoid interrogations of the actual complexity of striations, divisions, etc in japan e.g. with burakumin (lower-'caste'* peoples)

* note: caste is an imperfect and not fully accurate descriptor

a significant part of my ire is reserved for the handling of 'whiteness' in this show although it's mostly hand-wringing over the complexity of intended audiences in this show, which might not be fair to blame on the creators; yes, whiteness is foreign and Other and bad, but what about the material and historical precursors that gave rise to that Otherness in the first place, where are they?; and look! whiteness is demonised; but the cartoon's being released in the USA and europe. it's certainly true that japan is institutionally hostile to foreigners and xenophobic, kudos for depicting the politics of that, but BES's american audiences mean i'm ambivalent about its in-universe premise that what is in fact an oft-fetishised trait in mixed race children (blue eyes) is bad (and the show's aesthetics don't support it; mizu's eyes are portrayed in the most beautiful way possible even though she's diagetically meant to be hideous and monstrous)

[skaruresonic]

Why are your examples for how you hate how glorified Lancelot is and how much he overshadows Arthur, a film called King Arthur where Lancelot is killed off without cucking Arthur, Warlord Chronicles, a series about Arthur where Lancelot is a weakling who again gets killed off (and written out of the television series), and Mary Stewart books about Merlin and Arthur where he doesn't appear? You seem to be getting what you want?

Lancelot being portrayed differently or being killed off doesn't solve the problem of novels that purport to be "truer" to the spirit of pre-Galfridian Arthuriana but still include him. The fact that he's often included in these kinds of tellings - and in so doing, continues the time-honored tradition of giving other characters the shaft - is the underlying problem. You literally cannot parade your work as a bona-fide "original" telling and then have Lancelot in it, or have Lancelot's spirit possess an analogue.

I don't care about Lancelot as a character, and going "oh he's a coward in this one" or "he doesn't go by the name Lancelot in that one" doesn't solve the problem, especially when his inclusion is both A.) anachronistic and B.) unnecessary. Regardless of however he's treated, he's still hogging screentime that could go to other characters.

I guess I'm more bothered by what Lancelot represents than the actual character, but it still ain't a good look when the guy commonly upheld as the shining paragon of knighthood throughout history is actually kind of a weenie who people nonetheless simp for. Like. Couldn't he be a smidge cooler? Why do I have to get stuck reading about this self-flagellating asshole again for the 1,000th time?

There's a lot of juicy drama to be gleaned from pre-Galfridian stories if you (general you) just exercised the same amount of imagination and empathy you extend to post-Galfridian tales, but everyone gets stuck on the affair like it's the only thing that could possibly give Arthur's character any personal gravitas (aside from incestuously conceiving Mordred) and I am beyond sick of it.

Did you know that Arthur killed his son Amr, and buried him beside a spring in Ergyng? We're not told why, only that Amr's tomb of stones changes dimensions every time it is measured.

What kind of story could one construct from that source material? Why did Arthur kill his son? Was it in anger? An accident? Was his hand forced? How does he feel about his son's grave? What about Gwenhwyfar? How did she react to the news?

...No? We're just gonna do this same old song and dance again? Fuck me, can't have shit in this Chili's.

---

and Mary Stewart books about Merlin and Arthur where he doesn't appear?

Yeah, no, you weren't paying attention when I said Mary Stewart and Rosemary Sutcliffe hollowed out the pre-established character of Bedwyr in order to make him a Lancelot analogue. They literally took an older character and said "Eh, you'll do."

That part pisses me off really badly because it's disingenuous. You're not making your work truer to the spirit of the original source material when you do stuff like that, you're just bending the source material to suit later Anglicized tropes, slapping a vaguely Welsh coat of paint on it and going "good enough." I think Welsh tales deserve better treatment than that. They deserve to be told on their own merits.

Bedwyr is emphatically not "Lancelot but Welsh," and I strongly feel it borders on cultural appropriation to portray him as such. The implication is he previously had so little character that you can discard it and replace it with something else. He ain't like Creoda of Wessex where he was just a name. He had a role.

Besides, I struggle to even think of a single instance where he interacts with the queen. He's always at Cai's and Arthur's side. The only reason he was made The Best Friend Who Cucks The King is because he had a heartbeat and was handsome in Guinevere's general direction. I guess.

Mary Stewart gets a bit more of a pass from me in that her work is set in a more Malory-esque world, but Rosemary Sutcliffe purported to set her novels within a purely historical framework, which just makes her creative liberties even more egregious. And don't @ me with "but she made Arthur bi, though"; so did Marion Zimmer Bradley. Doesn't mean shit when we're just recycling stale old tropes.

The fact that Lancelot and his entire French retinue feature in such works at all is my problem. I want to read about other characters, other plot threads, other internal conflicts. Give someone else a turn on the mic. Technically you shouldn't even have Merlin here, either, but eh, beggars can't be choosers ig.

Like, it'd be different if I was reading something firmly set in Malory's world, what with jousting and the Round Table and shit. But if I'm reading something that markets itself as a "true tale," then I hold certain expectations. Expectations that are always let down.

