#what if i said feminist studies is stupid

[astrocarbon]

"I think funding the arts is a waste of time."

If you say this people will think you're a dickhead. But people say the same thing about astrophysics easily. How is astrophysics any different from art? artists do residencies and are given a living wage to explore their special interests which they then represent to the world. is that not what astrophysics is? Astrophysics is art.

[probablyasocialecologist]

In this book you focus on the idea of gender as a global ‘phantasm’ – this charged, overdetermined, anxiety- and fear-inducing cluster of fantasies that is being weaponised by the right. How did you go about starting to investigate that? Judith Butler: When I was burned in effigy in Brazil in 2017, I could see people screaming about gender, and they understood ‘gender’ to mean ‘paedophilia.’ And then I heard people in France describing gender as a Jewish intellectual movement imported from the US. This book started because I had to figure out what gender had become. I was naïve. I was stupid. I had no idea that it had become this flash point for right-wing movements throughout the world. So I started doing the work to reconstruct why I was being called a paedophile, and why that woman in the airport wanted to kill me with the trolley. I’m not offering a new theory of gender here; I’m tracking this phantasm’s formation and circulation and how it’s linked to emerging authoritarianism, how it stokes fear to expand state powers. Luckily, I was able to contact a lot of people who translated Gender Trouble in different parts of the world, who were often gender activists and scholars in their own right. They told me about what’s happening in Serbia, what’s happening in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Russia. So I became a student of gender again. I’ve been out of the field for a while. I stay relatively literate, of course, but I’ve written on war, on ethics, on violence, on nonviolence, on the pandemic… I’m not in gender studies all the time. I had to do a lot of reading.  There’s a lot of focus in the book on how the anti-gender movement has moved across the world in the past few decades, and how it’s inextricable from Catholic doctrine. It was clarifying for me; domestic anti-trans movements in the UK mostly self-identify as secular.  Judith Butler: In the UK, and even in the US, people don’t realise that this anti-gender ideology movement has been going on for some time in the Americas, in central Europe, to a certain degree in Africa, and that it’s arrived in the US by different routes, but it’s arrived without announcing its history. It became clear to me that a lot of the trans-exclusionary feminists didn’t realise where their discourse was coming from. Some of them do; some people who call themselves feminists are aligned with right-wing positions, and it’s confusing, but there it is. There’s an uncomfortable history of fascist feminism in movements like British suffragism, for instance. Judith Butler: Yes, and of racism. But when Putin made clear that he agreed with JK Rowling, she was probably surprised, and she rightly said, ‘no, I don’t want your alliance’, but it was an occasion for her to think about who she’s allying herself with, unwittingly or not. The anti-gender movement was first and foremost a defence of Biblical scripture, and of the idea that God created man and woman, and that the human form exists only in this duality and that without it, the human is destroyed – God’s creation is destroyed. So that morphed, as the Vatican’s doctrine moved into Latin America, into the idea that people who advocate ‘gender’ are forces of destruction who seek to destroy man, woman, the human, civilisation and culture. 

[regulusrules]

Yo, I saw your post about orientalism in relation to the "hollywood middle-east" tiktok!

How can a rando and university dropout get into and learn more about? Any literature or other content to recommend?

Hi!! Wow, you have no idea how you just pressed a button. I'll unleash 5+ years on you. And I'll even add for you open-sourced works that you can access as much as I can!

1. Videos

I often find this is the best medium nowadays to learn anything! I'll share with you some of the best that deal with the topic in different frames

• This is a video of Edward Said talking about his book, Orientalism. Said is the Palestinian- American critic who first introduced the term Orientalism, and is the father of postcolonial studies as a critical literary theory. In this book, you’ll find an in-depth analysis of the concept and a deconstruction of western stereotypes. It’s very simple and he explains everything in a very easy manner.

• How Islam Saved Western Civilization. A more than brilliant lecture by Professor Roy Casagranda. This, in my opinion, is one of the best lectures that gives credit to this great civilization, and takes you on a journey to understand where did it all start from.

• What’s better than a well-researched, general overview Crash Course about Islam by John Green? This is not necessarily on orientalism but for people to know more about the fundamental basis of Islam and its pillars. I love the whole playlist that they have done about the religion, so definitely refer to it if you're looking to understand more about the historical background! Also, I can’t possibly mention this Crash Course series without mentioning ... ↓

• The Medieval Islamicate World. Arguably my favourite CC video of all times. Hank Green gives you a great thorough depiction of the Islamic civilization when it rose. He also discusses the scientific and literary advancements that happened in that age, which most people have no clue about! And honestly, just his excitement while explaining the astrolabe. These two truly enlightened so many people with the videos they've made. Thanks, @sizzlingsandwichperfection-blog

2. Documentaries

• This is an AMAZING documentary called Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Villifies A People by the genius American media critic Jack Shaheen. He literally analysed more than 1000 movies and handpicked some to showcase the terribly false stereotypes in western depiction of Arab/Muslim cultures. It's the best way to go into the subject, because you'll find him analysing works you're familiar with like Aladdin and all sorts.

• Spain’s Islamic Legacy. I cannot let this opportunity go to waste since one of my main scopes is studying feminist Andalusian history. There are literal gems to be known about this period of time, when religious coexistence is documented to have actually existed. This documentary offers a needed break from eurocentric perspectives, a great bird-view of the Islamic civilization in Europe and its remaining legacy (that western history tries so hard to erase).

• When the Moors Ruled in Europe. This is one of the richest documentaries that covers most of the veiled history of Al-Andalus (Muslim Spain). Bettany Hughes discusses some of the prominent rulers, the brilliance of architecture in the Arab Muslim world, their originality and contributions to poetry and music, their innovative inventions and scientific development, and lastly, La Reconquista; the eventual fall and erasure of this grand civilization by western rulers.

3. Books

• Rethinking Orientalism by Reina Lewis. Lewis brilliantly breaks the prevailing stereotype of the “Harem”, yk, this stupid thought westerns projected about arab women being shut inside one room, not allowed to go anywhere from it, enslaved and without liberty, just left there for the sexual desires of the male figures, subjugated and silenced. It's a great read because it also takes the account of five different women living in the middle east.

• Nocturnal Poetics by Ferial Ghazoul. A great comparative text to understand the influence and outreach of The Thousand and One Nights. She applies a modern critical methodology to explore this classic literary masterpiece.

• The Question of Palestine by Edward Said. Since it's absolutely relevant, this is a great book if you're looking to understand more about the Palestinian situation and a great way to actually see the perspective of Palestinians themselves, not what we think they think.

