#todays rant has been brought to you by: misogynists

[biru-thegoose]

the lesbian urge to show up in a male-dominated, heteronormative industry and let them deal with my presence is strong this evening

[laurelier]

harry and the female orgasm is part of the mermaidrry narrative

I should........ just leave it at this tbh. Cause that's it. Ya said it, sweet punk mermaid.

But. I am me. So. I will ramble.

Under the cut.

(glorious happyjoyfulbeautiful gif by you, post here <3)

For starters, I agree with you here Ella that what WS really makes me think of more than anything is just—the importance of the human capacity for pleasure. The joy in it. And it makes me happy, honestly, that Harry is making room within his work for that in a way that includes women, women's experiences, women's sensations. It suggests to me that there's room within him to consider women's pleasure—and that could mean a lot of things, whether we take what he said at its apparent face value or not.

And here hang on lemme just quote @swimmingleo here for a sec literally leo I'm so sorry i feel like i tag you 28369 times in every single rant i ever make on this goddam website i'm such a menace in your notifs fnndsfnd you said this so well here:

...if queer!Harry beliefs are crumbling tonight because for some people you can’t possibly write about something you don’t know, well good riddance cuz if there’s one thing I hate it’s entertaining the idea that gay men are allowed to find pussies disgusting and not knowing shit about female anatomy. I’m glad Harry isn’t one of them and doesn’t mind if his song is claimed by women, at least.

Exactly. I think Harry being inclusive of and celebrating women's experiences in his music here is compelling and exciting and generous. Because, again, that's what I think it is: celebration. Given the way H has talked about this song in the past, and given the lyrics, it feels to me like he could have been saying that this song is, in part, an exploration and a celebration of what the idea of female orgasm could represent to him.

AND as I'm writing this dear leo has also literally JUST brought their BDSM post back for us all to peruse as we saw H boppin around Nasvhille with a chains and whips shirt on and. They pointed out that it feels.... it just feels right that this shirt should come on the day after the WS comment and I absolutely could not agree more because I see these two nods to sex as like. Linked by the idea of taboo, the idea of shame. I'm not equating the discourse around BDSM to the one around women coming, but in our sex-negative misogynistic culture, there's certainly a tendency to judge and shame both of those things—as there is with so many aspects of sexuality—and seeing this today just convinces me more that Harry is interested in making statements about freedom and liberation and the toxicity of shame in his art, in his persona. Highlighting the specifically female orgasm in a celebratory song about the ephemerality and preciousness of human pleasure feels really in line with that.

Whoo yal thought this was pretentious already and now it's about to get a whole lot worse man I'm sorry for the turn this is about to take. The female orgasm as a concept is really what I'm zoning in on here out of all this, given what H actually said—literally just that the song was "about the female orgasm", and left it at that. It just made me think so much of how in the 1960s/70s second-wave feminist discourse was really centered around the embodied experience of women—and a lot of rhetoric about the inherent mystery and wisdom and knowledge of women's bodies, the idea of their connection to the cycles of nature and the universe etc etc, came out of that—which, in the wrong hands, is essentialist, cis-centric, and reductive, but theoretically/historically, it's an interesting thought line. (Also, "In Watermelon Sugar" was published in 1968, so that's maybe irrelevant but sort of fun?)

Just—like. As always, I'm not speaking for H, I'm really trying not to. But given what discussions about the embodied sexual experiences of women have historically said re: empowerment and the nature of "feminine" knowledge, the THIS IS ABOUT CELEBRATING A WOMAN COMING thing feels to me like it could be playing with gender. It feels like he's trying to intimately explore ideas and feelings associated with an intense and vulnerable and beautiful bodily female experience, and merge that with the whole psychedelic connected-to-the-universe losing-yourself-in-bliss thing he's also got going on in this song. All the lyrics like "I just wanna taste it / I want your belly" and on and on? I don't really hear "I want to give you an orgasm" there as loudly as I do: I want to know what happens in your belly. I want to taste what you feel. I want that feeling in my own body; I want to receive what it gives me, see what it shows me. However that connection happens.

And: the fact that he said "female orgasm" without saying anything about vaginas—and because WS is a song that doesn’t not lend itself to being also maybe gay, or just sexual pleasure in general—to use Leo's word, it's inclusive. It includes female orgasms that don't happen in cis bodies. It acknowledges that regardless of anatomy, all female orgasm-havers have the ability to feel the pleasure and euphoria that can bring—can feel this supposed deep, "feminine" connection with something almost universal, a little death, an ego death. Considered through a kind of adapted second-wave lens, the big O is a powerful concept: this space that the "female orgasm" can make for you within yourself, your own body, your own pleasure—to connect you with things outside yourself, even, if we wanna get really 70s—especially when that pleasure is something that capital-M Men can't understand, can't access, or don't have use for. In a way, female pleasure, cis and trans, becomes representative of the things They can’t touch.

Like, maybe last night's comment really was just a move to reinforce a comphet narrative, sure. I hope not. But. Even if it is that in part, this was still a really vague statement; it's still H famously playing both sides of the fence, appealing to all kinds of narratives—and I wish we wouldn't let the het reaction to this ruin our ability to see what could be a possibly really multilayered and really lovely thing he's saying here with this song, with the inclusion of the "female" bit. Or, more conservatively, I guess—I wish we wouldn't let it erase our ability to take beautiful things out of what Harry says for ourselves, regardless of what's in his inaccessible pretty little head.

FOOTNOTE I just want to mention also before I scurry away that I'm also bothered by the way I'm hearing some of us say that it was inappropriate for Harry to mention the "female orgasm" (in truly such innocent terms, that's literally all he said) to a crowd that included a lot of young female fans. It's a short leap from that to saying that women's sexuality is a dirty thing, or that it should be hidden and taboo. And I'm sure it's clear by now that I think the ethos of Watermelon Sugar is exactly the opposite of that? But really I just would hope........ that we wouldn't want to go there. I would hope that we could see how harmful that is. I would hope that we'd be able to find it within ourselves to not have such a narrow vision of Harry as a human being that we can't celebrate the fact that he's celebrating something about female bodies that historically has been loaded down with a lot of sexist shame. End rant.

[animezing-fandoms]

Feminism in Fairy Tail with Lucy Heartfilia

Okay so @gaysquaredwrites made this fantastic post today about how people say Lucy is useless because she’s not as great a fighter as the other characters, but that doesn’t mean she’s useless because she brings light and happiness into the characters lives and that’s just as important as fighting! And I originally wrote this rant as a reblog to their original post but it ended up being LONG AF and I didn’t want to hijack their post like that so I decided to just post this feminism and Lucy rant as my own post.

So something that I see a lot in most fiction and not just shounen manga but also in Western sci-fi/action fiction as well, is that the female characters in those stories who aren’t primarily fighters, or do fight but not as well as other characters are often criticized for being useless because they “always need to be saved” or “can’t win a fight on their own” and while this does happen to a lot of female characters in these genres, it doesn’t make them “useless” characters to the story. These people just don’t seem to realize that there are other important roles for characters in these genres aside from fighting and beating bad guys, and that’s emotional support. 

You don’t have to fight in order to change/save someone’s life. Emotional support is just as essential as physical in both fictional stories and in real life and I feel like people seem to forget that a lot.

Especially since that emotional support often comes from female characters which people are already frothing at the mouth to discredit and undermine so it’s no surprise that people complain that they’re useless because they can’t fight as well as the male mc (which is stupid especially in shounen manga because in those stories no one fights as well as the main male mc, that’s kind of a trademark of the genre tbh) and claim that that take is “feminist” while completely ignoring the important role that those female characters play in uniting the other characters for a certain cause and giving them the courage to keep fighting and fighting with them even if they aren’t the strongest fighter in the story. 

But those parts of their stories are usually downplayed or ignored in favor of the “she’s just a love interest” argument, which is actually a more complex and important role to a story than people seem to realize. But I won’t get into that here because that’s a different argument and that would involve getting into her relationship with Natsu and I want to keep this meta purely about Lucy and how  people try to paint her as a “useless character” because of sexism. If you want to read about how nalu is actually more feminist/progressive than people think, click here.

Now if you’re judging characters importance to the story of Fairy Tail based on how many fights they’ve won/lost, then you’re only focusing on one aspect of the story which is the action, and completely ignoring the emotional/narrative parts of the story that make us fall in love with these characters and root for them during the action.

For example, the guild wouldn’t even exist if not for Lucy! After Makarov disbanded it after Tartaros, Lucy was the only one who kept tabs on the guild members in order to reach out to all of them to get the guild back together once Natsu and Happy came back to her. And they even said it multiple times in the manga that they wouldn’t have come back together without her. So yeah the guild would not have come back together to defeat Alvarez without Lucy.

And, everyone seems to forget that during the Tartaros arc, she literally saved everyone’s freaking lives by sacrificing Aquarius’s key to summon the Celestial Spirit King and free everyone from the fortress they were trapped in. Everyone would still be trapped in that thing and Tartaros would not have been defeated if she didn’t make that sacrifice. And it was a huge sacrifice! Lucy’s spirits mean everything to her! Sacrificing Aquarius to save everyone in Fairy Tail left her freaking heartbroken! 

And that wasn’t the only sacrifice that she’s made in the series either! Her freaking future self sacrificed her life when Rogue tried to kill Lucy in order to save her life. 

Now you could argue that other major characters in the series have made large sacrifices too, such as Juvia saving Gray, and Makarov using Fairy Law at the cost of his life and maybe others too that I’m forgetting. But those sacrifices while important to the story and the importance of those characters, are made up for by both Makarov and Juvia being brought back to life later with Juvia sustaining a scar, and Makarov being in a wheelchair which yes, is a big deal and should not be overlooked. But the point I’m making is that both he, and Juvia intended to sacrifice their lives, but ended up living anyway. Like Gray and the multiple times he’s attempted to use iced shell but always ends up getting interrupted or talked out of it. 

So Lucy is the only main character who has intended to sacrifice something important, and followed through with it without getting revived later (although it was only her future self that died, but the point is she still died without getting revived later on in the story) and without getting the sacrificed item back. Yeah, people seem to forget that Lucy sacrificed Aquarius’s key, and Lucy still does not have that key back. So even if you think that future Lucy dying isn’t a heavy sacrifice because that was just a version of Lucy, the Aquarius sacrifice is definitely a heavy one because that one didn’t get resolved later. Lucy sacrificed that key, and did not get it back immediately after or at the end of the arc, or even at the end of the story! Yes the key is out there in the world somewhere but she still has to find it and that’s probably not gonna happen for awhile and it’s gonna be really difficult to get it back! Lucy sacrificed something precious to her for the sake of her guild that she loves so much and she never got it back at the end of the main story. And that’s why I think that sacrifice in particular is probably the biggest one in the story. 