This isn't even getting into the fact that Lance's influence made many other characters passive, flanderized, or redundant. Cai devolves from a sarcastic but faithful right-hand man to a coarse buttmonkey whom Percival knocks out cold, and it's treated like a joke. Bedwyr is only heard from at Camlan and his supposed best friend status is paid lip service at best. Llacheu whomst? Arthur used to be the medieval version of Chuck Norris before the Normans came along and said "um ackshually enough of that Welsh bullshit, now you need to stay home, eat hot chip and lie about Mordred's parentage."

Extreme overgeneralization, ofc, but God I wish I could properly convey just how insane the way this site dismisses Welsh!Arthur and pre-Galfridian stuff drives me.

Yeah, he was more savage, brutal, and ruder than his Normanized counterpart, but as the resident asshole apologist in these here parts, I feel the need to point out those are the qualities that made him an effective ass-kicker. He was also incredibly energetic and generous. Dude literally digs up the head of the island's previous defender because it doesn't seem right to him that the island ought to be defended by anyone's strength but his own.

Welsh tales celebrate different qualities of character than French romances, which is part of the reason why that one "modern Arthurian tellings aren't anime enough" take rubs me the wrong way. It'd be like saying modern translations of Beowulf aren't anime enough.

...I kinda lost the plot here, but you get my point. If you like Lance, more power to you, God bless, but it really drives me batty to see him show up everywhere, even in places where his inclusion is needless or otherwise wouldn't make sense.

[briny]

^not my post, take under cut

i was thinking abt this idea of ahistorically "progressive" fiction being harmful and I think.. I am less interested in this lens of viewing fiction than I used to be. I consider it a very normal reaction to be uninterested in the "liberal project of sanitizing colonial violence" and I believe that the cultural privileging of stories that superimpose images of marginalized people onto the roles of oppressors over stories about how those marginalized people were resisting indicates that the dominant culture does want to foreground their narrative and will adapt in many ways to keep their ideas alive - but I also know that marginalized people have always had many layers of identification and relationships to the concepts represented by historical fiction that permeate our culture most deeply, and it feels so bleak to say that we can't morally explore these identifications without first and foremost fully representing the depth of our abjection. I think lots of people have talked about the inability of fiction to serve as moral authority or even education, and about how the perceived moral imperative for poc to acknowledge abjection and oppression all the time can further degrade our sense of resilience and dignity. as far as my personal taste, I judge a piece of "historical" fiction on how well it explores and connects the concepts it purports to find identification in. not to say I need all my historical fiction to be highbrow, to cover all ground, or even be nuanced! I just want a coherent internal viewpoint. Sometimes the conceptual gap between the story's take and the actual events it's chosen to represent is too big and jarring, and the conclusions that the story presents come off as delusional or projected - this is how I feel about hamilton, I have no idea how the telling of american history from a founding father's perspective particularly serves its central aim of remaking history to include oppressed peoples, and it perturbs me that this is hamilton's answer to "who lives who dies who tells your story". I don't feel this way about all "sanitized" narratives, bc they aren't all contriving to retell history in an "inclusive" way, they're interested in different ideas that don't have to do with making a statement on historical narrative itself. It feels normal for people who intimately know what it is to be desubjectified to be drawn to the dignity and preciousness of courtly romance, or to bond-making amongst those who exist outside the law. I'll never pretend that these identifications aren't loaded or fraught, but it feels both reductive and like a bad faith assessment of your peers/of yourself to assume these multiple fascinations boil down to a power fantasy of being in the oppressor position. I guess I am interested in what value, if any, the post-colonial psyche would find in these identifications - would history and identity begin at the point of total decolonization? Does everything before that point no longer serve us? Is our yet to be decolonized present even serving us? I don't really want to refute op's stance or even disagree with it, but if we're accepting the project of critically analyzing pop culture thru the lens of identity representation I do want to keep following the thread that's there

anyway please don't @ me if you have a grad degree in media studies or something this is off the top of my dome and I've never seen bridgerton so if I'm very wrong abt it well! then I'm very wrong

[enzymedevice]

It seems that OP found the book through the UK Fetish Archive Instagram, which posted its title page without comment in a potentially misleading way, so I’m considering contacting them to see if they know any more about the book's authorship than that person's search. It's interesting to see trans people acknowledged this way, so perhaps further interrogation can reveal more about this subsection of the kink community's trans allyship if nothing else. Contemporaneous examples of "lost texts" from the early 90s would be interesting to hear about as well - in my previous reblog of this post I mentioned Marianne Martindale's Wildfire Club but the Archive will have broader knowledge.

I also did my own search just in case this turned out to be a rare example of a text that did have the history it purports to and can confirm that practically every name, place and event mentioned in the book's foreword is seemingly fabricated, with the exception of Charles Carrington. He was indeed an erotica publisher whose inclusion would likely add an aura of legitimacy for enthusiasts to whom his name would be familiar. It's done with great care and knowledge regarding the time period and location (even mentioning real local newspapers), with a lot of things that might be true (a notorious flagellation brothel on St James's Street makes complete sense!), but upon research are verifiably false.

I'm reading a book named "A Guide to The Correction of Young Gentlemen Or, The Successful Administration Of Physical Discipline To Males, By Females" - essentially, a fantasy femdom BDSM book, written in 1924 by Alice Kerr-Sutherland but first published in 1991.

