#upper class privilege

[thatsmybook]

As talked about in this podcast episode of @peopledonttalkabout , the music room fight scene in season one episode five encompasses the entire dynamic and arc of Wilmon's relationship in Young Royals. Margaret and Anton point out that this is the first ever time that Simon calls Wille 'Prince'.

My thoughts about Simon's feelings towards Wille from the music room up until the hug at Lucia, is that in this period he views Wille as one of the elite kids all having each others' backs (once a brother always a brother) and using their privilege to scapegoat out of their mistakes. From the moment Wille accuses Simon of being low for providing these elite kids with drugs (which he took) is when the switch happens - from perceiving Wille as just himself to a Prince. Judging as low the lower class kid for providing drugs to the upper class kids who consume them is the equivalent hypocrisy that Simon spoke about in the first episode of the show. Simon: "Why is it called tax 'evasion' but welfare 'scam?' It's all right that rich people cheat, but when poor people do it, it's messed up. For rich people, it's not even called 'welfare' it's called 'deduction'." The language and perception is that one is superior to the other.

[Simon suggests that Wille thinks that his family's reputation and future is superior to Simon's. Wille pauses and doesn't answer and Simon takes that as Wille implying the Royal family's concerns are superior to the Eriksson family's. This comes full circle at the end of season 3 when Simon is struggling with his family's reputation being trashed in comments on social media and Wille dismisses his worries because his mother's health and the state of the royal family is more important. Wille's birthday and how he behaves towards Simon is an escalation of what is happening in this music room in Season one.]

Simon himself is in trouble with drugs because of the elite kids' need for alcohol and drugs and to prevent one of those kids from predating on his vulnerable sister because of her access to those drugs.

Wille going on to help August with his finance problems with just one phonecall in the next scene illustrates how this class of kids have each others' backs. (My first thought when I first watched this show was that Wille was now going to cover August's debt to Simon so Simon is no longer having to do what he's doing- but, no, Simon is not whose finances he's concerned about. Though, in fairness I doubt that Simon would have accepted Wille's financial help.)

Wille texts Simon that he understands that he is angry and he will fix the problem. Simon is still angry because in my opinion he's like "well of course you should- it's your problem to fix". And he's frustrated that now his fate at the school and future rests in this upper class kid's hands. He has no reason to trust this group of people, and he is still viewing Wille as a representative of them.

Then at Lucia when Wille tells Simon that they threw Alexander under the bus, he's angry again about this elite group using their camaraderie and privilege at a lower class kid's expense. (Alexander may be rich but he is lower class than the Society kids). When Wille tells Simon what he did to save Simon, he wonders what he owes this elite kids' representative in compensation. A thank you? Wille's groups' classicism did this to Simon in the first place. Now Simon has been granted a reprieve because one of these kids needs him as a friend/lover. He shakes his head because it's so messed up and goes against his principles, which waver, the longer he spends at this school.

Now, of course, Wille is not August and there are individual accountabilities amongst these group of elite kids, but throughout this whole period Simon not only perceives Wille as the Prince, but Wille grouped in with these upper class kids diabolically getting away with their misbehaviour. The show shows a montage of the Society all lying to the headmistress to blame Alexander and Wille is just one of them. That scene for me acts as the show reminding us - Wille IS one of them - they share the same values and principles. (Costuming and casting in that scene does a good job with the storytelling- they all look similar and are dressed in similar colours).

Simon pushing past all this at Lucia to once again perceive Wille as himself to comfort him, because of Wille's loneliness, is testament to Simon's character. This is the reason their love story exists. Because Simon is a person with strong integrity but also one who gives people that he loves second chances. He is brave with his heart like that. In that scene at Lucia, I personally did not want Simon to forgive Wille for his classism both in the music room and concerning Alexander. But Simon cares enough for Wille to forgive him and move on.

This entire event is one of those instances that Simon is referring to in the tent in season three when he says that Wille does not recognise his own privilege at times. Deciding not to be part of the succession in the monarchy at the end of season three will not have rid Wille of his class status and innate classicism (however minor it is compared to the outright bigots at Hillerska). This, as a 17 year old, will take some time to unlearn. Many of us as adults are still unlearning problematic takes from the environments we were brought up in. I'm sure Simon will never miss an opportunity to call him out on it in their future.