• Arab-American Women's Writing and Performance by S.S. Sabry. One of my favourite feminist dealings with the idea of the orient and how western depictions demeaned arab women by objectifying them and degrading them to objects of sexual desire, like Scheherazade's characterization: how she was made into a sensual seducer, but not the literate, brilliantly smart woman of wisdom she was in the eastern retellings. The book also discusses the idea of identity and people who live on the hyphen (between two cultures), which is a very crucial aspect to understand arabs who are born/living in western countries.

• The Story of the Moors in Spain by Stanley Lane-Poole. This is a great book if you're trying to understand the influence of Islamic culture on Europe. It debunks this idea that Muslims are senseless, barbaric people who needed "civilizing" and instead showcases their brilliant civilization that was much advanced than any of Europe in the time Europe was labelled by the Dark Ages. (btw, did you know that arabic was the language of knowledge at that time? Because anyone who was looking to study advanced sciences, maths, philosophy, astronomy etc, had to know arabic because arabic-speaking countries were the center of knowledge and scientific advancements. Insane, right!)

• Convivencia and Medieval Spain. This is a collection of essays that delve further into the idea of “Convivencia”, which is what we call for religious coexistence. There's one essay in particular that's great called Were Women Part of Convivencia? which debunks all false western stereotypical images of women being less in Islamic belief. It also highlights how arab women have always been extremely cultured and literate. (They practiced medicine, studied their desired subjects, were writers of poetry and prose when women in Europe couldn't even keep their surnames when they married.)

4. Novels / Epistolaries

• Granada by Radwa Ashour. This is one of my favourite novels of all time, because Ashour brilliantly showcases Andalusian history and documents the injustices and massacres that happened to Muslims then. It covers the cultural erasure of Granada, and is also a story of human connection and beautiful family dynamics that utterly touches your soul.

• Dreams of Trespass by Fatema Mernissi. This is wonderful short read written in autobiographical form. It deconstructs the idea of the Harem in a postcolonial feminist lens of the French colonization of Morocco.

• Scheherazade Goes West by Mernissi. Mernissi brilliantly showcases the sexualisation of female figures by western depictions. It's very telling, really, and a very important reference to understand how the west often depicts middle-eastern women by boxing them into either the erotic, sensual beings or the oppressed, black-veiled beings. It helps you understand the actual real image of arab women out there (who are not just muslims btw; christian, jew, atheist, etc women do exist, and they do count).

• Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. This is a feminist travel epistolary of a British woman which covers the misconceptions that western people, (specifically male travelers) had recorded and transmitted about the religion, traditions and treatment of women in Constantinople, Turkey. It is also a very insightful sapphic text that explores her own engagement with women there, which debunks the idea that there are no queer people in the middle east.

---------------------

With all of these, you'll get an insight about the real arab / islamic world. Not the one of fanaticism and barbarity that is often mediated, but the actual one that is based on the fundamental essences of peace, love, and acceptance.

[jamesunderwater]

Jily Microfic - Opponent

@jilymicrofics - feb 27th, prompt: opponent - words: 911 Summary: Lily might have a heart murmur, might have a crush, it's hard to tell, but she's definitely a feminist, and in case you were wondering, she doesn't care at all if another girl shows interest in James Potter. read the rest in this lil academic rivals to lovers series on my AO3, here! (and stay tuned as this is part 1 of 3 for a little end-of-the-month academic rivals finale ;D) Read Part 2 here & Part 3 here!

Lily Evans is a feminist – she’s obviously a feminist. She’s not about to treat another woman like an opponent just because the girl's got a crush on a boy Lily only mildly, maybe, a little bit – she isn’t even really sure she – likes. Especially not if that boy is James Potter. 

(Again, she isn’t sure – it could just be a heart murmur, she’s looking into it.)

So Tamara Campbell told her friend Maritza Acebo who told Mary Macdonald that Tamara thinks James Potter is cute – so what? When Mary asked James what he thinks of Tamara, he only said, “She’s cute, yeah,” and that’s not exactly I’m going to ask her out this instant sort of language. And so what if he does ask her out? The only reason Lily has to care is if some ninny gets James Potter distracted from his studies, leaving Lily without a challenge.

Sorry, not ninny – she’s a feminist. Some girl. Some lovely, “sure, she’s cute” girl, who is probably of at least average intelligence but – it’s only a fact, nothing subjective about it – surely is no intellectual equal to James Potter, and probably only likes him because she thinks he’s some gorgeous quidditch star with sexy hair and a great smile. And, you know, it isn’t Lily’s fault that Tamara’s high-pitched laugh sounds like the laugh of a ninny. Maybe she shouldn’t squeal so loud the entire corridor hears her just because Potter told one stupid joke…

—

“Happy anniversary,” James says, a proud grin on his face. He’s standing in front of Lily’s desk in their office, bouncing on his heels. He’s sure this is an idiotic idea, but since Lily already thinks he’s a fool, James figures there’s no harm in trying his luck. And whether she smiles or just smirks and rolls her eyes, either expression will be better than the perpetual frown she’s worn the last week.

When Lily lifts an eyebrow, he brandishes a plate from behind his back, placing it before her.

“What’s this?” she asks him, her tone flatter than he’d imagined it would be.

“Lemon tart,” James answers, his smile wavering a bit. “It’s your favorite…isn’t it?”

She stares at the plate for what feels like a century, and James can’t make any sense of what’s happening behind her blank expression. Finally, she says, “Yeah, I like it fine,” her voice lifting forcefully. 

James wishes he were being buried alive, or burned at a stake, or plummeting from three hundred feet in the air – anything besides standing here in this moment.

“Oh,” he manages through desert-dry lips. Clearing his throat, James attempts a recovery, his entire face on fire. “Well, I just thought – it’s been two whole months of being Head students together…” This explanation is going terribly. Is there a spell for turning the floor to quicksand? Can it be done non-verbally? “And we haven’t killed each other yet, so…” He forces a chuckle. “Thought we might celebrate.”

Lily looks at him then, finally, and the green of her eyes is wrong somehow. Too bright and too dull all at once. “Yeah,” she says, her lips down-turned. “Quite a feat.”

His heart squeezes in fear and warning bells chime loudly in his ears, but he asks anyway, “Are you alright?”

She clears her throat, and suddenly she’s standing and gathering her books into her arms. “I’m fine. Thanks for the dessert.” 

She disappears in a blur of red, the lemon tart still on her desk.

—

It’s her own fault, really. She should have just said she liked the damn lemon tart. Why didn’t she tell him she liked the lemon tart? Lily stares across the Gryffindor table, where a few seats down James is watching Tamara Campbell giggle at a decibel only pixies could match.