But that sacrifice is often overlooked by fans who claim she has no purpose in the story, because that wasn’t a “fighting” sacrifice like giving their life for another character. That was an emotional sacrifice because she sacrificed her ability to not only use Aquarius’s key, but have her in her life as a close friend by sacrificing her key. No life was lost by Aquarius’s key being shattered, but it shattered Lucy’s hearts and ours in turn. 

It was a big emotional sacrifice, and that’s why it’s downplayed because emotional components of a story like Fairy Tail which are what Lucy plays a big role in, are often played by female characters, because being “emotional” is a traditionally feminine role in most stories. 

In fact, putting a higher importance on traditionally masculine roles for characters like fighting, and downplaying the more feminine roles like emotional support, makes it pretty obvious what those so-called “fans” are really saying when they say Lucy is “useless”. 

More often than not, people who claim Lucy is useless do so because they compare her fighting ability to Erza, who is a very skilled warrior and has many important achievements in the battles she’s been in. And because of this, they claim that Erza is a stronger female character than Lucy in the story. 

But just because Erza is a female character that is a good fighter, doesn’t mean she’s a stronger female character than Lucy. Both Lucy and Erza are equally strong female characters in their respective roles in the story. But people, mainly misogynists, don’t look at it that way and just lump them into the category of “female character” which guess what, is sexist because you’re only categorizing those characters by their genders and not the distinct and equally important roles they play in the story.

Having Erza be one of the most powerful wizards in the guild as a great fighter is a huge win for female representation in shounen manga because she plays a role that is typically reserved for male characters. But that doesn’t mean that Lucy, who plays the role of emotional support which is typically reserved for female characters any less important. The idea that all female characters need to be less “emotional” or “feminine” and need to play more traditionally masculine roles like Erza does in order to be considered good female representation, completely misses the point.

So while I do want to see more female characters in roles typically reserved for male characters like Erza. I also want to see the female characters who are in traditionally feminine roles for the genre like Lucy get treated with more respect and be recognized for their importance to the story and not get labeled as “useless” because they didn’t win a boss fight.

Because if you think that characters, both male and female who serve the more traditionally masculine roles like fighting are more important to the story than the characters, both male and female who serve the traditionally feminine role of emotional support, then guess what! That’s misogyny too!

If Fairy Tail was purely just a story about people punching each other, then we would not be as invested in the story or these characters as we are. Lucy is the one who makes important emotional sacrifices, and is the one who reminds the guild what they’re fighting for, and gives them hope and happiness when they need it most. 

So if you think Lucy’s useless because she doesn’t fight as much or as well as the other characters in the story, then just admit you’re a misogynist because if you have that opinion then you clearly didn’t take the time to pay attention to the story as a whole, and were too blinded by your sexist views to see how important to the story Lucy’s role as the heart, aka the emotional support of Fairy Tail actually is. In fact, the story wouldn’t have even started without her since she’s the first character we meet. 

Emotional support in a story like Fairy Tail is just as important as the fighting. The story would have ended after Tartoros without Lucy. Lucy is the one who not only saved all of their lives but brought their guild back together. Fairy Tail would not exist without Lucy. That’s how Lucy primarily saves the day in this story, not by punching people with magic, but with her heart that is filled with love for her friends that fuels her actions, just like Natsu, Gray, Erza and literally everyone else in the guild. She’s no different from them in terms of her importance to the story, her role is just a little different from theirs.

[natsubeatsrock]

Did Mashima fridge Juvia?

Well, it was only a matter of time.

I knew I would have to talk about this some year on August 31st. It just happens that this is the year.

For those who don't know, today is a special day in this blog's history. Six years ago, I made a long post talking about Juvia. Most notably, I was fearful about the possibility that Juvia would die. A year later, I was reacting to chapter 499, where Juvia was presumed to have died. Since then, I've used this day to talk about Juvia dying in some way or another. 

Last year, I mentioned that I wasn't willing to open this can of worms. And yet, here we are. To be honest, I figured that this was a topic worth talking about, but not in that post. I was already planning to dive into that this year.

To start, let's talk about the term.

Flashback to 1994. In issue 54 of Green Lantern, the main character walks into his apartment. His girlfriend has been killed and stuffed into a refrigerator by one of his enemies.

Five years later, [insert descriptor here] comic book writer Gail Simone took this incident as the impetus to note a trend in writing female characters in comics. They die or face serious bodily harm to advance the arcs of fellow male characters. She teamed up with other writers to start a website called "Women in Refrigerators". It's a list of female comic characters who fit this trope, to some degree or another. It's still up today, and you can see some more recent inclusions.

My own thoughts on this trope are mixed. I think that there's something to be said about one character's development coming at the expense of another character. Especially if that trend is decidedly gendered. Though, this argument is used in ways that come across in ways that are infuriatingly stupid and short-sighted. I've even seen it argued that women being harmed in fiction is inherently misogynistic. (Please don't make me talk about this.)

In any case, the argument has far exceeded the scope of comic books. (I say as if I'm not talking about comics.) This has been brought up in talking about media of all sorts. Video games, movies, television, and more. If a female character is placed in harm's way, people will argue whether or not she was fridged.

So, with that in mind, let's talk about Juvia's death.

Or false death?

I mean, we thought she was dead, but it turned out to be a fake-out.

Actually, let's talk about that. That happens to be a great place to start.

Does it count as being fridged if the serious effects were reversed?

I know that probably sounds like I'm splitting hairs. After all, it's not as if chapter 499 is wiped out of existence because we also got chapter 500. Mashima ultimately decided to kill Juvia. That's what should matter most to our discussion. Honestly, I might be inclined to buy this argument under normal circumstances. However, there happens to be a group of people who argue otherwise. They've convinced me that this is worth talking about.

Who are these horrible misogynists who would discount this kind of suffering on Juvia's part?

The people behind Women in Refrigerators.

At least, sort of?

As you might imagine, people have argued against the idea of this trope. To many people, more men have been harmed in fiction. In many cases, men in pain are treated as nothing special. In fact, there are examples of men dying to further the character arcs of female characters.

As a response to this, the website has included an article entitled "Dead Men Defrosting." Essentially, it doesn't matter if men do go through similar pain. There is a difference between these situations. In many cases, men who get fridged are eventually restored to their initial state. They gain their powers, are healed, or even come back to life. Women don't often get that same opportunity in comics.

Let's stop and think about Juvia's situation for a second. She was dead for all of one week, as far as fans are concerned. In canon, it was even less time. If Gray decided to stay behind for a few minutes, he also would have been healed by Wendy. In fact, with the continental connection to Tenrou Island, the whole scenario is forfeit. In hindsight, Juvia's life was never in danger.

So, could it be said that Juvia was truly fridged if she ended up being "defrosted"?

No, technically speaking.

Then again, I've been very critical of the writing of this. I've made many posts explaining why I think this was bad. Would ending the discussion here be the right thing to do? More importantly, is that the kind of resolution you clicked on this post to find?

There is also an elephant in the room. For better or worse, Women in Refrigerators also includes women whose states were corrected. Now, does this contradict the point they made regarding male characters? It’s starting to feel as though I should make a post about this trope on its own.

In any case, let’s ignore the fact that this didn’t actually stick. For the sake of this, let's assume that this does fall under the definition of fridging. Or, at least, that it could.

Did Mashima fridge Juvia?

To say that it did would mean that the death was done to move Gray's character arc. And... well... I mean...

Look, Gray is pushed to the edge of his sanity because he believes Juvia has died. That much is obvious, given the context of his rematch with Invel. I'm not willing to argue that this wasn't the case.

But...

I can't say that Juvia's death was so big a reason for Gray to change. 

If we're talking about Gruvia, maybe it could be argued he decided to take Juvia's romantic feelings seriously after seeing her die. But that only works if you take his words in chapter 499 in the most literal sense possible. It's more likely that he already had feelings for Juvia and was ready to share them after the war ended.

Outside of that, because Juvia died, Gray fights Invel, who he blames for killing Juvia. When he beats the stuffing out of him, he finds out that Natsu was END and directs his fury towards him. They fight for a bit, but they're ultimately stopped. Once he finds out about the Natsu-Zeref death arrangement, he decides the best way to deal with the situation is to go through with Lost Iced Shell.

You could read this as Gray going through with Lost Iced Shell because of Juvia. If Juvia didn't die (but not really), Gray wouldn't think to go use the spell. However, this view discounts Gray's stated motivations for using Lost Iced Shell: guilt over fighting Natsu and wanting to protect him from dying. Gray obviously regrets how the situation with Juvia went if the final chapter means anything. But Lost Iced Shell doesn't seem to be done because of Juvia. (I may rant about a comment I got about this some other day.)

And now, I will defy conventional wisdom and make probably the most controversial argument possible about this moment. Juvia's sacrifice was for Juvia's character arc. Not Gray's.

It's worth remembering what Juvia's arc is. I know that fandom often questions what Juvia's arc is. However, I believe that her arc is best described as understanding love. When she first fights Gray, she says that she has no need for love. A few arcs later, she sacrifices herself because of her love for Fairy Tail.

The motivation for Juvia sacrificing herself for Gray is her love for Gray. No one questions Juvia's feelings for Gray. However, this moment shows that she's willing to sacrifice her own life for Gray. Do you think that Juvia would do this before Phantom Lord?

This isn't to say that I think Juvia's arc was well-written. It's easy to criticize Juvia's extravagant displays of love seem. Or how Juvia's love seems to center more around Gray than others. Or how there are ways to show that you love someone in non-romantic ways. And fans of the series have shared the problems they have with how Juvia's character was handled.

But we're not here to talk about those things. We're here to ask if Mashima "killed" Juvia for Gray's development. And, despite how bad I think the moment was, I can't say that Mashima did.

Consider I’m the one saying this. Like, it would be something if one of the bigger Gruvia blogs made this argument. (I feel as though a couple of them may have blocked me.) That’s something that could be expected. I’ve outright called this the worst moment in the series at one time. I’d love to tack on another reason not to like this moment.

But I can’t.

“That’s because you’re clearly against the idea of this trope existing, chauvanist pig!“

I’ll assume you missed the intro for the trope earlier in this post. I’m willing to admit that this does happen. In fact, I already talked about how I hate how Last Ages happened. Ultear got done way dirtier than Juvia did and didn’t have the effects reversed. Not to mention, it was ACTUALLY done to further Gray’s character.