It has some genuinely fascinating stuff to say about gender, and I feel like it's worth looking at/thinking about in the context of Historical Gender Stuff. This 100 year old book has the following to say:

"The truth is that some young gentlemen would rather they had been born young ladies: they cannot admit this openly, because in the male world to confess as much would lead to instant ostracism if not worse; but they cannot conceal it either, and by preferring the company of girls, and soft, feminine clothing, and by flinching during the rough pursuits to which all boys, willing or no, are occasionally heirs, they attract opprobrium."

"Such boys weep too readily for their fellows' tastes - weeping is a great crime among boys unless it is generally admitted that circumstances left little choice - and are hounded for that reason."

"Just as there are girls who had rather been boys - we all know examples of the type - there are boys who, in a kinder world, would have been born into the gender more suited to their dispositions."

"Many young people of this sort are riven with a guilt they do not deserve but have been forced, by the conventions of society, to adopt; they are confused, ashamed and thoroughly unhappy."

"The ideal thing to do would be to treat these cases on their merits, send them to girls' schools, and so on. (The same thing should happen with those girls who would rather be young gentlemen.) Boys of this sort are girls in any case-in all respects save one."

"Most subjects of this sort have a secret name - a girl's name."

[qnewsau]

Australian gay body image docoumnetary ‘SHAPE’ drops on STAN

New Post has been published on https://qnews.com.au/australian-gay-body-image-docoumentary-shape-drops-on-stan/

Australian gay body image docoumnetary ‘SHAPE’ drops on STAN

Aussie documentary SHAPE is now streaming on STAN, exploring body image issues and racism we face as gay men.

While the gay community purports to celebrate diversity, inclusivity and equality, body image discrimination is rife.

While not a new narrative, director Roger Ungers was keen to explore it in his documentary SHAPE.

He won Best Emerging Australian Director and the Melbourne Documentary Film Festival.

With sold-out sessions at MQFF and screenings at Midsumma Movies and the Mardi Gras Film Festival.

And from today it is available to watch on streaming service STAN.

“It’s so validating,” Roger told QNews,

“I was scared putting something out there like this, that people would feel uncomfortable with this kind of conversation.”

“Or what people would say, but I can’t believe that it’s gotten this far.”

It isn’t a coincidence SHAPE has dropped on STAN during Mardi Gras.

“That was part of our pitch to STAN,” Roger said

“Queer content gets more of a focus at this time of year and we felt it would be timely for audiences to see it.”

So much pressure to look a certain way

SHAPE explores the links to body image ideals relating to age, race, masculinity and a very specific physique.

 Interviews with a diverse range of subjects are interwoven with expert opinions examining the gay obsession with the “ideal” body.

An obsession enhanced through the gay clubbing scene, targeted advertising, networking/hook-up apps and social media.

It explores the negative repercussions of this harmful mindset.

“We all feel pressures to look a certain way in the gay community,” Roger said,

“This documentary stemmed from my experience of the gay community as a mixed-race person.

“Plus I’m in my late 30s which many say is ‘gay death’.

” So I decided to explore body image from the perspectives of age and race and physique.

“I saw that nothing was going into it in a deep meaningful way that also calls a spade a spade and I wanted to do that.”

The film’s subjects reflect on their personal experiences of body image-based discrimination.

Dissecting their own beliefs, while exploring what needs to happen to create a more inclusive gay community.

“They’re very tough conversations to have,” Roger said,

“A lot of people wanted to get stuff off their chest, also this was a really good platform to do that.”

“Even though they were saying things I already knew, it had a different life when it was said out loud.

“The interviews were almost like a therapy session.

“Hopefully other people can hear these stories and it can have an impact on them.

“Or it might resonate in a way that would make them change their minds or think about how their comments make others feel.”

The more Roger heard their interviews the more he saw potential for positive social change.

“Everyone in the documentary is amazing.”

“They’re so vibrant and well-spoken, and you can tell that they wanted their stories to be out there.”

Source: Supplied

Chance for reflection and conversation

SHAPE also explores how tribes in gay male communities help people feel that they belong.

But also how this social grouping can lead to unhealthy stereotypes and unrealistic body image ideals.

Roger hopes that by watching SHAPE, we will come to more deeply understand what it means to be a part of the gay community.

Where a dangerously high priority is placed on the way you look.

And hopefully, create a more positive outlook towards ourselves and each other concerning body image.

“I think STAN’s a fantastic platform to have SHAPE streaming on because it holds a lot of queer content,” he said,

“And while we will be reaching that queer audience, it will create wider access and conversations as well.

“For people who have queer people in their families or friendship groups.

“Hopefully it can open up a new world for them to think and talk about.

“People are often surprised to learn that this kind of body image ideals can have a strong effect on them and gay men in particular.

Hopefully, that will manifest some good reflection and conversation in the community.

SHAPE is available to watch on STAN Australia from the 19th of February.

Source: Supplied

For the latest LGBTIQA+ Sister Girl and Brother Boy news, entertainment, community stories in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Check out our latest magazines or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chloe Simon at MMFA:

After a week of right-wing media spreading baseless smears about Haitian migrants abducting and eating pets, conservative activist Christopher Rufo posted a video allegedly showing a cat on a barbecue grill in Dayton, Ohio. Dayton police have issued a statement saying “there is no evidence to even remotely suggest” that any community is eating pets — but some in right-wing media ran with the story, claiming that Rufo’s video falsely “confirmed” the rumors about migrants and animals. 