This is the third day in a row she’s had lunch at their table, her blue tie sticking out amongst the rows of red. There’s absolutely a rule about students of other houses switching tables, Lily’s sure of it – and if there isn’t, there really should be. This is…this is fraternizing with the enemy, if you really think about it, given they’ve got a match against Ravenclaw in two weeks. 

Lily grumbles in irritation. Two years ago she’d never have been able to say the quidditch schedule if asked. She’s been utterly compromised. Her Charms essay due tomorrow is only half-written; this morning, her potion was only the third best in class, and she hadn’t even cared about the disapproving look on Slughorn’s face.

Another giggling shriek reaches its crescendo, and she’s simply had enough. Leaving her plate hardly touched, Lily gets up from the table and heads for the door.

“Hey, Evans, hold on a moment–” 

She barely muffles a groan at the sound of his voice, quickening her pace as she passes him. 

James, with his spider-long legs, is beside her in an instant. “D’you mind trading patrols with me on Friday?” he asks, speaking to her like she’s a child on the verge of a tantrum, as he’s done ever since the lemon tart incident.  “I’ve…got a…” He trails off, suddenly looking incredibly sheepish. 

“Fine,” Lily cuts him off quickly to avoid hearing his bumbling explanation. Her anatomy’s gone all wrong; her lungs are in her throat, her heart is in her stomach, her brain's disintegrating altogether… 

She leaves in a rush, eyes burning, unable to tell who she thinks is more stupid: James Potter, or herself.

To be continued...

[mimikyuno]

i was just talking with my wife about this over breakfast but i rly hope this whole transvestigation paranoia becomes a breaking point because it’s insane? like i hope it snaps some people out of their transmisogynystic daze bc what are you saying? where is the limit?? are you demanding any woman who looks vaguely “masculine” take a chromosome test?!

like first their credo was that “a woman must have a vagina and uterus” but that’s not enough anymore for them, now u need to be born a woman “the right way” or you’re a man. never mind that a huge argument they have used against trans women is that they were “socialized as men” (ridiculous take btw, let’s not even get there) and as such can never understand womanhood and really be a woman okay then why are u saying that even if imane was afab and raised a girl she’s still not enough of a woman?! they’re always like “misogyny is sex-based” and it doesnt matter how a woman presents bc it’s her Biology that primes her for abuse (real takes i have seen!!!) but then say that a cis woman who was assigned female at birth is not Actually a woman bc some corrupt organisation that was accused of malpractice Maybe said she might have XY chromosomes. HELLO?! like do YOU know your chromosomes? do YOU know your testosterone levels? it’s so absurd it feels like im in the twilight zone.

also can we talk about how antifeminist it is to argue that someone is just too good at a sport to be a woman. what is wrong with you. hmm i wonder why men tend to be stronger overall? is it really just their “biology”? bc actually studies have shown that parents underestimate their daughters’ strength and do stuff for them and overall dont let them play rough while little boys are expected to be stronger and tumble. which child do you think will grow up with more muscle mass. which will grow up stronger and faster. i saw some altright men and terfs argue that it is Biologically True that men are Stronger and Faster and Better than women bc “look at the football league, the men are better”. like i wonder why?? could it be that the women’s league overall gets less funding, less intense trainings, and overall there’s less athletes to choose the best from bc on average more men pursue sports than women (for social reasons) etc.????

like how are terfs out there thinking they’re feminists. when they posts a picture of a woman of color and call her too ugly to be a “real woman”. do you see how racist that is?! i also saw them transvestigate the butch-looking polish contestant (for judo iirc) like?! “her hair is short and her face looks masculine” have u ever seen a butch woman irl. you stupid ass. and what if they’re trans btw?? ultimately it does not MATTER. olympic athletes are freaks of nature. usually they’re the best at a sport because they’re literally BUILT for it. they often have a natural advantage as well as years or practice. like what even is your argument anymore?! it’s a stupid sport competition to see who’s the best at certain sports how are u gonna determine which physical/biological advantages are okay and which arent?! y’all are one step away from requesting muscle fibers exam for black people to see if they have more type 2 fibers bc that makes them more likely to be fast. put a height limit for basketball players bc being too tall is rare and therefore unfair to shorter basketball players. banning women with PCOS from competing bc they have elevated testosterone. LIKE PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THE LIMIT FOR BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES IS. IM WAITING.

i think the insanity of the current situation truly is the culmination of all these phrenology-adjacent trends (like mewing and the rest of the “rate me” 4chan standards, look it up), white supremacy being allowed on mainstream platforms and transphobic panic all converging into this mass hysteria. it’s genuinely fascinating from a sociological perspective but jesus christ. the fact that if imane really was trans they could have gotten her jailed or worse. WAKE UP.

terfs love to call themselves feminists yet are using racist phrenology-like standards to determine who’s a “real” woman. being hairy? big nose? strong jaw? short hair? not a real woman :). please STOP. y’all are literally one step away from saying only white women are “real women” LMAO. trans women have been saying for years that transmisogyny IS misogyny (on steroids) and it WOULD bite cis women in the ass too but y’all didnt believe them till it Actually started affecting cis women.

i am hoping this is the peak of transphobia (specifically transmisogyny) and it’s downhill from here and society progresses 🙏🏻 like let’s move ON. enough is enough

[haveyouseenthisskeleton]

Heya guys!

Sadly, no post tomorrow.

I will have the pleasure (no) of spending the day with France Travail tomorrow, which is basically the structure helping me find a job, except they're extremely bad at doing that, and it takes all of my energy when I have to argue with them.

I'm trying to get them to pay for a training course to work in administration as there are some skills I don't have, and basically because apparently thinking about it for two months is not enough, I have to go to a useless working group for 3 months for them to actually think if either they want to pay for the training course or no x-x Which means I'm going to do their stupid 3 months of training on random things that I don't need and already know, and without even being sure I actually will be able to do my training course in the end because they're complaining when we do nothing, but they're also complaining when they need to give us money to do things.

Welcome to France.

I graduated from college two years ago but I can't do anything with my graduation :D Because I don't have enough xp to work on what I want to do... But also no one wants to hire me so how the hell am I supposed to make xp. Magically? And added to that, ironically, I have also too much xp for casual jobs because I studied too many years so no one wants to hire me \o/

I heard every excuse so far: that I don't have a car (for a job I can go to by WALKING 10 MINUTES), that my CV is too good for them (????), that I should go to Paris but when I go to Paris they tell me I should look in small cities, that my skills are too precise, that the other employees would be jealous of me for some reason. And I don't even talk about the even more bullshit ones refusing me because "we only want normal people", referencing my ADHD, or because I said something feminist on Twitter lmao and apparently they're misogynistic, I don't know??? So yeah, it's big fun.