[writingwithcolor]

Diversity Win: Is "Crazy Rich" POC Representation Necessarily Empowering?

sodapopsculptor asked:

I’m writing a story with two sets of protagonists: A trio with a Black girl, a Latino, and a Vietnamese-American boy who all come from middle-upper class to ridiculously rich families, and a pair of white working-middle class sisters. They’re all heroes of this story. I’ve seen way too many rich white people and poor poc people in fiction, and I’m kinda getting sick of it, but I’m worried that by having the poc kids be rich and the white girls not so much, I’ll be reinforcing the idea that poc somehow rule the world. The only time the rich kids use their status as leverage is when the Asian threatens to sic his cop dad on a bully (race unstated but I imagined him as white) picking on a freshman, and during the Black girl’s birthday party, when she pays the biggest jock there fifty bucks (And later says offhandedly that it was just what she had in her pocket) to chase off a creep hitting on her.

OP, have you ever seen the “diversity win!” meme before?

I understand that your motivation for these narrative choices is to give POC a chance, if you will, to be the rich characters. But it is evident from this ask that you have not asked yourself what this entails. I want to ask you to critically examine the race and class intersections you’re creating here, as well as these kids’ roles in oppressive systems.

You explain that these rich POC are heroes and only have righteous reasons for leveraging their power.

But is your Black girl character aware of the potential disciplinary and/or legal consequences her jock accomplice might face while she has the resources to keep her hands clean? Are you?

Is your Asian character aware of how much of an abuse of power it is to “sic” a cop on someone, and the sheer amount of harm a criminal record or incarceration does to a juvenile with behavior issues? Are you?

So you want to put POC in positions of power for #representation.

Does it resonate with the group you’re representing?

Do you research and portray the unique ways race, ethnicity, class, and majority vs. minority status come together?

Or are you putting these characters in oppressive hegemonic roles for the sake of a power fantasy, on behalf of a group you're not even in?

To your question, you're not reinforcing the idea that "POC rule the world" because such a generalized belief does not exist. Instead, you're reinforcing:

The idea that society has “winners” and “losers.”

The idea that the problem with disproportionately powerful people is the lack of “equal opportunity” as opposed to the power imbalance to begin with.

The idea that those in oppressive positions of power need only have the right intentions to justify their use of it.

To be clear: that is not to say that you can't have jerk aristocrat billionaire millionaire crazy rich POC. Evil or mean rich characters are fun! I have some myself! You can even have rich characters who are gentle-hearted and well-intentioned, but you have to know the ways in which they’re privileged and decide how aware of that your characters are. That’s no problem.

But if you think that wealthy and powerful POC would have the same values and priorities as their poorer counterparts, you’re deluding yourself. There’s a reason why the quote “power corrupts” exists. There’s a reason why no matter where you look on the globe, there are historical dictators and tyrants.

If you want bratty rich POC who lack regard for the consequences of their actions, because you want bratty rich characters, great! If you want them because it would be uplifting or empowering representation? You’re doing it for the wrong reason.

~ Rina

I fully agree with Rina, and truly want to emphasize the last paragraph.

If you want bratty rich POC who lack regard for the consequences of their actions, because you want bratty rich characters, great! If you want them because it would be uplifting or empowering representation? You’re doing it for the wrong reason.

I don't think you need to aim to subvert or purposely make all the BIPOC rich and powerful and the white people poor and suffering. Add diversity and include upper class rich and class privileged BIPOC, sure thing! And you can avoid your fears of intentional subversion message by including rich and powerful white characters as well, even if they're not the focus of your story. Just their existence helps. You could also include middle-class characters of Color as well.

More reading: Black in upper-class society

~Mod Colette

[raspberryfem]

what i can't help but think about in regards to dylan mulvaney's horrible song is not only how privileged he is as a man but how privileged he is as a well-off man. every single aspect of "girlhood" that he talks about is based in consumerism and requires a bourgeois background to access. i wonder what he would say if someone reminded him that there are millions of women around the world who don't have the means to find their womanhood in prescription drugs and healthcare, club life and one night stands, new clothes and makeup, etc. many women live day to day, struggling to make ends meet. are they excluded from "womanhood" or "girlhood" as dylan defines it?

[bauliya]

i really think this was the novel that birthed ecocriticism like my god. 1851. 1851!

[tiredyke]

that’s why i usually don’t say “cis men” instead of just men because too many trans men on this site have proven over and over again that they are not exempt from parroting the exact same misogynistic rhetoric as cis dudes. that’s cool if your gender is ‘spicy’ but you’re still a guy!