Last week, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, promoted baseless and racist rumors about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating pets. During the September 10 presidential debate, Trump claimed, “They’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” Right-wing media also jumped on the narrative, calling Haitian migrants “locusts,” zombies,” and “weird Third World aliens.” [The Associated Press, 9/11/24; Media Matters, 9/10/24]

On September 14, Rufo posted a video purportedly showing a cat on a barbecue with the caption, “EXCLUSIVE: We have discovered that migrants are, in fact, eating cats in Ohio. We have verified, with multiple witnesses and visual cross-references, that African migrants in Dayton, the next city over from Springfield, barbecued these cats last summer.” Rufo did acknowledge in his Substack that “this single incident does not confirm every particularity of Trump’s statement. The town is Dayton, not Springfield; cats alone were on the grill, not cats and dogs.” However, he continued that the video “does break the general narrative peddled by the establishment media and its ‘fact checkers’” and that “independent journalists are already on the hunt and could reveal more.” Prior to releasing the video, Rufo claimed he would “provide a $5,000 bounty to anyone who can provide my team with hard, verifiable evidence that Haitian migrants are eating cats in Springfield, Ohio.” [Twitter/X, 9/14/24, 9/11/24; Substack, 9/14/24]

Rufo, a senior fellow at conservative think tank the Manhattan Institute, is a conservative activist known for his right-wing crusades against diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and higher education. Media Matters has described his career as a long attempt to “inject bigotry and incorrect information into mainstream discourses about gay and trans people, drag queens, and the academic discipline known as critical race theory.” [Vox, 9/10/23; Media Matters, 1/6/23, 7/27/23; The Guardian, 2/21/24]

Dayton police have categorically denied that any group has “engaged in eating pets.” In a statement, the department wrote, “We stand by our immigrant community and there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that any group, including our immigrant community, is engaged in eating pets. Seeing politicians or other individuals use outlandish information to appeal to their constituents is disheartening.” Rufo’s video has also received a lot of backlash online, with open-source intelligence analyst Oliver Alexander writing that it was “clearly chicken you weirdo. Dude’s never seen chicken that wasn’t dino-nugget shaped.” In a further attempt to verify the video’s claims, CBS News reached out to veterinary experts who cited the image’s poor quality, while another “noted the legs looked ‘weirdly distended’ and in his opinion, did not look like cat legs.” [Twitter/X, 9/16/24, 9/14/24; The Independent, 9/15/24; CBS News, 9/16/24]

Right-wing disinformation purveyor Christopher Rufo posted a video purporting that cats were cooked on a barbecue grill in Dayton, Ohio. Dayton PD, however, shot down Rufo’s rumor-mongering by stating that there is no evidence of cats being grilled in Dayton.

[coochiequeens]

So here you have something there's never been a complaint about in 40 years, that I've heard of, and now all of a sudden we can't do it because it'll offend people. What is one supposed to make of that?

Actors warned John Cleese that his Life of Brian stage show should not include a scene about a man wanting to be a woman and have a baby, the comedian has said.

The Monty Python star is working on a stage production of the troupe’s 1979 comedy film, The Life of Brian, which parodies the Messianic message of the New Testament.

In the film version, a character named Stan explains that he wants to be a woman called Loretta and “have babies”, before being told by Cleese’s character Reg that this was impossible.

This exchange reportedly met with opposition from actors in a readthrough of the script for the planned stage show because it could “offend people”, raising doubt as to its inclusion in the final production.

'You can't do that stuff nowadays'

Cleese said performers involved in the readthrough told him: “We love the script, but you can't do that stuff about Loretta nowadays.”

Speaking to the audience for his one-man show, he added:  "So here you have something there's never been a complaint about in 40 years, that I've heard of, and now all of a sudden we can't do it because it'll offend people. What is one supposed to make of that?

“But I think there were a lot of things that were actually, in some strange way, predictive of what was actually going to happen later."

The potentially offensive scene features Eric Idle as Stan telling his fellow members of the People's Front of Judea “I want to be a woman”, and adding “from now on, I want you all to call me Loretta”.

He explains that this is because he wants to have babies, and explains that “it's every man's right to have babies if he wants them”.

'You haven't got a womb'

Cleese’s character Reg explains “you haven’t got a womb”, but the People’s Front decide that they will champion Stan’s right to have babies, as it is "it is symbolic of our struggle against oppression”.

Cleese revealed the concerns with the script amid a growing debate about gender ideology, which purports that people born female who identify as male are men, and could give birth to children as men.

This idea has been reflected in the NHS, with the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust recently employing the phrase “birthing people” instead of mothers in an announcement about perinatal mental health care.

In 2021, Brighton and Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust unveiled “gender inclusive” phrases to be used as best practice by medical staff, advising that “birthing parent” was the more appropriate term.  The word “breastmilk” was replaced with “chestmilk”.

'I've changed some things'

While it remains to be seen if Cleese’s script will include Stan’s wish to be a woman, the star has said that audiences can expect some differences between the stage show and the film.

Cleese said: "I think Life Of Brian is our best film. We are going to do it in London in the second half of next year and I've changed certain things."

According to the Daily Mail, he said: "There is a new character - Fiona Pilate, Pilate's wife - who falls in love with Brian. And, spoiler alert, Brian does not get crucified. But rest assured he will still sing Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life."