Added to that, I'm a bit of a mess morally right now because my insomnia got even worse, and I'm seeing a psychiatrist on Monday to talk about a possible autism diagnosis, which is stressing me out because I already have ADHD and I'm not sure how the hell I'm going to do with both x-x I know a lot of people think ADHD is cool for the creativity boost it gives, but there's also a hell lot of bad sides with it, starting by the impossibility to do basic tasks without preparing several hours ahead, the constant tiredness, the thoughts that never ever shut up, the frustrating paralysis when you can't do anything because you have an appointment later in the day, the lack of organization, ... I'm struggling enough with this and my social anxiety, I don't know what to do if my buddy autism shows up on my door. The brain's full already ;w; But we'll manage :')

Sorry for the loooong rant, I needed to evacuate a bit.

Anyway, have a lovely night everyone, I'll see you on Friday <3

And not everything is bad. My sister's dog is coming on Sunday for two weeks and I missed having a doggo at home so so much, so I'm so happy!

See you on Friday <3

[theseasasleep]

Story of Kunning Palace, E05 (semi-live reaction)

Of all the ways I thought Ning would handle the proposed slander against her beloved Zhang Zhe, the way she actually handled it did not align with my imaginings in the slightest. Sometimes what plays out is really better than the fiction in your head, hee. I did not see her calling out, not the dumb fiancee but the You-daughter. Nor did I foresee her half-drowning her in a jar full of goldfish.

FIERCE

Judging by the all the clips I have gorged on, this particular love line will be quite strong and trend for a while. Sigh. A decade plus of drama watching has whittled my patience for second lead to first lead love lines to whisper-thin nub but everyone keeps commenting on how amazing Zhang Zhe is so.... I guess the wait and watch won't be too grating.

...

I'm not sure I understand.

Zhang Zhe broke or bent his principles to help her on the oath that she'd become a good person thereafter.

Sometime later, Zhang Zhe is condemned to death for this.

Did he naturally get caught? Or did she deliberately sell him out? Was it more similar to the Yan Lin situation in which her people made moves without her knowledge and when push came to shove, she didn't make the necessary moves to upend the conspiracy for the sake of remaining Empress?

Whatever the case, it's clear Ning did many terrible things - some in ignorance, some in knowledge - to accomplish everything she achieved. I think she squared most, if not all of it with herself when weighing it against the ultimate end result... until Zhang Zhe ended up on the chopping block. I don't think she would have been able to write this sin off and once one stone in her ambitious bedrock was overturned, the rest likely came apart. It's why when she knew she was going to die she wanted her death to mean something, to be a reparation of sort to the only person remaining who might accept it because he thought she was worth something, because he's that good.

...

Oh. Oh. Look at the expression on his face as he listens to the patronizing, sexist drivel:

My scrumptious proto-feminist

...

LOL, he did a dignified catwalk and every lady in the room forgot to think and breathe!

I understand, ladies, I understand.

Geez, Ning, Xie Wei had them open a window for you, and only you, so you would have fresh air and bright light, to improve your mood and chances! Not to silently accuse you of being a potential cheat!

Wow, this is all up hill climb, my guy. Get your shoes with the best tread on, Xie Wei.

I know not a drop of Chinese and even I can see that's atrocious. And what did she draw in the corner. A flower? A dancing sun? A really fat, disproportionate hand with a vestigial finger?

And she asks, did she put too much effort into [failing]? Girl. It's so obvious she'd bring out the contrarian impulses of a saint. But maybe it's worth it since we get this face:

Teacher does not approve.

What I am enjoying so much in this scene is the action and counteraction. The way they each boldly challenge the other. She sent up an exam paper so abominable as to be a mockery [of him]; he passes her. She tries to expose her "stupidity" to the rest of the class; he threatens to critique the entire class, turning everyone against her idea.

point:

Counterpoint:

Concession:

Me:

...

I'm not even touching the "dementia." Rolling my eyes and moving on.

But, but, but... How was he so spot on?! How did he guess at reincarnation?! I mean, yeah, he said he doesn't believe in the supernatural but it can't be a coincidence to the narrative that he's the first to come closest to the truth?

Xie Wei: Ning, what's your relationship with Yan Lin? I NEED TO KNOW... *whispers* for science.

Oh, your father asked me to take good care of you in the palace... Yan Lin asked me to help you... By the by, that study partner list? Yeah, another ministry generates it but ultimately it has to run by me. The moment I saw your name I marked you for the palace. After going to so much trouble, it would be stupid of me to release you from palace duties now!

Xie Wei, be like:

...

God. I Hate Ning's Mom.

[taylortruther]

So here's my thing about the Barbie discourse:

Almost nothing that holds such an iconic place in society is one thing. So much of this discourse comes from this, imo, immature very black and white internet space. It's either good or bad. But like most things, Barbie is both.

Everything critics have said about Barbie being a cultural icon of the patriarchy is true. Barbie's size has long been critiqued and also studied and it has done real damage to real people. This is all true and not to be made light of

Studies upon studies upon studies have also shown that dolls and prominent cultural figures engaging in traditionally male dominated fields increases the participation of young girls. So Barbies such as Astronaut Barbie increase girls' participation in STEM. There is empowerment even without Greta Gerwig's film.

Barbie is the pretty pink, Barbie is the tiny and physically impossible body, Barbie is the permanent high heels. Barbie is also the astronaut and the doctor. She is both the bimbo and the message that girls, too, can be smart.

And I think the most interesting critique of Barbie as a brand, a character, and eventually a film when it comes out, is (will be) how these work together and play off each other. From what I've gathered from what Greta has said, her intention with this film uses this duality to validate the "you can do anything" and point out that all of those unfair and unhealthy expectations come from her being a literal doll. I think that's going to be interesting! I think it's interesting how in the current reality of the brand and the character, this duality plays off itself in a feedback loop. We have to be submissive and docile and pretty and inhumanely shaped, but we also need to be smart and capable and powerful, but not too much that we're not idealized.

I get so exhausted with the overly slimplistic dichotomy on both sides of this debate cause the reality is VERY CLEARLY in the middle. And also it drives me crazy cause I don't think anyone involved in making this movie has given any intention of ignoring that reality. Even the trailer highlights it in the forefront. The story is literally about how the fantasy Barbie sells is a lie, from what I can tell. Anyway... Point being: Barbie good or bad is a stupid argument because the answer is both. Which means that this movie is both. because it's also Barbie. But ain't that like the internet to oversimplify in extreme avoidance of nuance?

yes!! this is well said: barbie represents A LOT in our society* and having conversations about it takes time and effort. there are countless studies about what you've described here - toys' affect on children's self-esteem - and it's valuable to consider it all when we're criticizing.

i also want to elevate what you said in your last paragraph: And also it drives me crazy cause I don't think anyone involved in making this movie has given any intention of ignoring that reality.

so glad you said that! and this is probably what one of my anons meant about waiting 'til the film comes out. i am excited for the film! it will not score straight A's on my personal feminist report card because, well, i think my personal ideology is more extreme than what mattel would sign up for lmao. but i still want to see what greta created and i'm fascinated by what margot said about how barbie would interpret being objectified in the real world.

like, the film is going to give us A LOT to chew on in regards to girlhood, womanhood, objectification, etc. - how could it not? barbie is a kid's toy, a literal object! it's exciting that a major blockbuster will tackle these issues, even though i know it will be lacking in others.