In Conclusion:

I don’t think it’s a good idea to call what happened to Juvia “being fridged“. Even if Juvia were to have actually died.

[vinca-majors]

Michaela Brown, ScaryMommy:

Upon graduating college with my hard-earned degree to teach high school English, I almost immediately began planning for  my graduate studies. Lots of high schools around the country require their teachers to have a masters degree, so that was a motivator. Plus, it came with a pay raise. And, I truly enjoyed going to school. In fact, at the time, I hadn’t ruled out going on and earning my doctorate as well.

I did end up graduating with my M.A. in secondary education, after writing a thesis I’m damn proud of. My path changed a bit and I never went on for my doctorate, but you can be sure as hell if I had that I’d claim that Dr. title. That my students—even the grumpiest of teenagers whose eyes shot daggers at me as I made them read Shakespearean sonnets—would be calling me Dr. and not Mrs. or Miss.

And as I’ve encountered other professionals with that Dr. title, I’ve never hesitated to refer to them that way. My children’s formal principal went by Dr. Matthews. No one questioned it. I’ve had professors at the undergraduate and graduate level use the title. Again, that’s what we all called them. With respect. And without hesitation. Just as we refer to famous figures like a man we’ve all heard of—Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.— because each of these people put in the work, the years, the money, the commitment, and the dedication. Each of them earned their Dr. title.

So yeah, when Dr. Jill Biden completed her education and earned her Doctor of Education (Ed.D) from the University of Delaware, she rightfully earned the title “Dr.” and deserves to be referred to as such. Just as any other professional with that level of expertise does as well. Is she a medical doctor? No. Does she claim to be? No. Have professionals in academia added Dr. to their titles once they’ve earned their doctorate for centuries? Yes.

However, because some ignorant asswipes remain stuck in 1950, or don’t understand how higher education works, or simply are bound and determined to hate on the Bidens as they hated on the Obamas even though they are kind and supportive of others—regardless of political party, her title is under scrutiny.

The Wall Street Journal stupidly published an op-ed, which has now gone viral, that was moronically entitled, “Is There a Doctor in the White House? Not if You Need an M.D.” And, of course, this piece of trash essay included a byline that reads, “Jill Biden should think about dropping the honorific, which feels fraudulent, even comic.”

Joseph Epstein, the “writer” of this ignorant word vomit, opens by condescendingly calling Dr. Biden “kiddo” and offering her advice, as if he is in any position to advise the First Lady of the United States on literally anything. “Madame First Lady—Mrs. Biden—Jill—kiddo: a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is a not unimportant matter,” Epstein mansplains.

He then goes on to insult her dissertation on student retention at community colleges, calling it “unpromising” and, in the same paragraph, refers to the idiotic but commonly used quip that no one can call themselves “doctor” unless they’ve delivered a child.

Let’s break this bullshittery down, shall we? First of all, Mr. Epstein, your piece reeks of envy. We’re sorry you didn’t have the… guts? courage? stamina? intelligence level? (who knows) to actually ever earn a doctorate, but you sound bitter. It’s not a good look. Also, it’s clear that you don’t respect the value of community colleges, which is where Dr. Biden has spent a large portion of her career. And, finally, the world now knows that you are threatened by smart women. Bravo.

Also, we’ll be sure to let all the medical doctors out there who’ve tirelessly fought COVID-19 this year, holding the hands of dying patients, and also those brilliant scientists who thankfully have brought us a vaccine that offers a beacon of hope, that they don’t get to call themselves “doctor” because they’ve never caught a newborn baby. I’m sure they’ll appreciate that tidbit of info from you—*checks notes*—a man with one single undergraduate degree, no earned doctorate, and zero medical expertise.

Basically, Mr. Epstein, it’s obvious that you have some personal issues you need to unpack. Maybe take some time over the holidays to do a little self-reflection? Like, why do you even care what title Dr. Biden goes by? Why are you so scared of women who are more successful than you?

Your piece then goes on a long, barely coherent rant about “honorary doctorates,” which is not what Dr. Biden has. If you’d like to blast the validity or point of bestowing honorary doctorates on celebrities like Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers, for example, go right ahead, but that has nothing to do with Dr. Biden. This lack of cohesive argument is why I’ve referred to you as a “writer” a few paragraphs up, because it seems apparent that you don’t understand the need for basic textual support.

(Calling you a jealous asswipe, well, that’s just a reflection of your character.)

Finally, your last “supporting argument” (again, use of quotes intentional here) as to why Dr. Biden should drop her title is because apparently doctorates don’t count anymore. Back in the day, you explain, doctoral exams were far more grueling, but today’s candidates get off way too easy.

“One had to pass examinations in two foreign languages, one of them Greek or Latin, defend one’s thesis, and take an oral examination on general knowledge in one’s field,” your op-ed states. “At Columbia University of an earlier day, a secretary sat outside the room where these examinations were administered, a pitcher of water and a glass on her desk. The water and glass were there for the candidates who fainted. A far cry, this, from the few doctoral examinations I sat in on during my teaching days, where candidates and teachers addressed one another by first names and the general atmosphere more resembled a kaffeeklatsch.”

(I had to look up what kaffeeklatsch meant—it’s an informal social gathering at which coffee is served. Excuse my lack of knowledge there. I’m just a silly woman with a higher degree than you.)

And, as you end with, “Dr. Jill, I note you acquired your Ed.D. as recently as 15 years ago at age 55, or long after the terror had departed,” you not only insult her by addressing her as “Dr. Jill”, but you also imply that because she likely didn’t faint while taking her exams or defending her dissertation, that somehow her degree isn’t real.

That’s the crazy thing about education—it evolves. Today, kids even use these neat little things called computers! You wouldn’t believe it. Another way we’ve evolved is to realize that shockingly, our doctoral candidates don’t have to become physically ill to prove they are smart and worthy of their degree!

(I mean, you never even tried, Mr. Epstein, so I guess even today, doctoral programs are only for the toughest among us, like Dr. Jill Biden.)

Also, it seems that Northwestern University, where you were previously listed as “emeritus lecturer of English,” has scrubbed you entirely from their website, stating that it is “firmly committed to equity, diversity and inclusion, and strongly disagrees with Epstein’s misogynistic views.” Again, evolution! Change is good.

Hmmm. So one of you is a misogynist with no teaching history to even brag about as your previous employer has disassociated with you, and another is a successful educator committing to helping all Americans have access to a proper education. Oh, and the second one goes by Dr.

Looks like the real “comical fraud” is you, bruh.

And just so we’re clear, Dr. Biden has always been committed to ensuring that everyone (not just pretentious twats like you, Joseph Epstein) has access to a fair education. Earlier in her career, she worked in a psychiatric hospital where she taught English to adolescents with emotional disabilities. During that same time she also earned two (yes, TWO) master’s degrees, one from Villanova University and one from West Chester University. In 2009, after earning her doctorate, she began teaching English at Northern Virginia Community College, and advocating for community college education has since been her passion. “Dr. Biden has always said that community colleges are ‘one of America’s best-kept secrets.’ As a teacher, she sees how community colleges have changed the lives of so many of her students for the better,” explains former president Barack Obama’s White House website.

Sorry, Mr. Epstein, but not everyone can afford to enroll in an English class at Northwestern taught by a raging sexist who gets his balls in a bunch when women succeed. For many, community college is a better fit, and Dr. Biden is a big part of that.

“In 2012, she traveled across the country as part of the ‘Community College to Career’ tour to highlight successful industry partnerships between community colleges and employers,” the website goes on to say. “In the fall of 2010, she hosted the first-ever White House Summit on Community Colleges with President Obama, and she continues to work on this outreach on behalf of the Administration – frequently visiting campuses, meeting with students and teachers, as well as industry representatives around the country.”

Imagine all of the hard-working Americans Dr. Biden has helped by supporting community colleges. Future teachers just like her often get their degree while working full time, raising a family, and going to college at night. Who knows, some of them may even—gasp—go to grad school too. High school kids who choose to forego going away to a full-time university and instead, take classes at a community college closer to home, are given that option because of people like Dr. Biden. Kids who go on to be EMTs, police officers, technicians in trade industries, engineers, and find success in the business world. Or, they transfer those college credits to a larger university down the road when they have the means to do so. Single moms doing their best to give their children a good life often attend community college classes online, after their children are asleep, proving that they have the drive and determination to do more and be more.

So, what it all boils down to, Mr. Epstein, is that you really, really hate that there’s about to a woman in the White House who’s smarter than you. And not only that, but she inspires women everywhere to work hard, earn their degrees, and then they’ll be smarter than you too. Yikes. That’s a tough pickle to be in, Mr. Epstein. We’re sorry that you are so insecure and unhappy with your own lack of success.

At least you can still wrote those stellar op-eds though! Good luck with your “writing” career, kiddo.

[ettadunham]

A Buffy rewatch 6x13  Dead Things

aka nothing’s wrong with you Buffy!!!!!

Welcome to this dailyish (weekly? bi-weekly?) text post series where I will rewatch an episode of Buffy and go on an impromptu rant about it for an hour. Is it about one hyperspecific thing or twenty observations? 10 or 3k words? You don’t know! I don’t know!!! In this house we don’t know things.

And today’s episode is… tough. Yeah. Can I just talk about Buffy and Tara instead?

I’ve been essentially training myself for Dead Things ever since starting this rewatch, not even gonna lie. I earlier likened this episode to Billy from Angel. Both depict violent misogyny in unsettling ways, and while that portrayal purposeful and pointed, it’s also just… really hard to watch.

One of the differences though is that while the misogynistic violence permeated every aspect of the episode in Billy, Dead Things confines most of its rape and murder to the Trio’s storyline. Most of it.

The wider overlying theme instead is one of objectification and dehumanization.

I’m not sure I need to get into much of a detail on how that relates to the aforementioned Trio grossness, but I guess we’ll need to talk about it, so…. Warren and co.’s plans to turn some woman of their choosing into their “sex slave” with some mind control device is extremely disturbing from the start. Just writing it down makes me feel all yikes.

But Jonathan and Andrew only realize that once it’s revealed that the girl Warren brought back with the device was his ex. Now that Katrina had a name and a past, it was suddenly messed up that Warren would choose her. They still couldn’t see the issues with their plans, just the fact that Warren chose a person, instead of an object they clearly saw all women as.

And then Katrina calls them out on the fucking rape!!! Which is what they were about to do!!! And they’re shocked!!!

I just… could we just talk about Buffy and Tara instead? Like, there’s a lot more that I want to say about the themes of dehumanization here, how they refer to Katrina’s body as “it” after the murder, how Buffy sees herself and how Spike uses that sense of feeling less human to isolate her, yet at the same time, how Buffy herself uses Spike, but… I’m struggling a lot with writing about this.