The film was accused of being blasphemous when it was first released, and was banned in Ireland as part of a clerical backlash against the comedy, often cited as the greatest of all time.

[weatherman667]

Part XI - Non-Inclusive Fantasy

Everyone is trying to make fantasy inclusive, and that is just a recipe to make it boring.

What we think of as the standard fantasy setting is Northern European Fantasy. For better or worse, almost every modern fantasy is dick riding either Tolkien or Gygax.

The Paladins are from the Knights-Palatine of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e. the Peers of Charlemagne. They were the second knightly works, after King Arthur himself. The difference is that King Arthur ruled a kingdom that was becoming Christian, whereas Charlemagne ruled and Empire that was explicitly Christian.

Druids aren't just nature mages, they were a specific class in the Celtic cultures. This is why a lot of fantasy settings will add Shaman as a more brutish alternative to Druids.

People in the US will ask, why don't we have Asian Elves?

Because Elves are Northern European, either Alfar or Fey. Not even East Asian companies will make Asian Elves. They might add something new and unique, or just add something traditionally Asian, like cat/fox girls.

It's pretty bad when East Asian countries have more respect for our own culture than we do.

But there is a great example of this, as they were done by largely the same creatives:

Avatar: the Last Airbender

Dragon Prince, The

In A:tLA, every - single - village has a distinct culture.

In The Dragon Prince, they have massive continental empires that have no culture, other than people with brown skin having dreadlocks.

Celtic Warriors would sometimes have dreadlocks. Because this is a way of managing your hair without washing it. The entire world of Dragon Prince feels hollow and boring, as it spends it's entire time pandering to inclusivity.

Cultures are exclusive, and that's what makes them cultures.

If you are creating a Northern European Fantasy story, then if you want black Men, you need a distant Africa equivalent. And you might say, but what if I want the main characters to be African.

Then the answer is to ask yourself why you are writing Northern European Fantasy? Why aren't you writing African fantasy. Why aren't you writing American fantasy?

Is it because that Northern European Fantasy is established?

You can create your own fantasy world. You can incorporate whatever culture and history you want into it.

BUT

You have to incorporate history and culture into it. You can use real-world cultures, or you can make your own, but it has to make internal sense.

I loved Netflix's Marco Polo. In it, there was one main white guy. Two more white guys were in the intro, but were quickly exiled. Season 2 implied Season 3 would deal with crusaders in conflict with the Mongols, which would make sense, and they would literally be the enemies.

Wukong is famous right now, but there was a Hercules-esk tv show about it. I could not get into it, because it was filmed in Australia, and all of the characters were white. It did not fit.

I don't want white guys in a Samurai story, unless they are one of the 14 Dutchmen allowed in the country, (one in, one out).

Or it's Tom Cruise playing a western soldier in Japan training the army, and used as a viewpoint character. This is very realistic.

Well, what about a black samurai? There was one black guy in Japan. He was a slave. So, if you are going to make a black samurai, make it Afro Samurai. Which, shockingly, did not purport to be historically accurate, and so did not get the Japanese Diet cracking down on it. Just like how Samurai Champloo had hip-hop and break dancing, but it still felt natural.

You Want to Make a Fantasy World: Part I - Magick

The first thing you need to decide when making a fantasy world is how magick works.

That might seem heady, but let's go over what you have to decide:

Who can use magick.

How do they use magick.

And how powerful can magick get.

Do you want 9th level magick, that can rip a giant hole in the world and summon unkillable monsters?

Because, honestly, you don't need it.

Can 9th level magick only be used by decrepid old wizards with one foot in their grave? Only it be used by chosen heroes? Only be by inhuman things, like Dragons and Daemons and Liches?

Low level but common magick can have a huge effect on the setting. Being able to light a fire can allow you to save the time and effort it takes to start a fire. Heating a rock can be used to heat a home, or even a bath, giving the equivalent of modern sanitation. Hand washing, bathing, and toilets have done the most for Human longevity. Can you go to a priest, give him a penny, and have him cure your cancer?

Sure, curing cancer isn't as cool as curing sword wounds, but the medical effects it can have on longevity are staggering.

Maybe magic is something that can only be done by a minority of the population, that dedicate themselves to the study.

None of them are wrong answers, so long as they are CONSISTENT.

If magickal ability depends on your bloodline, then someone, somewhere is going to think it's a good idea to selectively breed mages to keep the magics strong. The mages might become the noble classes, they might form their own class, which they breed endogenously, like Hindus.

If only inhuman things can cast upper level magick, and you see a seemingly ordinary Human cast that kind of magick, then guess what? He's not actually an ordinary Human.

Does magick need a physical catalyst? Does it consume reagents? How rare are these reagents? Do they come in one of a few types, or is every twig of berries a reagent for a different spell? Maybe upper level spells require expensive reagents, and that's the limiting factor? Maybe these spells use too much mana, and therefore can only be done by places of power?

Does teleportation require Line of Sight? Can you open long-range portals only if you have local knowledge? Can you target places of power from a distance?

We start with the simple, coarse questions, and get to the finer ones later on. When? When you come up with a good idea for how it works? Or, honestly, when you need to use it. It's perfectly fine to wait until the characters need/want to teleport to decide how it functions.