(*since i am a swiftie blog, we can also discuss how taylor occupies a similar, and worse, space because barbie is a literal product but taylor is a human being)

[hellwurld]

This is an open invitation to "talk about the Bible in a chill way". I'd be fascinated in your chill Bible opinions.

okay this is lowkey such a late answer to this but recent chill bible opinion has some context to it. i'm religious but in like a weird way i don't super want to get into, but basically i read the bible for the story aspects: the morals taught, the themes within, etc etc. i don't really view it as a strict religious instruction handbook, more so as like . stories meant to teach lessons and morals. kinda. its complicated!

erm. im so glad u asked tho

anyway! more importantly, i'm reading the old testament right now, and something that deeply bothers me is that i find the stories in early genesis deeply fascinating, and yet incredibly not dived into at all! and i think that's a shame, because there's so much interest and tragedy in the story of adam and eve, and in cain and abel, together and alongside adam and eve. i just think there could've been so much more done with the first ever family on earth, that is really never dived into popularly or well in adaptations. which is like chill EXCEPT for the fact that i think there's a lot of . persephone and hades tumblr bullshit going on and let me ELABORATE!

eve is a fascinating character to study as the first woman, and there's a lot to be said about eve, which is why a lot of modern looks at her that depict her as a #slay girlboss that ate the apple on purpose or as like . cheating on adam with lucifer . and i also don't fuck with the very long history of her being treated as though she's stupid or wicked or a transgressor. basically, what i'm trying to get at is that eve wasn't stupid for eating the apple, she was lied to, and in her defense, no one had ever lied before. quite literally she was the first to ever be lied to, ever, and she cannot be solely at fault for being tricked. i think it's hard to argue that eve shouldn't have fallen for it, because she was in such an incredibly unique, quite literally never happening before situation. i just think that depictions of her as a scheming seductress will never be as feminist as people think they are, because the core of eve was not someone looking to like . stick it to the man . she was curious, and trusting, and i refuse to blame her for searching for something new, because if god did not want man or woman to long for knowledge, he never should have create sapient beings 🤷

that was a long, kinda rambly way to say that i think genesis, despite being a really interesting book especially pertaining to eve, adam, and the fall, and especially relating to what could be said about abel and cain, and abel, cain, and THEIR PARENTS!!!, fails in a lot of ways as a book. mostly because of the lack of expansion on any of the interesting parts of the early story. i dont gaf abt how adam lived for 930 years. i gaf about adam and the horror of raising children and loving them and that still not being enough to save them from each other or themselves. it must have been horrifying to see your children, both your first children and the first children ever born, suffer and die, one at the hand of another and one at the hand of your own father. like idk eve adam and the horrifying fact that their sin (mistakes) passed along to their child and could've played a role in his own sin (devastating mistakes) and what you do as a parent when you realize that loving someone isn't enough to raise them perfectly and keep them safe.

but yeah sure . adams a weirdo misogynist and eve is a girlboss that cucks him with lucifer and abel and cain don't matter or exist. okay. epic.

and like this isn't to shit on fun or serious retellings based in feminism, bc i #love feminism fr, but i think it tired me out in the same way that (look at me circling back) things like the feminist retellings of hades and persephone did. bc like, it's interesting sometimes, but other times you are IGNORING the reality and interesting parts of the real story in favor for whatever fantasy you've created. hades and persephone is a fascinating story, and demeter and persephone's relationship is a tragic, lovely story that should not be boiled down into omg age gap forbidden romance with EVIL strict mom in the same way that eve and adam shouldnt be simplified to adam is mean to eve and she eats apple as REVENGE >:) . like ok guys lets get creative!

anyway to make a long story short im not an expert on the bible im just a girl raised spiritualist who fucks with books hardcore and wouldve liked to see more interesting shit in the oldest fucking book i own . or whatever .

[cansomeonetoldmewhoiam]

In this episode of "transphobes sucks"

In this episode of "transphobes sucks" I'm going to try to let people understand how stupid are the things they said to me.

Actually, I wanted to write some trans boy's positivity, but I'm not in the mood. Anyway...

"I have known you for a while! You're a girl, trust me!" I find really interessing how some people really think theynow a person better than themself. They really think that. I find it fascinating.

"You know you'll never be a true boy, right?" What do you mean with true boy? A boy with a penis? Fine, what about eunuch men? What if you loose your penis? Will you stop being a male? Or maybe are you talking about chromosomens? Please, actually study biology. Some people will never known their chromosomes, and they AREN'T WHAT DEFINE SEXUAL CHARACTERISTS.

"You're too smart for be a boy!" That had been said from the same person who said "Women are biological less inteligent than men" so I don't even need to comment.

"You? A boy? I thought you had anxiety\anorexia\depression\suicidal thought\other problems!" Fun fact: Boy, as girls, have mental trouble, which could be caused from, who know? Maybe this toxic masculinity? Maybe your transphobia? Who know!

"You've never showed any signs!" Have you ever heard about "hiding everything because of fear" or "pretending to be alright"? I'm showing the signs NOW, please listen to me NOW.

"You just want to avoid misogny!" Yes, of course, being a trans man is WAY easier than being a cis woman! How could I forget that? My fault.

"But you said you didn't want a penis!" Another fun fact: Being a boy is not inerenthly about having or not having a penis. A lot of trans men keep their vagina, because bottom surgery is very expensive and dangerous. Also, I can be a boy without a penis. And you know why? Because I said that so. I know my gender better than you, accept this fact.

"Generations of women who fight for their rights, and then come you! You're making their commitment unuseful!" True feminist will reject you. Let me explain a thing: I NEVER choosed to be a man. I AM a man. I AM NOT pretending because it's easier. This is just who I am. Please, accept that.

Feel free to add more!

[secretgamergirl]

Actually, ALL the things you’ve picked up from TERFs about trans people are blatant lies, not just the things from after you caught on to what ridiculous hatemongers they are.