So! Buffy and Tara!

I’ve already outed myself as a shipper here, but I also just want to appreciate certain aspects of this dynamic we see from their two scenes in this episode.

In the first one, Tara’s visiting Buffy at work, which is kind of awkwardly adorable, as Tara’s taking in Buffy’s new job for the first time. Tara initially assumes that Buffy called her about Willow, but then Buffy clarifies and finally asks the question that’s been bothering her for 4 episodes now, ever since finding out that Spike can hit her.

Did she come back “wrong” after the resurrection, as Spike put it?

To which Tara’s response is a very empathetic NO. She barely lets Buffy finish before saying it too.

And I want to talk about that, because this idea that maybe they botched the spell and Buffy “came back wrong” actually came up with the Scoobies before, right after the resurrection. There, Willow was the most vocal denier of that, but that mostly came from her own sense of guilt and responsibility if that was the case. She was the one who pushed and did the spell after all.

I don’t feel like however, that really has anything to do with Tara’s response here though (even if she was part of the spell herself, and had some responsibility as well). This has much more to do with her own upbringing and background, which is even underlined by how her stutter comes back for a second.

Tara’s family made her believe that she was a demon for years. Some Evil Thing. They took a young girl in a vulnerable place and made her feel even more isolated. More easily controlled.

So yeah, Tara is so not here for anyone trying to make Buffy feel that way. Even if it’s Buffy herself.

(But it’s also Spike. Like I said before, Buffy is dehumanizing Spike too, but Spike is just straight up attacking Buffy’s own sense of self-worth, and uses her shame to isolate her from her friends even further.)

And then there’s the last scene. I… cried? Not just because of Buffy’s breakdown, but the level of empathy and understanding Tara showed her. Which is essentially what made Buffy let it all out as well.

Maybe Buffy using Spike isn’t right, but neither is being trapped in her own vicious cycle of self-loathing. And Tara knows that. Probably more than most.

There’s nothing wrong with Buffy. She’s been going through something traumatic, acted out, and intentionally or not, hurt some of the people around her. More than anyone though, she was hurting herself.

“You always hurt the one you love” – that’s actually my favorite interpretation of this quote, because Buffy says it, after she beats up Spike… But as she’s punching him, her words seem to be about herself more than anyone. Kind of like how Faith's was at the end of Who Are You.

And so the reversal of Buffy’s and Faith’s character arcs continue.

I also love the scene Buffy and Dawn share, when Buffy’s about to turn herself in to the police. I appreciate that this actually happens, that Buffy tells Dawn about it. But I also understand Dawn’s response. While it’s very much a core part of Buffy’s character to take responsibility for an action like that, it might also feel like another escape. A decision that would make Dawn lose her sister once again.

Oh yeah, and by the end of the episode, Jonathan seems to be the only part of the Trio who feels bad about getting away with murder. Which makes him the least trash of the group, but that really isn’t saying much.

Before our next stop, let’s also just appreciate how Tara sits in a chair.

On brand.

[wlwbeverly]

for the group chat

fifteen down, twenty more to go.

stan takes a swig of green tea from his mug, pressing it into his hand, sore from writing comments and corrections on the seemingly endless pile of papers he had in front of him. he knows he has to keep going; the deadline for this month’s grades will sneak up on him and it’s better to have them out of mind early on.

that’s what he tells himself. in reality, he’s still putting something, someone, off.

you.

stan had known you were different the first debate he had hosted in class. having studied nearly a decade of history before becoming a professor, he had realized how truly fucked up some areas of it were. he knew that younger generations were getting smarter, and truly trying to understand where they came from. he loved that about teaching; every new class brought in new ideas.

unfortunately, some of those ideas were stupid ones. he had fought back the urge to roll his eyes when one of his “problem students” started arguing the unencessity of the women’s rights movement, saying that it was softening the men of today, blah blah blah, insert more misogynistic, narrow minded garbage here.

no one was willing to talk back, but you had put up your pen about halfway through his rant, sitting silently until stan had gestured to you.

“um, miss-“

“y/n.” you had told him, directing your attention back to the boy who had been speaking prior. “a few counterarguments, i f i may?”

stan had nodded, giving you the ok.

it was as if he had flipped a switch.

you went off on the boy, to the point where stan found himself fighting back laughter at the shocked look on his face, and the whiteness of his knuckles, and the blush on his face.

he had to cut you off about five minutes into you verbally destroying the poor kid

because his stomach hurt from trying so hard to fight back laughter.

he had read your paper that same night, and was awestruck at the way you put words together, and the way you picked your side and fought for it, other’s opinions be damned.

he had a thought that had he been in the class, he would’ve fallen in love with you the second you had brought out the statistics you used to take down the other boy. he pushes it down when he realizes it made his face heat up and his heart beat just a little harder.

you’re more confident after that debate, constantly asking questions and offering up your own answers to the ones he asked the class. stan swears that you could talk him into burning his own house down, and somehow make it make perfect sense.

he tries to push you back down as he sets his mug down, pressing his pen into the page so hard it nearly pokes a hole. he’s ready to drown himself in work, but then he feels something thud distantly.

he silently prays that it’s not what he thinks it is, but then the distant blare of trashy house music confirms it; the local frat’s yearly halloween blowout.

“fuck.” stan sighs, putting his face in his hands momentarily, trying to will the music to stop.

he tries to get back to work, but all he can focus on is the thud of the bass, and if he tries to tune it out, the sound of your voice plays in his head like a broken record.

he can’t control his own brain’ torments, but he can control the noise outside.

he pulls a cardigan on over his shirt, grabbing his keys as he slides on his shoes.

x

he parks far down the street, not wanting his car to be vandalized by rogue frat boys, or drunken party guests.

he catches sight of his reflection in the mirror, and almost laughs at the situation; clad in his collared sweater and khakis, wearing his reading glasses, readying himself to tell a bunch of drunk teenagers to turn their music down.

before he thinks himself into a midlife crisis, striding up the driveway and to the door, ringing the doorbell before the rush of courage leaves him.

it’s gone the second the door opens, and he’s positive he royally pissed someone upstairs off.

you lean on the doorway, glittery eyeshadow smeared haphazardly on your face. your hair is up in half pigtails, a blouse tied right above your stomach, a plaid skirt with a hem that barely brushes your wrists worn over fishnets.

“professor uris!” you greet him, face flushed, words slurred.

you’re drunk.

“miss y/l/n.” stan greets you, trying to avert his eyes from your exposed skin.

“guys, professor uris is here to join the party!” you shout to no one in particular, a few equally drunk frat boys yelling out a few “woohoo!”s at the word “party”.

“oh, i’m not.” stan tells you. “i was actually going to ask-“

“oh, come on!” you urge him, reaching out as if you’re going to grab his hand, but letting your fingers skim his wrist lightly.

“i’m not sure you’d want to party with any of your professors.” stan barely gets out.

“well, not most of them.” you admit, stepping out of the doorframe. “but there’s a difference between you and them.”

stan tries his best to keep his composure, but nearly passes out when you lean in to whisper in his ear.

“you’re sexier than them.”

stan almost groans, covering it up with a fake cough. “i’ll disregard that. i’m here to ask-“

“i don’t want you to disregard anything.” your voice is different. it was light and playful before, but now it’s softer and deeper. you look at him, pupils blown and eyes lidded.

“do you know what i think about in class, professor?” you ask him, and everything in him tells him to move back, but he’s frozen in place.

“i think about you, with me. on your desk, in your office. hands on everything you’ve been staring at just now.”

stan almost passes out.

“now i’m sure you have shit to do, but i’m gonna get back to my-“

you take a step forward and almost fall headfirst down the stairs, stan catching you just in time.

“okay, nope. i’m taking you home.” stan tells you, you going “ooohhh” in response.

“not like that!” he scolds you, you giggling as you hang off of him, him (barely) helping you to your feet.

“what hall are you in?” stan asks.

“woodland.” you tell him. “i wanna walk. i need air.”

“okay,” stan sighs, “but you’re not walking alone.”

you shrug, and the two of you spend the majority of the trip in silence. you break it once you’re closer to the dorms, and you realize how funny it all is; you just told your professor about how badly you want to jump his bones, dressed in the sluttiest costume your local party city had to offer.

you giggle out loud, and stan tries to fight the way his stomach flips at the sound.

“yeah. i know. everything’s hilarious.” stan deadpans, continuing the walk to your dorm. “what is it his time?”

“i-“you laugh again, slumping down on a bench,” i have no idea what the fuck i’m doing.”

stan’s taken back by the statement, having expected you to have been laughing at something only someone as drunk as you would find amusing.

“i’m just here, and i got so sick of the crippling fear that i was wasting my life that i-“ you gesture back in the direction you had walked from, “i did shots till my throat went numb at a fucking frat house!” you laugh, softer this time, pushing your hands back through your hair.

“what do you mean, wasting your life?” stan sits down on the bench, telling himself it’s because his feet are sore, and not because he wants to be closer to you.

“i’m an adult. i’m on my own. i should have a grip on myself.”you tell him, leaning forward with your face in your hands.”i’m supposed to know what i wanna do by now.”

“hey, no, you’re not.” stan tells you, reaching out to put a hand on your shoulder, but retracting it, deciding to put it on his own knee, which is still dangerously close to your bare one. “no one knows what they wanna do at your age.” he tells you, more honest than he’s ever been with a student, let alone at 1AM on a park bench. “you’re young, you have time to figure things out. i still don’t think i’ve figured myself out yet.” stan admits, hoping you won’t remember this come morning; he’s never been this comfortable being so vulnerable.

“i guess i just thought,” you shrug, leaning back into the bench. “i’d hit eighteen, and a switch would flip, you know? and i’d have all my shit in order. and now i’m drunk out of my mind, pouring my heart out to my professor in the middle of the night.”

stan’s heart drops. you’re tanked, and eighteen, and he’s your professor and oh god oh god-

“let’s get you home.” stan stands up abruptly, you stumbling as he guides you back to the dorm.

you get to the lounge in the front of the dorm and immediately lay on the couch. “i’m good here.”

“no, you’re not. you need to sleep in an actual bed.”

“huh, sleep. good.”