Another way to limit spells if by giving the heroes a rare magickal item. Why can they use portals?, because they have the Staff of the Herald. Why do they have the staff of the herald?

Given by someone important.

Monster loot.

They found it in an old, abandoned building.

They earned it by accomplishing some feat, or level of training.

Again, all you have to decide is how rare the item is, and maybe if you need some sort of innate/trained ability to use it.

[kristinakyidyl]

I answered this once and then TUMBLR ATE IT. >.<

Anyway, in Westeros, yeah…faithfulness is a bit hard to believe. @turtle-paced was talking about faithfulness in westerosi arranged marriages this week and they made some good points, but the arranged portion aside…it’s basically a matter of whether or not a nobleman wants to be faithful. There’s nothing saying they need to be, and plenty aren’t. Aegon the IV is, of course, the most prominent example of this (with rumors that Naerys wasn’t faithful either.). And not for nothing, but I think Rhaegar and Elia actually had a pretty amiable relationship and he wasn’t faithful to her, as evidenced by the existence of Jon Snow. Now, there’s a lot of conversation about whether Elia consented to that because we’re not told much about her, but there’s kind of evidence that she did consent. Mostly that, despite seeing Rhaegar run off with Lyanna, they are fiercely loyal to the Targs. I also think if Elia hadn’t consented to the inclusion of Lyanna in their marriage that Rhaegar wouldn’t have taken her to a tower in *Dorne*, of all places, but the fact is we don’t know and based on what we do know - it looks a lot like Rhaegar was unfaithful. Even in love matches, people aren’t faithful in westeros. Corlys and Rhaenys were, by all accounts, a love match (or at least not a forced one; Rhaenys chose him.), and yet…Addam and Alyn exist. Daemon and Rhaenyra weren’t faithful in their respective marriages. Maegor wasn’t, either. The mad king wasn’t in the beginning of his marriage. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, there were certainly more. Hell, there’s a theory floating around out there that Alyssa wasn’t Jaehaerys’s daughter based in her looks, attitude, and the fact that Lucamore the Lusty was in the Kingsgard at the time. I don’t know that I necessarily believe the theory given Jaehaerys and Alyssane’s relationship, but it’s not something that can be discounted out of hand, either. So, I mean, yeah. Aegon’s fidelity IS noteworthy in the context of westerosi nobility. More than that, though - and I really should have been clearer about this - he refused other offers of marriage. The other Targs that openly practiced polygamy collected wives like Pokémon. Aegon clearly just wanted Rhaenys and Visenya. Even after Rhaenys died, he refused to consider remarrying despite his purported dislike of Visenya. I mean, really, given how little we know of Aegon’s personality, he could have been gay or ace and his sisters covered for him. Rhaenys kept a lot of pretty men around her, and there were rumors that Aenys wasn’t Aegon’s (personally I don’t think that’s true, I think the sisters were faithful to him as well and that Aenys’s health was a result of the incest. He also started to get stronger after bonding his dragon, which was common amongst the Targs.), so even with the 3 of them there were rumors. And yet, Aegon didn’t seem to be bothered by his son’s health, and didn’t seem to treat Rhaenys any differently. He didn’t put a stop to her habit of collecting attractive men, either, so it must not have bothered him all that much. So yeah I mean I think their fidelity to each other is actually a sign that they genuinely cared for each other, or at least were united in a single goal and outward appearance to the public.

[anhed-nia]

I wanted to separate the following rant out from my review of LAMB, which is spoiler-heavy, because I feel seriously about this topic and I don't want to bury it at the end of something basically separate. The use of the term "genre fluid" (which I admit is a fun pun) as a modifier for what might otherwise be considered horror movies, and the discussion of movies being "horror-adjacent", first reached my ears in festival-related panels and conversations last year, and this year it's apparent that these concepts are being institutionalized. It seems to me that horror has been singled out exclusively for the little mollifying makeover that these ideas apply, and I find that extremely suspicious, perhaps even insulting. Ahem.

They don't need your stinkin' modifiers.

I'm getting really sick of hearing people talk about movies being "genre fluid" or "genre adjacent" or, in one way or another, "not really a horror movie (even though it looks and acts like one)". I feel like these hair-splitting discussions are often not in good faith. For one thing, what are they meant to accomplish, if it is NOT catering to people who still look down on horror? How is our understanding of a film deepened by the insistence that it is "not really" horror? I genuinely don't know, and conversations around this topic always sound like a lot of insidious marketing language to me. And I don't usually hear this from the mouth of someone who doesn't think they made a horror movie at all, and is surprised and delighted to have found appreciation from the horror community; it's usually someone who is a self-described horror fan, who seems to have made a horror movie and submitted it where horror cinema is showcased...and then they kind of walk back on what the movie is once they're asked, as if the "horror" label is depriving them of something. It's one thing to say that a movie like LAMB incorporates some horror elements into what is chiefly a fantasy—and there do exist truly genre-bending movies, like THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW which has the audacity to do everything at once—but it's another thing to suggest that a film's dominant horror nature is diluted or subjugated by the inclusion of anything that isn't...well, whatever "pure horror" is presumed to be, which is rarely defined in these evasive analyses. I always suspect the speaker of trying to gain something by distancing themselves from the oft-maligned genre; I detect an implication that horror needs to be "elevated" by the introduction of non-native elements, as if horror itself cannot contain elements of drama, humor, and tragedy. (How does one even tell a story without one of those three things? Is "pure horror" supposed to be non-narrative?) One way I can tell there's a problem here is that we simply do not hear these arguments about other genres. You never hear someone nervously saying that their musical is "comedy-adjacent", or having coy, tricky debates about whether a drama is no longer a "real" drama once it incorporates one or two surreal elements. People throw around hyphenates like "romantic comedy" and "sci-fi/fantasy" all the time without couching them in a ponderous open-ended interrogation. Sometimes this is a matter of what I call "hot take syndrome", where people compete to say the least likely thing the most convincingly; I'm reminded of certain frustrating conversations I've had with people who think they're breaking new ground by claiming that LEON: THE PROFESSIONAL is "actually a romance, NOT an action movie," as if a relentless blood-drenched action movie ceases to be that, if it has a (dicey) relationship at its core. But I think in the case of horror specifically, there's something condescending and cowardly going on that people—especially fans and professionals who purport to love horror—just don't want to admit to openly. It's apologism, and it stinks.