So the other day I saw someone talking about a piece of media that chose to indicate a character was trans by having that character’s bedroom decorated with some trans pride stuff and one of that characters parents’ having a little solidarity pin too to show that we’re going for “cool little fact you might not know” and not “tragic secret” with it. Responses to this had a lot of trans people cheering because hey that’s some nice clear cut representation, in a way that’s both totally unambiguous and realistic, while avoiding all the stupid crap cis people try when they go for positive trans representation like having a characters go around telling everyone their deadnames or casting people in drag or whatever, BUT there were also a ton of people responding to this, and not just bigots either, just absolutely losing their minds and bending over backwards to think of why a cis character would have a bedroom full of trans pride stuff, because the idea of this character they liked and thought was cool being trans just was not compatible with some unexamined BS or other they’d all internalized. So... let’s unpack that maybe?

So, trans people have been around for as long as people have been around. We’ve been over this plenty of times. Have a quick little video of things you can go look up if you need a refresher though.

It’s not impossible that transphobes have also been around forever, here and there. It’s baked into colonialism where like, we have the term “missionary sex” because creepy zealots went all over the world threatening and blackmailing people to only have sex in that position and they call it their “mission.” And there was the whole attempted total eradication of us by the nazis and all. Typically though these seems to come across in this very openly right-wing authoritarian “the very fact that you exist contradicts the collection of weird fantasies I need to believe to avoid the reality where I’m a pathetic idiot.”

In the grand scheme of things, the TERF approach of going “oh I’m actually a real bleeding heart feminist scientist who cares about children and the environment and it just turns out that when you really look at the data that I totally obtained through the actual scientific method and didn’t just completely pull out of my ass and counting on nobody ever asking me for sources unfortunately says trans people are baby-eating rapists with hulk powers who have infiltrating every position of power and influence, honest!” That one’s relatively new.

I’d hope that these days, it’s easy for most people to see through that. Like yeah, the real hardcore fascists will pretend to believe such propaganda is on the level in order to help push through new kinds of discrimination and rationalizations for violence, but anyone with a functioning contest and critical thinking skills isn’t generally too far away from seeing how these people just talk like the nazis they are when they aren’t actively drafting propaganda pieces, or there will be some virality to something like this-

...or this...

... or one of those “Parker Posie” videos where she’s just like cheering at a crowd of armed nazis and encouraging them to go on killing sprees, and when you see that stuff you hopefully go “hmm... maybe the violent people who can’t stop talking about showing porn to toddlers aren’t on the level, and I shouldn’t trust their completely unhinged claims that the trans mafia are kidnapping children and replacing their genitals with grenade launchers or whatever.”

But that kinda relies on “being extremely online” and seeing the weird violent fantasies juxtaposed with the propaganda pieces citing the made up studies and such. And while this is a relatively new approach like I said, that’s relative to... the whole history of humanity. This particular tactic got started around the 70s or so, and back then, you absolutely didn’t see the terrifying mask-off moments. For that matter, you didn’t see the absurd propaganda pieces either. They didn’t really have the means to get those out to the public like they do now.

So the main way people used to get familiar with this sort of thing was, some foaming at the mouth bigot writes their big scaremongering screed and gets it printed in some unscrupulous magazine or whatever. Then some screenwriter looking for inspiration stumbles across that and goes, “ooh, I can sensationalize this weirdness to make this exploitation thriller I’m working on feel like it’s grounded in something,” and tada, here’s half a century of movies and TV filtering the absolutely bonkers propaganda and convincing the average person a typical trans woman is like a linebacker who just busted out of a mental institution treating some weird multiple identities time-sharing a single body disorder caused by Some People Are Just Born Crazy Syndrome who then immediately put on a slinky black dress and started murdering women to steal their pituitary glands to make love potions and maybe also skinning them to make bodysuits, then seducing men so they become gay or something.

Anyway, that’s all exactly as made up as the grenade launcher thing. Trans people don’t have weird brain problems, aren’t sex weirdos, aren’t serial killers, aren’t crossdressers, or any of a dozen other lies that were taught to you as facts your whole life. Please get over all that nonsense conditioning and reach a point where you understand there is no inherent conflict between being trans and being a tiny acrobatic girl with cool hair or whatever. That’s a weird thing to be unable to square in your mind.

[the-scottish-costume-guy]

I would love to read your essays on the Barbie movie

Okay so to do a proper essay I'd need to watch the movie again a few times and it'd take me weeks if not months - in all likelihood I will not be able to convince anyone to publish it. That said my partner really wants me to write something so maybe I'll make the time. Until then: an extended kinda analytical review: WARNING: spoilers ahead:

Whenever looking at a movie like this its important to establish the genre and genre conventions before doing any analysis. The Barbie movie is a comedy, its satirical, and it’s a feelgood movie made by a corporation. Some of my gripes with this movie are personal taste, some are flaws inherent in these genres or production means, please take everything I say as personal opinion. (I say this because I have noticed people taking my opinions as law because of what I study before and please don’t’ they are just opinions.)

The Barbie movie could be analysed with a queer lens, and a feminist one. Queer theory is more my area, but the parts I’m going to be talking about often overlap with feminist theory. I’m not going to talk so much about the opening, but I will talk a bit about character. Following Stereotypical Barbie is a good choice for the film as it lets us analyse some parts of toxic femininity. This is more subtle than the films analysis of toxic masculinity, but it is present. The non-normative Barbie is ‘Weird Barbie’ according to the others, and nobody wants to talk to her. Our Barbie is ‘malfunctioning’ because she has thoughts that are wrong, her day isn’t perfect, her body isn’t perfect, and she doesn’t want to open her mind and do the work to change – she wants to stay the same. Non-conformance is undesirable. ‘Weird Barbie’ is unwanted and alone while the others have girls night every night and are beloved by Ken. The film doesn’t analyse this too far beyond a brief statement at the end that things shouldn’t go back to the way they are, and an apology to ‘weird Barbie’. I do think its interesting that the scene where Barbie is ‘malfunctioning’ is one of the only times her outfit isn’t pink. Instead she’s in blue. Blue is a colour that to my memory wasn’t used much in the film – and it did well serving to make our Barbie stand out in that scene. So obviously Stereotypical Barbie goes on her journey and discovers things about herself and others – learns the world isn’t perfect. I don’t know how I feel about the conclusion of her becoming human at the end. I understand the thought process here – Stereotypical Barbie can’t exist as she is, her perfection is unattainable. She needs to become human because Barbie does need to reflect humans more, its why there have been so many variations over the years. That said it felt cheesy, the montage about understanding what being human means felt hollow and empty – I remember a lot of women and girls laughing and playing, I do not remember grief, failure in amongst the success. If the warning is “understand what it means to be human” I would have expected the good and the bad together. I know there are differing opinions on the concluding scene, but I personally think it was a misstep. Having Barbie becomes real = Barbie gets a vagina, felt like it went counter to the previous message of “Human isn’t something I have to ask for, its just something I realise I am one day.” Barbie already became real because of her thoughts and feelings, making her have a vagina at the end felt weirdly essentialist.