“no-y/n!” stan whisper yells, but it’s no use; you’re out cold.

he sighs, runs a hand through his hair, and grabs the blanket off the top of the couch, pulling it over you. out of instinct, he leans forward to press a kiss to your forehead, when the realization that you’re still drunk, and his student flashes in his mind like a neon sign.

he had been close enough to the point where his hair brushed against your forehead, and he pulls himself away, rushing to the door of your dorm and booking it back to his own house.

once he’s back to his car, still parked outside the frat, he flings the door open and slams it shut, as if he can somehow leave the smell of your perfume and the softness of your skin outside if he slams it hard enough.

but it doesn’t work. his brain is fogged over in a haze of you.

he’s completely, undeniably fucked.

[voices-not-echoes]

You're calling out fookjonsastark in your post but have you ever seen Dany-Sue and her hate about Daenerys/her stans? There are MORE Dany/Jonerys haters than Jonsa haters (most Jonerys stans LOVE Sansa - they just don't see her with Jon). All the Jonsa posts today that mention Dany talk about her invading Jon's space or her dragons eating children - theories that hold no water at all. Jonerys people don't do that in relation to Sansa. It's Jonsas who hate all the time, not Jonerys.

Imagine sending this in response to the post I made, thinking you’re making a valid argument. Apparently there is more salt to come on my normally drama-light blog, so once again, feel free to ignore. Also, this is my first anon hate! Congrats you made me feel shitty.

Before I answer, I’m just going to insert a few parts of my post that you should have read before you interacted with it or sent this ask.

“This is all of my raging Jonsa salt finally exploding, so if you don’t ship or you just don’t want to see me go off, feel free to ignore.” ~ Me, letting you know if you follow me exactly what this angry rant I made at 11 o clock at night was so you didn’t have to read it. If you don’t follow me, there was a cut.

“I can recognize that there are Jonsas who are rude and tag incorrectly. I can recognize that there are people who make hateful comments and send gloats and anon hate and all that other bullshit. There are plenty of super nice Jonerys stans too, I follow a bunch of them.”  ~Me, acknowledging that there are people who make hateful posts about Daenerys’ stans

Now, let’s move on to your ask, and the way like 89% of what you said proved my point.

There are MORE Dany/Jonerys haters than Jonsa haters (most Jonerys stans LOVE Sansa - they just don’t see her with Jon). 

First of all, I don’t think the first part of your statement is true? Hating Jonsa is kind of a trend for the whole fandom right now. More importantly, you are not arguing against my post. Although I personally feel uncomfortable making content that is against a fictional character, I am okay with people who do that. I just look away when I see that people don’t like my fave, whether its my favorite ship or my favorite character. I am talking about fans insulting other fans (the real people behind the screens) for theorizing against Jonerys or liking Jonsa. I’ll leave some pictures below to clarify.

Post criticizing Sansa and promoting Jonerys:

Do I agree with that content? No. Is it critical of my favorite character? Yes. Does it make me want to cry because I feel like my intelligence is insulted when I’m already having a bad day? No. Not insulting the people who like a character is not hard. Let’s see some people fail at it**.

**I had to venture into the anti Jonsa tag to prove my point on this one and just know, these were only the short Jonsa criticisms I found. I could have basically copied That One Big Jonerys Fan’s entire blog. This made me kind of emotionally exhausted also. I don’t think I’ll respond to any other asks on this.

Huh…..it’s almost like…..people make their whole brand out of being mean to Jonsas. Whoever could have guessed? I don’t care about your hatred of a fictional character. Literally write whatever you want about Sansa Stark. I won’t like it. Sometimes I’ll refute it. But I won’t feel personally attacked because it isn’t a personal attack. As soon as you bring in how every Jonsa is a delusional, misogynistic teenage soccer mom who advocates for slavery, the murder of children, and feudalism, it is a personal attack. And even if it’s tagged correctly, if I see it, it will hurt me.

I’m not even going to talk about the fact that, despite how ridiculed they are, Jonsa theories generally come from somewhere? Whether its some book passages, chapter order, costumes, or scene directions, there is some evidence and a lot of analysis behind these metas and theories, and even if parts of them or even all of them turn out to not be true, it still took a lot of intelligence and work to put together that evidence and analyze the shit out of it. The Jonsa fandom is smart and creative and, contrary to popular opinion, not entirely made up of salty people who hate Dany so much they just had to join the party. We all have our own personalities, our own pet theories, our own level of investment in the ship. Even though Political Jon and Dark!Dany are popular in our fandom right now, not everyone believes them, including me! I’m thinking heroic sacrifice for Dany and Jon! Look at that! A jOnSa! With her own opinions!

All the Jonsa posts today that mention Dany talk about her invading Jon’s space or her dragons eating children - theories that hold no water at all.

Oh and also I’m refuting this even though I wasn’t originally planning on it because this post is already so long and so salty that I might as well. 

That scene in the trailer where Dany approaches Jon is like 3 seconds long and has no context, so… literally any theory about it holds water. It could be Dany sneaking down to meet up with Jon for some hot sex on Catelyn’s grave. It could be Dany threatening to burn Winterfell to the ground. It could just be Dany and Jon sharing a moment before they go up to feast after arriving. We don’t know!

Oh and…. about the dragons? Hate to tell you this but the dragons frequently burn people. That’s kind of the reason they’ve been brought North. To burn the wights. And, just in case you’ve forgotten, they have burned a child. Her name was Hazzea.

[marshmallow-the-vampire-slayer]

MTVS Epic Rewatch #181

VM 3x12 There’s Got To Be a Morning After Pill

Stray thoughts

1)  The episode starts with Veronica’s dream.

She wakes up and gets off the bed.

LOGAN: I don't want you to go.

VERONICA: I wish I didn't have to.

Then she goes to the balcony and takes in the view.

The moment is broken when she hears a girl’s giggles coming from inside. And then…

There’s really no subtlety in this dream, right? It’s clear Veronica has already made up her mind the Madison thing is not something she’s going to get over and that she’ll break up with Logan. But I think it’s not only about the fact he slept with Madison. It’s also about her constant fear that he will cheat on her because she feels sexually inferior to Logan and his previous sexual partners. 

2) Veronica is woken up by Logan’s phone call. He jokes about their date that night, and Veronica tries her best to keep up the banter but her mind is somewhere else. Logan ends the call by playfully telling her “Don’t go changing”, a line which seems to be addressing one of the reasons they broke up a few episodes ago: Veronica is constantly expecting Logan to change to fit her expectations but feels wronged when Logan expects the same of her, even though all of he was asking of her was not to be reckless or put herself in danger when she goes snooping around. Logan seems to be extending an olive branch with this line, it’s his way of saying he wants a fresh start and that he’ll try not to make the same mistakes they’ve made before.

But all Veronica can think about is his tryst with Madison.

The question is, why hasn’t Veronica confronted him about it yet? It seems a couple of days have gone by, and even though it’s clear the Madison thing is the only thing on her mind, she doesn’t bring it up, not until later. Is it because of their “come clean” bedroom talk the previous episode, in which he admitted to having slept with someone while they were broken up? Does she feel she has to hold her “promise” that she still loves him, despite his confessions?

It somehow feels out of character for Veronica to be torturing herself in this way by keeping quiet when she is always been so confrontational, especially when it comes to finding out dirt on Logan…

3) This is truly one of the most messed up cases in the series (yes, in a series that repeatedly and rather questionably dealt with rape storylines, this is probably more messed up…)

BONNIE: I got pregnant and someone slipped me RU-486. VERONICA: RU...? BONNIE: It causes a miscarriage and I want you to find out who it was.

4) Can I ask why we are still cutting Dick slack? Why did the writers? Why did Veronica?

VERONICA: I'm so sorry, Bonnie. I'm looking for the least rude way to ask you if you know who the father was...  And that's what I came up with.

BONNIE: It was Tim...or Dick.

VERONICA: Fair enough. So, did Tim or Dick know about the baby?

BONNIE: They both did. At first, I was just so freaked out, I didn't even think I wanted to keep the baby. I went to Dick and asked if he'd help pay for the procedure.

VERONICA: How did that go?

BONNIE: He said he'd pay... after I got a paternity test.

VERONICA: Yeah. He's a classy dude.

5) And here we go again…

VERONICA: Did you and Madison have sex over winter break? I asked you point-blank.

LOGAN: And I lied. Point-blank. It wasn't information that you had a right to know. I knew you wouldn't be able to deal with the Madison thing.

VERONICA: Which thing are you talking about? The "she roofied me" thing or the thing when I stumbled to my car in the morning, wondering where my virginity was, and she'd written "slut" on my windshield? Was that what you thought I couldn't deal with? I am so genuinely sick right now. If I could have eaten anything today, I'd be throwing up all over your floor.

LOGAN: We were broken up at the time.

VERONICA: You know how I feel about her. There's no way that, at some point while it was happening, that you weren't thinking about how much I'd hate you being with her.

LOGAN: It wasn't like that.

VERONICA: No? Do you want another variation? 'Cause I've got a million sickening scenarios running on a loop right now.

LOGAN: I wasn't trying to hurt you.

VERONICA: Oh. Really? Imagine if you tried.

LOGAN: What do you want me to do? What can I do?

VERONICA: Make it not true? Get it out of my head and never let me think about it again? 'Cause...unless you can do that, this is something I'm never getting past.

It’s hard for me to side with Veronica here, though. I mean, I get how she would feel betrayed. Madison had tortured her throughout high school and was the embodiment of everything she hated. But the reasoning she uses here to explain why she feels so betrayed is all... skewed.

Repeat with me: MADISON DID NOT ROOFIE VERONICA.

She didn’t. All Madison was guilty of was being a mean girl who had decided to give Veronica “a trip to the dentist.” Madison wasn’t aware the drink had been laced by her then boyfriend to rape her, if I may add. How is not Dick blamed for it, the one who had actually laced the drink? How is Logan not blamed, the one who had brought the drugs to the party? How are Duncan and Cassidy not blamed, the first for having dubious consent intercourse with her and the latter for actually raping her? Why is Madison the sole focus of Veronica’s hatred on account of what happened to her that night? Why is our heroine so misguidedly misogynistic?

Madison did spray-painted “slut” on Veronica’s windshield. But again, Veronica is only seeing things from her perspective: she had woken up after being raped to find that written on her windshield. Unfortunate, yes. Mean, of course. But it had nothing to do with the rape or Madison’s unknowing involvement in it. Madison had seen Veronica making out with her boyfriend. The reaction might be exaggerated, but it’s hardly on par with the viciousness of what everyone else but Madison did to Veronica that night.