[marzipanandminutiae]

What was the deal with aesthetic dress reform and how is it different from normal Belle Epoque fashion?

So I actually had to go to Wikipedia about this, because while I knew the rough basics about Artistic/Aesthetic Dress- medieval inspiration, loose silhouettes, interconnected with the Pre-Raphaelites, purporting to improve on various aspects of women’s fashion depending on who you asked -I didn’t know the specifics myself.

It seems like how much it was about reform could vary wildly. In a lot of ways it reminds me of modern historybounding/vintage fashion, albeit with less research done into the actual time period it was kind of referencing. There was kind of this idea of hearkening back to the sartorial Good Old Days of natural-dyed colors, hand-embroidery, emphasis on individual craftsmanship, and loose, flowing silhouettes. The reform in question almost seems to have been more aesthetic than practical, much of the time.

(It seems to have almost had some Regency influences at times, which is really interesting considering that Regency was still recent enough to potentially fall under “Great-Grandma’s clothes” rather than “artistic and ancient.” And the idea of wearing old clothes wasn’t socially popular, as I’ve mentioned before.)

As for the differences...I can think of no better illustration than this painting from 1881:

(Detail from “A Private Viewing At the Royal Academy.” William Powell Frith, 1881. He’s contrasted Artistic Dress fashions, at left and right, with popular styles of the day, center. Honestly  I think the corseting on the Popular Fashion contingent is exaggerated and the Artistic Dress women look more like photographs of average 1880s ladies in terms of waist size. But it’s a satire, so I suppose that’s the point.)

As for extant examples, I feel like some ended up looking better than others:

(Tea gown by Liberty of London, 1897. While it’s definitely not conducive to tightlacing, I think the inclusion of a train belies the idea that Artistic Dress was all about making women’s clothing more practical. And I love this gown, to be clear.)

(Dress, also by Liberty of London, 1890s. It’s difficult to imagine the figure that this weird mushroom/muffin-top shape would flatter, and the color definitely isn’t helping.

(”Mrs. Luke Ionides,” by William Blake Richmond, 1882. Another one that I really love.)

(”Symphony in Flesh Color and Pink: Portrait of Mrs. Frances Leyland,” by James McNeill Whistler. 1871-74. She’s making it work, but this really just looks like a nightgown to me. Which seems to be a common issue among many Artistic Dress gowns.)

So yeah. That was a thing. Hope this provides at least a basic, useful primer!

[loki-zen]

To attempt to be a little bit more constructive, here’s something that maybe most people don’t know:

Unless you know a lot of disabled people personally (not through your job, at least if you ‘work with disabled people’ rather than have them as colleagues), and/or have done a lot of reading and engagement with a variety of self-advocates/self-advocacy groups, then it is highly likely that almost everything you have seen that purports to be anti-ableism or for disabled people is, in fact, abled people bullshit which drowns out our voices and which is, if anything, counter to our actual priorities and goals.

A lot of this stuff seems to have the express purpose of redirecting energy away from addressing our material interests, and towards pointless feel-good goals like ‘awareness’, ‘stigma’, and the PR-friendly appearance of inclusion.

This isn’t necessarily deliberately malicious, although the effects are what they are.

of late, a lot of people (some perhaps in the above category and parroting what they’ve heard, others trollishly tryna start discourse using us as pawns or reductios ad absurdum) have been using gross half-understood caricatures of some of the actual theory behind our activism, ensuring that anyone coming across it will be able to pattern-match it to something ridiculous-sounding and dismiss us out of hand.

Please for the love of fuck think before you repost.

[nomanwalksalone]

MY RALPH OUTLET

by Réginald-Jérôme de Mans

A recent conversation with Ivy revisionist Berkeley Breathes led to me a revelation. The relationship between Prep and Ivy, I ejaculated, is that of birds and dinosaurs. Just as my mom’s evil African Grey who used to eye me balefully was the collateral heir to the thunderous hundred-foot-long Ninjatitan zapatai (they did it, they really gave an animal the scientific name Ninjatitan, so prep is the existing offshoot of a look that otherwise died in the 1970s, or 65 million years ago in fashion years. Existing Ivy exponents are no dead clade walking, but as authentic as rumored plesiosaurs subsisting in Loch Ness: impossible, ridiculous and fascinating latter-day inventions. What actually and organically has continued to evolve following the death of Ivy is messier, sloppier and more casual, less precise and thus more adaptable… and may even owe its survival to its adoption and adaptation by American’s most important designer, Ralph Lauren.