Now, onto the Kens.

The Kens are a great example of what one author (Jack Halberstam if you want to find them) I’ve been reading calls ‘Kinging’. They draw the term from Drag Kings, as a parody of masculinity – a bit earnest at times, but often exaggerating and playing off masculinity for comedic effect. The examples they give in their book include Austin Powers – but honestly this movie feels like the best example. The Kens are childlike, they’re a bit stupid and at least at times well meaning. Our Ken learns about the patriarchy but doesn’t understand what it means and brings it back to Barbie Land anyway. The inversion of reality to Barbieland is an interesting one – the Ken are too reactive and too stupid for politics – something the film barely comments on or analyses beyond a tongue in cheek joke about the kens one day having as much power as women do in the real world. I don’t think this is a bad thing, inversion for the sake of a statement is fine – and if men watching don’t understand that ‘of course men aren’t actually like ken’ is the point that’s on them. Also ‘I’m just Ken’ has been in my head for a solid day now. There could be a discussion about how “Sugar Daddy Ken” and “Magic Earring Ken” were not subscribing to the instated patriarchy Our Ken brings back from the real world. I’m not sure if this was a good choice or not, very ‘Ladies and gays’ moment. That said the ‘Weird’ Barbies and Kens do have to break the normal Barbies out of their brainwashing so I suppose its more of a commentary on counter cultures recognising the flaws of society? Now onto where I really think the movie fell flat. The CEO and board of Mattel. For the Kens, being stupid, bumbling and a bit over the top made sense – they’re dolls. For the board of Mattel it came off much more as ‘if we make this funny its less threatening’ when actually no it should be threatening? In reality the board has one less woman then men, though the company is still predominantly male. This whole running gag just sat badly with me. It really felt like “no no no the corporation is harmless, honest.” At the end of the day nothing changes in the real world – and again I get that’s part of the point, the real world takes more work than one imagination and one movie. But our lead, real women don’t even seem to be that empowered by their experiences? Its implied that one remains at her day job and the other, although having a better relationship with her mother, doesn’t see the real world any differently. Theres a little bit of an element of ‘whats the point’ that feels counter to the films message. I’m probably being just cynical here – again change is slow, change takes communal effort. Finally, although touched on the film could have done much more to look at its own consumerist message. Its kind of a throw away line – and that Barbie is unattainably perfect is ‘solved’ by one request for an ordinary Barbie which Mattel agrees to because ‘it will sell’. The film barely grapples with this which is a shame because given how much of the rest of the film had really interesting dialogue on society, gender and personal identity, I think they could have done some interesting things with consumerism and capitalism. Anyway this is just from one watch through and a bit of time to think, I’d need a lot more time to solidify some of these ideas and work out a full analysis (ideally with more costume elements involved).

[rei-does-stuff]

no but LITERALLY the other day I saw that stupid terfy post comparing women wearing makeup to hijabi women and I was like “what in the fresh fucking hell” it’s so weird how obsessed they are with policing how different women choose to dress, for whatever reasons they do it. I don’t understand how they can call themselves “feminists” while also implying that women covering their hair for religious reasons is “oppressing themselves for the male gaze” like can we take away the phrase “male gaze” from these dinkuses for like, idk, forever???? do they even know that religious head coverings in Islam are for Allah (PBUH)? I know I’m not an expert on Islam but seriously they can’t even be bothered to know the bare minimum of any culture or religion other than their own before mocking it.

and I hate how their go to is “oh those third world countries are oppressing women with their backwards Brown culture” and you can tell that’s basically what they’re saying because we all know they would never criticize the Christian fascism that’s taking over western countries, but the second people are oppressed by a religion that’s associated with brown people they alstart squawking like chickens with their ducking heads cut off.

it’s like… the act of choosing to wear a hijab IS NOT FUCKING OPPRESSION!!! AND YOU CAN TALK ABOYT THE ISSUES FACED BY MUSLIM WOMEN WITHOUT BEING FUCKING RACIST!!!!! idk, as someone whose number one focus in study in school is intersectional social theory, it just bothers me to no end how these fascist women will see a white American male senator literally ban human rights and overtly state his religion as a cause, and say nothing about it, but when a Muslim does the same thing it’s all “SAVE THE POOR BROWN WOMEN” and ik you know more about this than I do from your own perspective im just rambling about this because you’re like the only person I can ramble about this kind of stuff to since you agree and understand it. sorry if it sounds like I’m being preachy your post just reminded me of some of the shit I’ve seen and I’m just like “cool cool cool these women are totally not overt right-wing white supremacists, nope, not at all nope no way” /s

anyways ur Muslim lesboy swag is off the charts you should be given free reign to slaughter any terfs in ur vicinity /lh

OOOH BOY LILY I WAS FUMING WHEN I READ THIS BC I HATE RACIST TERFS SO MUCHH MANN (nothing against you tho dw :)!)

[I saw that stupid terfy post comparing women wearing makeup to hijabi women] dude I see that all the time and I fucking hate it bc they are NOT the same thing at all. It all comes back to them thinking that hijabs are something the patriarch created when like. No. Sure it’s been used that way occasionally but it’s not as common as they make it out to be they intentionally misrepresent it to make Muslims and hijabs look bad and it’s so infuriating.

[implying that women covering their hair for religious reasons is “oppressing themselves for the male gaze”]

GOD THIS ONE I REALLY DISLIKE bc its so clear they have no idea WHY people wear hijabs. And especially since most people who say this are white and Christian (or atheists which might be worse imo) they’re coming at this from that point of view so they have NO idea what they’re talking about when it comes to that.

[they can’t even be bothered to know the bare minimum of any culture or religion other than their own before mocking it.]

It’s because they see as Muslim as either scary terrorist or poor innocent women who need be to saved for their evil religion and country by white people, really fucking gross

[and I hate how their go to is “oh those third world countries are oppressing women with their backwards Brown culture”]

God yea, they really need to calm their white savior complex for ONCE that would be greatt

Also they claim arab countries are backwards when they don’t know shit abt them, it’s awful

Especially what you said about them never criticizing Christianity for similar views, its only bad when the “evil” brown people do it apparently. Racists fuckers.

[it’s like… the act of choosing to wear a hijab IS NOT FUCKING OPPRESSION!!! AND YOU CAN TALK ABOYT THE ISSUES FACED BY MUSLIM WOMEN WITHOUT BEING FUCKING RACIST!!!!!]