It's all very unfortunate because had Veronica’s arguments for her feelings of betrayal been written differently, I could relate to her. If I found out my boyfriend had slept with someone he’s fully aware I despise while we were on a break and then got back together with me, I would also feel betrayed. I probably wouldn’t be able to look past it, just like Veronica. Especially considering she had to find out from the other party involved. But her sense of betrayal is undermined by the fact she seems to be putting all the blame for one of the most horrible things to ever happen to her on the person who least deserves it, while she’s been dating and hanging out with people who were far more responsible…

Rant over. It’s just this whole Madison thing is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. It’s probably one of my biggest issues with the show.

6) And here she is, fraternizing with a would-be rapist. No qualms whatsoever. She even apologizes for hurting his feelings by telling him about Logan and Madison.

7) Now, this is the Veronica I love, playing on stereotypes to get her way…

  VERONICA VOICEOVER: Sometimes when things don't work out the way a girl wants them to, there's nothing quite as satisfying as the hissy fit.

8) And I love that she’s honest with her dad for once…

VERONICA: Logan and I broke up...again. My idea this time.

KEITH: Ah, I am sorry. You doing okay?

VERONICA: No... No, no, no, no, no.

9) And then she goes mental. But at least she admits it…

VERONICA VOICEOVER: If there is a justification for my actions right now, it's this. I have gone completely crazy. When I'm lying in bed and I can't sleep because of visions of Madison and Logan rolling around, she wins. When I've got her in my sights, I'm in control.

10) Oh, and the throwaway line to remind us that Mac and Madison were switched at birth…

VERONICA VOICEOVER: And watching her get a new Mercedes for her birthday...very healing. At least it's reminded me that I need to buy Mac a present.

Remember when that was a storyline?

11) So Logan’s been holing up in his room for, what, two days? 

At least he’s catching up on the news, right? 

12) She almost flipped her hair…

WEEVIL: Oh, you sought me out. That can only mean one thing. You need a favour.

VERONICA: Is it a favour if it's something we both would enjoy?

14) It’s really hard to watch Veronica be that girl who blames her boyfriend “cheating” on her on the other girl. And to even consider going to such lengths to carry out her vendetta? Despicable!

VERONICA: Remember you told my criminology class about how you stole some guy's car and had it crushed?

WEEVIL: (...) Whose is it?

VERONICA: Madison Sinclair's.

15) How am I just noticing this guy is Scrubs’ Doug?!

16)

EDDIE: This is Carson Drew and his assistant... What's your assistant's name?

KEITH: Nancy.

THURMAN: They're lying to you, Eddie. She came into our office yesterday calling herself Hester, claiming she was troubled.

17) And then the voicemail…

LOGAN: Ah! Veronica's voice mail! So, where are you, Veronica? Out digging through someone's trash, maybe? Interrogating one of your friends? Beating out a confession? You know, if you dig deep enough, you're gonna find that everyone's a sinner. Judge not, Veronica, etcetera, etcetera. All right, stay on message, Logan. Okay, honestly...it's encouraging that someone still has such high expectations of me. Veronica, I would give anything if I could take back that night in Aspen. I'm sorry it causes you so much pain. I'm sorry it happened. And I really love you, Veronica.

I love how he starts out angry and hurt, and then he just breaks down and opens up about how in awe he is at the fact she still has high hopes for him. This is rather heartbreaking. 

Unfortunately, Veronica never heard the message. Such a travesty.

18) This reveal though…

VERONICA: Bonnie. I think Tim slipped you the RU-486.

REV. CAPISTRANO: What? Bonnie? What is she-

BONNIE: Why do you say it was Tim?

VERONICA: This bookmark is...a gift, sent by a pro-life group to everyone who comes out of the Neptune clinic. It's the only clinic in the area that provides RU-486. It's some sort of a shame campaign. I just found it in the pregnancy book Tim gave you. By the way, your CFO works with the same group.

REV. CAPISTRANO: Somebody slipped you...Bonnie, why didn't you tell-

BONNIE: Phyllis.

VERONICA: Bonnie?

BONNIE: Tim didn't give me that book. Phyllis did.

19) And it’s the reverend’s words and example what finally makes Veronica see the error of her ways…

REV. CAPISTRANO: She didn't mean to hurt you. She didn't mean to. Try to be forgiving. It's the only way. Anger will tear you down. It'll make you less of the person that you want to be. And it will tear apart your soul. The Bible teaches us that he who is slow to anger is better than the mighty and he who rules his spirit can capture a city. He who is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who is quick-tempered exalts folly.

20) Well, she is a marshmallow after all…

VERONICA: Let's not do it.

WEEVIL: Are you sure? 'Cause, you know, I...I did go through all the trouble of stealing it.

VERONICA: Here's a little something for the effort. Maybe you could open a can of tuna, set it inside her A/C vent, then park it back on the block.

WEEVIL: I can do that.

VERONICA: Yeah.

WEEVIL: You're going soft, Mars.

[derin-bilgiler]

Darwinism is a supersititous belief that disparages women

http://harunyahya.com/en/works/240840/Darwinism-is-a-supersititous-belief-that-disparages-women

The alleged scientific support that Social Darwinism provided for racism, fascism and imperialism, as well as communism, is a widely known subject that has been much written about. But one lesser known fact is that a great many Darwinists, including Charles Darwin himself, have believed in the fallacy  that women are both biologically and mentally inferior to men.

As the evolutionist scientist John R. Durant also acknowledges, racism and sexual discrimination are the two main consequences of the theory of evolution. Durant verbalized the fallaciousness in Darwin’s stance regarding women as follows:

… Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were "characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization."[i]

The errors made by Darwin that Durant referred to appear in The Descent of Man, as follows:

It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strikingly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation. [ii]

It is clearly obvious that Darwin looked down on women even while he explains why marriage is useful:

… children—constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house—Charms of music and female chit-chat. These things good for one's health.[iii]

Darwin states that he – in his twisted way - regards marriage as necessary using the reasoning which predicates that "a woman's friendship is better than a dog's,"  yet his statements about marriage made no reference at all to features such as friendship, affection, love, devotion, loyalty, closeness, sincerity and trust between two people who spend their lives together. About marriage, Darwin also had this to say:

… loss of time—cannot read in the evenings—fatness and idleness—anxiety and responsibility—less money for books, etc.,—if many children, forced to gain one's bread ... perhaps my wife won't like London; then the sentence is banishment and degradation with indolent idle fool. [iv]

In The Descent of Man, Darwin also claims that men are superior to women:

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music, ... history, science, and philosophy ... the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of women. [v]

Of course, all of Darwin’s negative opinions regarding women and the misogynistic discourses of some other Darwinists, the samples of which will be given as we proceed, are diametrically opposed to the moral values described in the Qur’an. In the Qur’an, God commands us to be very compassionate, respectful and protective towards women. Furthermore, He cites women with superior morality such as Mary and the wife of the Pharoah as role models.  Superiority in the Sight of God is not according to one’s race, gender or rank but according to their closeness to God and their faith. In many verses of the Qur’an God informs us that all those who believe- without any discrimination between man and woman- will be rewarded with what they have done:

Anyone who acts rightly, male or female, being a believer, We will give them a good life and We will recompense them according to the best of what they did. (Surat An-Nahl, 97)

Examples of the nonsensical remarks of Darwinism regarding women

Darwin’s misogynistic statements are very clear and many scientists are well aware of this fact. Dr. Jerry Bergman, who is against the evolution theory and who explains the negative impacts of Darwinism on social life in his more than 800 published works and more than 20 books, says the following in his book titled The Dark Side of Charles Darwin:

Darwin himself concluded that the differences between human males and females were so large that it was surprising “such different beings belong to the same species” and that “even greater differences” had not evolved. Natural and sexual selection were at the core of Darwinism, and human female inferiority was both a major proof and a chief witness of this theory.

Darwin concluded that men shaped women’s evolution the male’s liking by sexual selection, just as animal breeders shaped animals to the needs of humans. Conversely, war tended to prune the weaker men, allowing only the more fit to return home and reproduce. Men were also the hunters, another activitiy that pruned weaker men. Women, in contrast, were not subject to these selection pressures because they “specialized in the ‘gathering’ part of the primitive economy” that did not require the strength or stamina of war or hunting.” [vi]

The major (and mistaken) justifications Darwin gave for his female inferiority conclusions are summarized in his classic work, The Descent of Man. In this book, Darwin argued that adult females of most species resembled the young of both sexes and that “males are more evolutionarily advanced than females.” He (mistakingly) concluded that since female evolution progressed at a slower rate than male evolution, a woman was “in essence, a stunted man”. This degrading view of women rapidly spread to Darwin’s scientific and academic contemporaries.

For example, Darwin’s contemporary and disciple, anthropologist  McGrigor Allan, states that women are less evolved than men and that “physically, mentally and morally, woman is a kind of adult child… it is doubtful if women have contributed one profound original idea of the slightest permanent value to the world.” [vii]

Of course, Darwin had no scientific basis for proposing these fallacies, but his biased and prejudiced claims about women spread rapidly among his scientific contemporaries.

For example, the materialist Carl Vogt, a professor of natural history at the University of Geneva, accepted all the conclusions drawn by Darwin, without subjecting them to any scientific analysis, and claimed that "the child, the female, and the senile white" all had the intellectual features and personality of the "grown -up Negro,” and that consequently they were inferior. [viii]

Herr Vogt went even further and brought forward the lie that they were actually closer to animals than men. According to Vogt, a woman was "a stunted man" whose development had been obstructed because her evolution had come to a premature halt. [ix] Vogt even claimed that the gap between males and females increases with civilization's progress and is greatest in the advanced societies of Europe. [x] Darwin was greatly influenced by Vogt's rantings, and stated that he was honored to count him among his most important supporters. [xi]

Evolutionist Paul Broca (1824-1880) of the Faculty of Medicine in Paris was particularly interested in the skull differences between men and women.  Broca misconstrued the relatively smaller brain in women and came up with the fallacy that women were intellectually inferior to men. Of course, that is a very irrational claim; today it has been concluded that there is no relationship between human intelligence and the size of the brain. It is absolutely impossible to come to a truthful conclusion simply by looking at the weight of the brain.

Many other evolutionists following the fallacies of Darwin and continued to claim that women are biologically and intellectually inferior to men. Furthermore, some evolutionists even classified men and women as two different psychological species. According to this fallacy, men are classified as homo-frontalis and women as homo-parietalis. Again an evolutionist writer, Elaine Morgan stated that Darwin encouraged men to work on the reasons why women were "manifestly inferior and irreversibly subordinant."( EIaine Morgan, The Descent of Woman, New York: Stein and Day, 1972, p. 1)

Being a woman or a man would not make one superior to the other

Obviously, Darwin's theses were based not on science, but on the culture and primitive scientific understanding of the Victorian Era he lived in. These theses gave way to harmful behavior, violence towards women and caused women to be regarded as inferior beings in many societies. Philosophies such as fascism and communism that disparage women, basically embrace Darwin’s misguided understanding regarding women.