There’s a lot to unpack from the free-with-purchase-at-these-fine stores Polo-branded baggage of the above paragraph. As I’ve written in earlier pieces, reading Richard Press’s Threading the Needle and the interesting if misbegotten Ivy Style museum exhibition monograph helped sharpen the picture of what Ivy style is perceived to be now (the old Take Ivy book helped provide a more contemporary picture of it at the time that Ivy was on its last legs). Youthful as it purported to be (its very name localized it to college years at privileged college campuses), Ivy still included aspirations to a kind of maturity: grown-up clothes in the form of tailored jackets, and sobriety’s leash itself, the necktie. Even if decades ago such clothes could exist in more casual registers by nature of their materials or patterns (J. Press’s famous tweeds, for instance), they existed as prescribed forms of uniform at prep schools and (at least as a de facto uniform) universities at midcentury. From the 1960s, student rebellions of various forms threw off such uniforms among young people. At my own prep school, legend had it that protestors against the old coat-and-tie uniform even came to school naked (this was several years before it also went co-ed). Legend? I suppose if I had wanted to investigate, I could have asked teachers who had been at the school since shortly after graduating from it in 1952, or the octogenarian who had taught there 60 years straight since 1929.

The death of a frankly prosaic tailored uniform opened up two planes of possibility: one for the more casual sorts of Ivy play clothes that younger students had worn that were less restrictive and less costly than tailored clothes; and another plane of imaginary romance and dash for myths to write themselves. Ralph strode in and straddled them both, and preps welcomed him. No more did the privileged student have to order jackets from LL Bean or Barbour, piqué shirts from Lacoste and loafers from Bass or Brooks Brothers in New York. Instead, Ralph’s shop-in-shops in better department stores across the country offered a one-stop experience for an entire look immersed in the sort of generalized Anglophilia and muddy horsiness (from the brand name Polo on down) that put America’s aspirational middle classes at ease in their social insecurities.

1980’s The Preppy Handbook gave us an informative snapshot of its time and this attitude: Polo items infiltrated the various shots of preppy accoutrements, as do the various carefree, confident corner-cutting that began to mark its difference from dead Ivy: moccasins held together with duct tape and a lack of any care about fit, and later, provenance: the book points out to us to notice the sloppy hemming job on a grown-up Prep’s suit pants, and tells us the credentials of former Prep hall-of-famer Lisa Halaby are now in question for marrying a man “whose blazers fit perfectly”: the incredibly elegant, Camps de Luca-clad King Hussein of Jordan. Preps were happy to wear Izod’s licensed Lacoste shirts instead of the original, and over the decades to wear Ralph as he expanded into a brand supported (according to biographer Michael Gross) by its outlets, and later Ralph pastiches like Tommy Hilfiger. The populations wearing prep changed in appearance: prep schools themselves became somewhat more inclusive, at least in appearance, and other populations appropriated aspects of the look that Ralph popularized, even if old curmudgeons like Lewis Lapham missed no opportunity to sneer at Ralph for now making expensive copies of traditional garments in cheap factories.

I used to share that rather snobbish sentiment, before realizing that for better or worse Ralph captured all the problematic romance of nostalgia without the boredom of latter-day Ivy irredentists, arguing over details of collar roll and shoulder construction irrelevant to everyone but themselves. One writer in the Ivy Style monograph suggested that Ralph started his business in reaction to seeing Brooks Brothers (where he had sold ties) losing its way. Rather, both Ralph and Brooks Brothers were reacting to changing times that killed Ivy as anything but a historical look. Ralph moved into fantasy, bringing elements of 1930s English dandyism (too flamboyant for Ivy to have espoused even in an abdicated, morganatic manner) and of other senses of loss: lost colonial empires through exotic and safari imagery and lost WASP fortunes and heritage in the decoration and presentation of his boutiques, most infamously in the conversion of Manhattan’s Rhinelander Mansion into his New York flagship. His boutiques around the world followed its inspiration. Even if their décor was ersatz copies of its old wood, the Ralph Lauren staff knew how to trigger that strange sense of transport which is momentary acceptance in prep enclaves, like when a beblazered boys’ chorus began singing carols in the gallery of one boutique during our holiday browsing.

He made prep more interesting, more visible and accessible, and more new than its traditional retailers had. In the beginning, at least, he probably kept some in business, too. Such is the case with an amazing vintage handmade Fair Isle sweater, made in Britain for Ralph Lauren in traditional wool with traditional heathered colors… and metallic lurex, more commonly associated with punks, giving it gold highlights. A deep dive looking for handmade Fair Isle sweaters turned up this example (a Scottish knitter friend told me that if I wanted a new handknit sweater, I had better pick up “a pair of pins” myself, since even one of the famous handknitters was photographed using Shima knitting machines). It made one of the staples of prep (as the distant, extant vestige of Ivy) novel, arresting, yet coherent. Even if, 35 years on, the Ralph Lauren empire has retrenched, its brand and manufacturing approaches called into question, what he does today is still the heir to the best, or most redeemable, of what prep was.