[faerygardenparty]

like I’m sorry I’ve been on tumblr since Obama’s second election roughly and since then there’s been this vicious cycle of people telling others “don’t vote/vote third party”, experiencing instant regret and BEGGING people not to blame them, that it wasn’t their fault that people didn’t vote or voted third party, remembering how bad of an idea it was the next election season, and then magically forgetting again the election season after that, these people won’t fucking learn if they never take responsibility for their dumbass behavior online, I have no goddamn sympathy for them, they are not my friends or my allies, they will not lead me into their imaginary “glorious revolution”, they’re fucking idiots and they deserve to feel ashamed of themselves

[casterhex]

another thing people will say shit like “there were so many signs! how was nothing done sooner?” as if cops in the states don’t have a proud history of giving young cis white guys a mere slap on the wrist and a “don’t get in any more trouble young man”

[fromtheseventhhell]

Traditional femininity is to misogyny as colorism is to racism

[swordfaery]

anyway my favourite thing about dead men fanfiction is the wildly different characters we all write. like. not even the ones who have been dead for years and have so little actual characterisation but even the ones who were alive in canon were probably very different one hundred, two hundred, three hundred years ago. also theyre under characterised in fiction. also we are all just having fun

[synthient]

I should probably write an actual thing on my theory of savantmoding at some point

[nohkalikai]

as much as i hated my fucking master's degree, in the grand scheme of things i see how it fits into my life. it wasn't a path forward to a career or whatever. it was a way out of home. the path of least resistance for my parents and i.

[alicentflorent]

I’ve started seeing the same bad takes on “saltburn” as I saw on “parasite” back in 2019 send help

[rebellum]

Have you perhaps tried to just not be severely mentally ill 🤔 bro just do stuff anyways what do you mean your "difficulty doing stuff" illness means you have difficulty doing stuff

[selamat-linting]

this is going to be mean but terserah klo kamu ngerokok atau jadi pemberontak menulis puisi soal pesona gairah sex jadi perempuan binal aduhai tuhan tolong jadikan aku pelacur. terserah klo kmu minum-minum sok jadi pendekar unjuk rasa anarko sindikalis anak skena egoist anti moralitas. kuliahmu masih dibiayain orang tua. you are nerds to me. poser. paling lima tahun balik jadi anak baik-baik.

[tilbageidanmark]

[gayvampyr]

Do you support prison abolition /paying prisoners a living wage / making being able to vote more accessible to everyone?

I like your stances and opinions and your jokes but I'm genuinely curious on this one.

(This is inspired by some of the comments under one of your posts talking about how we should just make democracy more livable under capitalism, and while I disagree with that being the ONLY thing we need to do, it does kinda make me think about how many people think we need to get better without abolishing prisons or at least treating our prisoners better than we are treating them currently.)

hi! i'm not sure which post you're referring to but I'm actually anti-capitalist. I think we need to dismantle capitalism as a system because it is inherently inhumane, working exactly as intended and therefore cannot be "fixed" without restructuring it entirely from the ground up; the devaluation of human labor and environmental destruction for profit is not a bug, it's a feature. i could delve into the kind of economic system that i think should replace it after dismantling it, however it's more of a thought exercise and until it becomes a plausible reality, i would rather focus on how we can make capitalism livable for the time being because we have no other choice. for example we could start by lowering rent, instituting a 4-day work week, and establishing support networks for homeless people. i'm not an economist so it's not like i have all the answers but according to the results from other countries who have applied these practices, it improves quality of life and the economy significantly.

as for prisons, i'm pro-abolition. you can check out my prison abolition tag for more information, but essentially prisons exist in this day and age as an industry that profits off of slave labor. many of our laws and their enforcers unfairly target minorities and lower class people, and the denial of convicts the right to vote is just another way our government strips vulnerable communities of their political power, autonomy, and supposedly inalienable rights. aside from the conviction of innocent people and people who did commit a crime but ultimately did no harm, i don't think it's the right of any individual (or government, for that matter) to imprison others. i think people tend to forget that "criminals" are human beings and deserving of the same rights as everyone else, and it is human nature to make mistakes. the important thing is the opportunity to do better. militarist propaganda has done an incredible job of convincing us that convicts are amoral and undeserving of our sympathy, turning society in general against them and destroying any sort of safety net they might have had or needed otherwise. and people are too busy clinging to the notion that criminals are subhuman and deserving of whatever punishment is dealt that they can't see that this is a slide into fascism, and that they can just as easily become "other" should they find themselves on the receiving end of the system. we are very close to living in a surveillance state, which means any minor offense or slip-up has the potential to completely decimate your chances at getting a job, applying for college, getting a loan, receiving housing, and especially being able to have a say in elections. it also makes you more likely to be arrested again on account of "suspected illegal activity", so your record follows you around for the rest of your life.

sorry this got so long but yeah, essentially capitalism and the prison industry are inhumane and should be abolished.