The intellectual characteristics that Darwinists use as criteria are abilities given by Allah, irrespective of gender. In one verse, God reveals: "You who believe! If you fear [and respect] God, He will give you a standard (of right and wrong)..." (Surat al-Anfal, 29) As this verse reveals, judgment-and thus, intellect-develops not according to gender, but according to fear of God.

According to the Qur'an, men and women are equal, and superiority is defined by heedfulness.

God has imposed equal responsibilities on both, and holds both responsible for the same matters. Whether one is a male or female does not make a person superior in the Sight of God, but fear and deep love of and devotion to Him, and proper moral values do. In one of His verses, our Lord reveals that regardless of gender, those who exhibit the best behavior will receive the best reward for their moral values:

Anyone, male or female, who does right actions and is a believer, will enter the Garden. They will not be wronged by so much as the tiniest speck. (Surat an-Nisa', 124)

Their Lord responds to them "I will not let the deeds of any doer among you go to waste, male or female..." (Surah Al 'Imran, 195)

[nothingman]

For years, Reddit’s r/TheRedPill forum has been one of the worst corners of the internet. It’s the home of the pickup artist movement, it gave Milo Yiannapolis a fawning fanbase, and it’s the hub of the perceived “manosphere”–a community built around the “men’s rights” philosophy that feminism is a sham built to oppress men.

Reddit is deliberately designed to protect anonymity. But that doesn’t mean users don’t also have to work to protect themselves–something that someone probably should have told Robert Fisher of New Hampshire, who has just been outed by The Daily Beast, via a trail of usernames and custom URLs with ties to Fisher’s email address, as the creator of the misogynistic forum.

Fisher, by the way, also happens to be a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, not that the connection is very surprising. If I had to name the two communities most vocal in their loathing of women, I’d probably go with Red Pill dudes and the GOP.

In addition to Red Pill, Fisher’s reported aliases had also written and published a pickup artist site, a blog attempting to “Explain God,” and one site titled “Existential Vortex.” He also was or maybe still is a singer-songwriter and kazooist in an “indieelectronic” band. Basically, he sounds like exactly the sort of bro-ish college kid, straight off a few frat party rejections and his first philosophy class, whom you would expect to found a misogynistic Reddit forum with a name referencing The Matrix. (Except Fisher had, at the time of Red Pill’s creation, aged out of the follies of youth excuse. He’s 31 now.)

Fisher’s reported “Pk_atheist” alias started the subreddit in October 2012, just before he lost his first election—one he ran as a Democrat. He won his seat in November of 2014, by which time the subreddit had grown to 83,000 members. He had already stepped down as a moderator in early 2013, but continued to be active in the community.

The Daily Beast writes that “within hours of contacting Rep. Fisher, and after delivering by email a summary of his apparent connections to The Red Pill kingpin, his two primary Reddit usernames had been wiped, and four blogs connected to him were deleted or made private.”

[Update: His own colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, are already calling for his resignation. Fisher responded with a statement asserting he is “not disappearing,” adding, “I will continue to stand strong for men’s rights and the rights of all.”]

But the internet doesn’t let you hide from your awfulness that easily. Through archived posts and comment threads, we have way too clear a window into this man’s mind and his motivations for starting this giant sexism feeding ground. Here are just a few direct quotes.

Content warning for, well, for everything Red Pill is about. (Misogyny and rape denial abound.)

–If you want the short version of his views on women: “I find women’s personalities in general to be lackluster and boring, serving little purpose in my day to day life. So I usually only compare body types.”

–“Because when I told myself I thought they were smart, I really had the footnote in the back of my head … smart … for a woman.”

–“I don’t hate women. I just understand what use they are to me. Stimulating conversation is not one of them.”

–“Understand that in the old days, women were not brought up the way they are today. Before feminism, there was less freedom, and therefore it was not necessary to teach women consequence. Consequence was strictly a man’s game.”

–“Women are not oppressed- they’re literally free from a lot of the responsibilities men are- to the extent where women have no need for the functioning every-day knowledge that most men have by the age of 18 … If you took the conversation skills, the sub-par intelligence, the lack of curiosity and put it in a man’s body- would you hang out with that guy? No! Would he be successful? Hell no! Those things are useless without a woman’s body attached.”

–In a post with “seduction” advice, he proposes “There’s a good girl voice inside each woman telling her that she needs to make sure to be proper and avoid being a slut.” He follows up with a lot of tips on how to invade the “good girl’s” personal space and trick her into letting out the “slut.”

–In response to a question about the Free the Nipple movement: “Hot women are a cartel, and they will continue to keep prices as high as possible. Anybody “freeing” their nipples will either be low-quality, or they will have a smear campaign against them to make them seem low-quality, despite the equality implications supposedly working for the cartel.”

–He defended being sexually attracted to teenage girls. “15 year old girls have boobs. Puberty doesnt strike at 18 overnight. Secondly, not creepy- 15 year old girls and guys are commonly sexually active. Its just illegal.”

–In one of his many comments alleging women frequently falsely accuse men of rape, he says he has a video camera in his room, presumably to record his exploits for proof of innocence.

It’s bad enough that someone could hold all of these beliefs, let alone feel confident to enough to put them out in public (even if anonymously so). Add to that the fact that there are, as of now, nearly 200,000 subscribers to the subreddit.

But nothing is scarier than knowing that this is what at least some (and some is too many) of the men who make our country’s laws think about women. And if you think Fisher’s purported Reddit persona is all talk, it’s not. It’s clear that his misogyny infects his platform.

Taking a quick look at Fisher’s terrible, stock-photo-filled campaign website, you can see the threads. In the site’s “Family” section (complete with a stock picture of what I assume is a random family of strangers, so you know he really cares), he says he wants to “strengthen the family.” But all that seems to mean to him is something about the family court legal system. He writes, “It is long over-due to bring oversight and accountability to our family courts. Every parent deserves justice in our courts regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or orientation.”

This obsession with family courts looks to date back to 2012, when his colleague and fellow men’s rights activist Joshua Youssef began publicly decrying the “feminist judicial tyranny” over a custody battle with his ex-wife. A reddit username the Daily Beast attributes to Youssef posted a lengthy rant about the “corruption, deception, greed, lawlessness, and feminist entitlement-mindedness, of the family court” to /theredpill, with Fisher in the comments defending him.

Remember that comment about “low quality” women exposing their nipples? Another one of New Hampshire’s Reps, Al Baldasaro, insulted the physical appearance of a female legislator who was fighting a bill, written by an all-male team, which would have outlawed breastfeeding in public.

Just four days after the 2014 election that put him in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, with only 100 subscribers, Pk_atheist wrote a manifesto of sorts, explaining the point of the, as of then, two-week-old forum.

“Our culture has become a feminist culture,” he wrote. “A president cannot be elected today without succumbing to the feminist narrative and paying them tribute. How many times has Obama given credit for his manhood to his wife? How many times has the debate hinged on women’s pay gap – which is a myth that gets lip service because if you don’t you’re a misogynist!”

Yet he maintained, “It’s too easy to blame feminism for our troubles.” He’s all for equal rights, he says, although he takes care to specify, “Equal rights are something I strongly am in support of. For men and women.” As opposed to unequal equality, I suppose.

His big message is that feminism has led not to equal rights, but to female domination. Women, as he puts it, control the conversation. “I am here to say, for better or for worse, the frame around public discourse is a feminist frame, and we’ve lost our identity because of it.”

Therefore men, he proclaims, need to take back this role of central dominance from women. The Red Pill is “men’s sexual strategy,” designed to counter feminism, which is, apparently, nothing more than a sexual strategy itself.

This, through the Daily Beast’s sleuthing, appears to be Robert Fisher’s worldview. This is a man who gave a space to hundreds of thousands of others looking to blame and conquer women, while simultaneously being elected into public office, where he has the ability to affect real policy.

Here’s the kicker, and keep this in mind the next time you think your vote doesn’t matter: In Fisher’s small New Hampshire district, he won his re-election by only 700 votes. He won his first election in 2014 by 276 votes. Squashing the internet’s rampant misogyny is a challenge too big for any one of us, but if you’re eligible to vote, you can do your part to keep immature, idiotic monsters like this one out of office.

  (via Daily Beast, image: Shutterstock)

Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!

—The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—

via The Mary Sue

[diarynz]

Alan Jones walks back Jacinda Ardern comments: 'Wilful misinterpretation'

New Post has been published on https://diary.nz/alan-jones-walks-back-jacinda-ardern-comments-wilful-misinterpretation/

Alan Jones walks back Jacinda Ardern comments: 'Wilful misinterpretation'

Outspoken radio host Alan Jones has backtracked on a comment he made about Jacinda Ardern where he called the New Zealand PM a “complete clown” and urged Scott Morrison to “shove a sock down her throat”.

In a statement this afternoon, Jones said he had “noted some concern” about his comment this morning, reports news.com.au.

“Of course what I meant to say was that Scott Morrison should tell Ms Ardern to ‘put a sock in it’,” he said.

“There are many people who would relish the opportunity to misinterpret things that I have said as we have seen online this afternoon. Of course I would not wish any harm to Jacinda Ardern.

“This wilful misinterpretation distracts from my point that she was wrong about climate change and wrong about Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide levels.”

Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull was one of the loudest voices to call out Jones, urging the radio host to apologise for his “misogynistic rant”.

Mr Turnbull had praised a comment from Fiji’s Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, who said it was “easy to tell someone to shove a sock down a throat when you’re sitting in the comfort of a studio”.

Well said Frank. Jones should also apologise to @jacindaardern for his latest misogynistic rant. When I announced Australia’s Pacific Step Up in 2016 climate action was a key priority. It may be political to some, but it’s existential in the Pacific. https://t.co/f3OGxvp01N

— Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) August 15, 2019

The hashtag, #SackAlanJones, was also trending on Twitter this afternoon as thousands of people called for the host to be fired from 2GB.

Earlier, New Zealand found itself caught in the middle of simmering tensions between Australia and other Pacific nations after some pointed comments from Ms Ardern yesterday.

The New Zealand PM and Mr Morrison both landed in Tuvalu for the Pacific Islands Forum, where Australia is facing pressure to take greater action on climate change.

She immediately added to that pressure, saying Australia would have to “answer to” the rest of the Pacific.

“We will continue to say that New Zealand will do its bit. And we have an expectation that everyone else will as well. We have to. Every single little bit matters,” Ms Ardern said.

“That is why New Zealand has joined that international call. That is why we speak, I believe, strongly on the international stage around these issues. But ultimately we have to take responsibility for ourselves.

“Australia has to answer to the Pacific. That is a matter for them.”

Ms Ardern and Mr Morrison came together for a bilateral meeting later in the day.

Her comments came after she disembarked her plane in Tuvalu’s capital, Funafuti, to hear a group of local children singing: “Save Tuvalu, save the world.”

The assertion that Australia would answer to other Pacific nations sparked some pushback from the Australian media.

No one was harsher Jones, who said: “Here she is preaching on global warming and saying that we’ve got to do something about climate change,” Jones said on his show this morning.

“The fact is New Zealand’s carbon dioxide has grown by 10.8 per cent per capita since 1990. Ours has grown by 1.8 per cent.

“I just wonder whether Scott Morrison is going to be fully briefed to shove a sock down her throat.

“She is a joke, this woman, an absolute and utter lightweight.

“These people are an absolute joke and Jacinda Ardern is the biggest joke.”

The Australian’s environment editor Graham Lloyd was more restrained.

“Demanding Australia abandon its coal production and exports for the good of the climate in the Pacific is akin to asking New Zealand to give up its love affair with sheep,” Lloyd wrote.

“Ardern is naive if she believes such moves would be economically feasible or in the best interests of regional stability.”

The Daily Telegraph’s Tim Blair, meanwhile, made the point a bit more facetiously.

“New Zealand’s ‘luttle but’ of carbon dioxide output doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference to the fate of Pacific Islands or anything else. Does Wellington even have factories?” he wrote.

Meanwhile, back in Tuvalu, Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama sent a message of his own backing up Ms Ardern.

Ms Ardern and Mr Morrison were all smiles as they came together for their bilateral meeting. Photo / Jason Walls

This morning Ms Ardern’s deputy Winston Peters, who is also New Zealand’s Foreign Minister, walked back her comments and even defended Australia during an interview on ABC radio.

“Let’s make no bones about it, Australia has been a great neighbour in the Pacific. They’ve put a lot of effort and a lot of care and a lot of attention and a lot of sound foreign policy over decades in the Pacific. Before people rush to judgment they should remember that,” Mr Peters said.

He said every nation at the Pacific forum needed to outline its response to the challenge of climate change.

“The Australians have provided their response. The rest of us have provided ours. And to my knowledge it’s not been the New Zealand Prime Minister who’s raised the questions about the Australian response, it’s been other members at the forum. But not our Prime Minister,” he said.

Australia’s response has been to redirect $500 million from its foreign aid budget to help the Pacific nations mitigate the effects of climate change.

But that has not been enough to satisfy all the other leaders.

Yesterday Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga said the situation was “dire” for his country, whose highest point is just four metres above sea level, and the $500 million funding package would not make him “shut up” about climate change.

Mr Peters suggested criticism of Australia did not take in the full picture, and China needed to be brought into the conversation as well.

“You need to look at everybody, not just Australia, but also who is getting that coal and what things they are doing with it,” New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister said.

“What I’m sadly hearing is variations on a theme that (Pacific leaders are) all attacking the Australian Prime Minister, or that they’ve all taken the view, including New Zealand’s Prime Minister, that the Australians are somehow acting incorrectly when that is not the proper picture or the real picture at all.

“There’s a bit of a paradox here.

“There are many Pacific countries that are seeking cheap loans from China. Now those loans are on the backs of coal-fired everything in mainland China, as we well know. So you know, there’s a big picture we’ve got to contemplate here, and we’ve got to ensure we act in this big picture, we act with consistency and integrity.

“You’ve got to look at everybody. Not just — for example, Australia’s got coal and you’re selling it. The next question is OK, who is getting that coal and what are they doing with it? We should keep our eyes on all the details.”

Today Ms Ardern announced New Zealand would dedicate $150 million to a climate change support program in the Pacific.

She said she expected frank but constructive discussions on the subject behind closed doors.

“It is a place where we are able to talk frankly with one another, and I would expect that to occur on a range of issues,” Ms Ardern said.

“But it is clear that climate change is the centrepiece of this, and I think what our Pacific Island leaders want to see is a transition. They want to see progress.”

The behind-the-scenes negotiations will focus on the wording of a communique all leaders are expected to sign at the end of the forum.

Mr Morrison is expected to push back on attempts to include tougher language on climate change or the use of coal in that communique.

Source link

[nofomoartworld]

Hyperallergic: Protest Art, and Institutional Support of It, Is More Vital Than Ever

Emma Sulkowicz and the rules of engagement of “Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)” (2014–15) (via Wikimedia Commons)

I was lying in bed in Marrakech, on vacation with my wife and daughter, when an email from the Associated Press popped up on my laptop, asking if I’d like to make a statement regarding the lawsuit. “What lawsuit?,” I replied, and then closed my computer and went to sleep. The next morning, I awoke to numerous requests for statements from other news agencies and a response from AP that informed me that I, along with Columbia University and its president, Lee Bollinger, was being sued.  The plaintiff, a young man, was a former Columbia student who I didn’t know. His lawsuit — 56 pages long and poorly written — explained that another Columbia student, a young woman, had alleged that the plaintiff had raped her. That young woman, that other student, was Emma Sulkowicz — my student, and an artist of exceptional talent.

That was less than two and half years ago, but, in many ways, it was a world away from today. Obama, a self-declared feminist, was president; freedom of expression was a given; and I had never even heard of the “manosphere” and “men’s rights” groups that populated the margins. Now those men occupy the White House, our president boasts about committing sexual assault, and freedom of expression has taken a bizarre turn, or rather multiple bizarre turns.  Trump attacks the free press, a necessary component of democracy, and declares the media an “enemy of the people.” Neo-Nazis and white nationalists, emboldened by Trump, march through US streets armed to the teeth and fascists organize “free speech” rallies. On the left, there have also been calls to cancel speakers with repugnant views and for art deemed offensive to be removed from museums and destroyed.  But I’m getting ahead of myself.

For those of you who don’t know me, I’m an artist and a professor of visual arts at Columbia. Emma Sulkowicz came into my life in 2012 as a sophomore in my advanced sculpture class, where her intense focus, creativity, and talent stood out. At my urging, Emma applied to the Yale Norfolk Summer Program at the end of her junior year and was accepted. My students, past and current, know that my door is always open and while at Yale, Emma phoned to ask me what I thought about an idea she had for an endurance performance piece. She told me that another student, a friend of hers, had raped her, and that university officials had failed to expel him. Her plan for her senior thesis was to make an artwork that addressed this injustice. As an art professor, part of my job is to help students execute the piece that’s in their head, to help shape the parameters and conditions for that work, and to help them distill the essential idea — especially given that young artists often attempt to do too much in a single artwork. I also help them understand the historical precedents that inform it. Emma’s project touched on numerous established art forms: endurance performance, institutional critique, and political art. I gave her a crash course on some of the seminal artists who helped define each of those forms, such as Tehching Hsieh, Marina Abramović and Ulay, Michael Asher, Chris Burden, and Coco Fusco. Later, my work as a professor — work I do with all of my students — was distorted in the lawsuit, which falsely claimed that I “jointly designed” her project in an act of “Columbia-sponsored calumny.” I did no such thing. The brilliance of Emma’s artwork belongs to her alone.

As the beginning of her senior year approached, Emma was busy formulating her rules of engagement for “Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight).” I was excited for her, but also questioned whether she, or anyone for that matter, could follow through with such a rigorous, burdensome, and potentially year-long work. My doubts were misplaced. Emma is a force, and her tenacious perseverance impressed me. The simplicity of her gesture in comparison to the enormity of its subject hit a chord with college students across the country, as well as with the public at large and the media. She became an eloquent spokesperson for ending sexual assault on college campuses, and for reform regarding how colleges address sexual assault when it occurs. She was honored by the National Organization for Women and attended one of Obama’s State of the Union addresses as Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s guest. She also received recognition from the art world that few artists get in a lifetime. Jerry Saltz, for example, called “Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)” one of the best artworks of the year.

Emma was also the target of attention of a very different kind. The manosphere, a loose knit network of groups that believe men are an oppressed class, began a deplorable campaign that viciously harassed Emma, spewing misogynist myths too vile to repeat, and demanded that the university shut down her performance. Men’s rights trolls began appearing in the comments section of any article that mentioned her, including in the Columbia student newspaper, The Spectator. I took some comfort in the poor grammar and spelling of their loathsome rants — these shameful idiots were in all likelihood not Columbia students, and therefore not on campus with us. I should add here that I too was targeted, including an anonymous threat sent to my email.

Now Trump is in the White House, and those hateful trolls are no longer on the margins. In a decision that mirrors Trump’s infamous “blame on both sides” comment in response to Heather Heyer’s murder by a white supremacist, Betsy DeVos recently invited not only victims’ rights advocates, but the lords of the manosphere themselves to a meeting held to address federal policy regarding sexual assault on college campuses. Among the men’s rights groups that attended were the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) and Stop Abusive Violent Environments (SAVE), organizations that claim domestic abuse and rape allegations are part of a feminist conspiracy to demonize men. Women who are beaten and raped are often the instigators, they claim, not the victims. NCFM has a long history of harassing victims of sexual assault, publishing their names and photos on their websites. SAVE has a section called “Rape Culture Hysteria” on its website and is listed as a misogynist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Both organizations were part of the concerted effort to silence Emma. On Friday, these misogynist hate groups were validated when DeVos rescinded the Title IX protections that the Obama administration had extended to cover sexual assault on campuses

The lawsuit brought against me, Bollinger, and Columbia — ironically a Title IX lawsuit — perversely argued that the man whom Emma had accused (and who was found “not responsible” by Columbia’s sexual assault panel) was discriminated against on the basis of his gender. The case was twice dismissed in Federal Court and has now been settled. While it caused me considerable anxiety, not once have I regretted my role in helping Emma produce this powerful artwork and I would not do anything differently if I had the chance to do it over. And Columbia, an institution that is committed to freedom of expression, was right to not bow to pressure to shut it down. I am deeply proud of Emma’s courage, grace, and artistic integrity.

In the era of Trump, with its emboldened and empowered misogynists, white supremacists, fascists, racists, and climate deniers, protest art is more crucial than ever. Artists must not cower from expressing their views, and institutions must continue to support challenging works so that those messages continue to be heard.

The post Protest Art, and Institutional Support of It, Is More Vital Than Ever appeared first on Hyperallergic.

from Hyperallergic http://ift.tt/2yq4SnF via IFTTT