Honestly if you’re not muslim or aren’t from said countries where the issue is prevalent I’m not gonna listen to a word you fucking say bc half of the time it’ll be misinformed and or REALLY racist, yk???

Anyways no worry you weren’t being preachy! This gave me a good excuse to rant too!!

Thank you btw, my lesboy swag is indeed off the charts :)

[finitevariety]

can we hear your argument about the correct way to understand bronte’s ‘the professor’?

warning that there's an EXTREMELY long post below. Don't click 'Keep reading' unless you're sure you can face it.

The correct way to read the novel is as a satire. I say this not because it's necessarily the accurate interpretation, but because it's the most interesting.

I'm excited to get into this, but first let's tie it back to the post I tagged earlier by seeing what reviews for The Professor indicate about the state of critical thought today (the prognosis is grim).

Typically, reviews fall into two camps:

One: Charlotte Brontë is a stupid fucking woman who betrayed feminism and therefore doesn't deserve rights anyway. Why did she write about a main character who's so RUDE?!

Two: Charlotte, you've done it again! Truly this is a romance for the ages! Can't wait to call my husband 'monsieur' for the rest of my natural life! This truly is a marriage of equals! Go feminism!

There is also a secret third type of terrible review that's basically 'this is your brain on mid-10s ~feminist~ internet', in which feminism was less about gaining power for cis and trans women of all races, but more of a vehicle to advance the nebulous idea of empowerment.

'Not like other girls but make it a poorly-drawn webcomic' vibes, you know?

Bluntly, nothing here admits to the possibility that Brontë might have been aware she was writing about an unrelatable, flawed asshole, and that that might have been exactly what she wanted to do.

I don't pretend to be an expert about Victorian literature or criticism of such, but the dominant opinion over the years seems to have been that The Professor is first-draft back-of-a-drawer stuff that was deservedly rejected by 9 publishers and languished correctly in said drawer before being posthumously released. For some, it's the Go Set a Watchman of her canon.

Many lean into the idea that The Professor is a wish-fulfilment fantasy concerning the married headmaster under whom she studied in Belgium, and with whom she was certainly infatuated. I do think this interpretation can be convincing—and it's been covered elsewhere by smarter people than me, so I won't bother.

What I'm going to do is look at why I think satire is a far more satisfying interpretation that does have justification in both the text and its context. I'll look at:

The Professor as a parody of the Victorian self-help genre; and

The unreliable narrator, more broadly

I was also going to examine the novel in relation to Brontë's other work, and particularly Villette, but the post was fucking long enough already. I really do apologise for its length: please know that this is me attempting to be concise.

The Professor as a parody of the Victorian self-help genre

There is a plague of whiny nerds who call themselves bookworms yet get scared and call the lit-police when the moral of a story isn't laid out at the end like an after school special. For years now, these #amwriting fucks have considered 'not-chris-evans.jpg' the ultimate gotcha on interminable twitter threads.

This shitty mic-drop fails to consider that there are some people for whom purpose and target will always be unclear. If Twitter had existed in the 1700s, there would be people incandescent with rage that Jonathan Swift wanted to buy and eat impoverished babies. One only has to look at what this supposedly literate group did to Isabel Fall to know that to make satire intelligble to these people you'd have to break out the crayons.

Another important consideration is that satire which was clear within its time can, bereft of context, seem earnest. It's my argument that this has happened to The Professor.

Heather Glen, in her 2004 book Charlotte Brontë: The Imagination in History, makes the compelling case that The Professor is written as a fictional example of a self-help genre which was popular at the time:

It is not a clumsy fictionalization of autobiographical concerns; or a draft for its author's later, more popular works, but a novel of a very different kind (p34)

She identifies Brontë's Preface as a key signpost, linking its explicit references to themes of self-reliance and discipline to the maxims so popular in the genre.

These references continue throughout the novel, with Crimsworth making much of his industry, effort, and self-restraint. But there are clear and telling differences between these self-help narratives and the life led by Crimsworth.

This might as well be him, right down to the decision to broadcast to the world.

Self-help was, as the name suggested, focused on the individual—authors such as Craik and Smiles argued that poverty was caused by personal irresponsibility and conversely could be alleviated by discipline. (As a side note, the self-help trend did coincide with 'mutual improvement societies', a more radical movement created by and for working class men to educate themselves and participate in political life.)

The bootstrap-bios of the self-help genre are exactly what you'd expect. In the conclusion to Volume 1, Craik highlights the promised reward, if one only puts one's mind to it: joy.

Crimsworth is set apart from these heroes of self-help because he is so bereft of positive emotion. In fact, his entire worldview is poisoned: to him, existence is impersonal, violent, and hostile. I'll swing back to Glen for this, because she lays out in significant detail just how paranoid and brutal his mental landscape is:

Crimsworth is the empty, sad shell which houses all hustle culture rise and grind don't-deserve-a-bedframe fundamentally pathetic fucking idiots of the Victorian Era, and Brontë is, I argue, lampooning this sigma male grindset nearly 200 years before the rest of us. His self-strictness curdles the supposed happy ending, and it's so fucking good if you interpret that as deliberate:

again, Glen:

the scene in which he proposes to her is charged with half-suppressed violence: he holds his beloved in 'a somewhat ruthless grasp' and insists that she speak his language, not her own. She, for her part, is 'as stirless in her happiness, as a mouse in its terror'

He professes contentment, when they marry, but there is never any peace to be found. Yet, for the story to end, and for him to consider it a story worth telling—one where self-discipline and hard work won the day—he must pretend at it. He might even believe it—but are we supposed to do so also? I don't think so.

2. The unreliable narrator, more broadly

Crimsworth tells us that:

The other day, in looking over my papers, I found in my desk the following copy of a letter, sent by me a year since to an old school acquaintance...

To this letter I never got an answer...what has become of him since, I know not. The leisure time I have at command, and which I intended to employ for his private benefit, I shall now dedicate to that of the public at large. My narrative is not exciting, and above all, not marvellous; but it may interest some individuals, who, having toiled in the same vocation as myself, will find in my experience frequent reflections of their own. The above letter will serve as an introduction. I now proceed.

Crimsworth refers to this person (Charles) in distant terms. He's an 'old school acquaintaince'. His fate is unknown, but this does not keep him up at night. Crimsworth implies that there's less affection there than utility: he'd intended to bestow on Charles the dubious gift of this tale, and now it's our turn instead. In the letter, too, he's at pains to point out that he would never lift a finger for him, especially for rotten work:

you were a sarcastic, observant, shrewd, cold-blooded creature; my own portrait I will not attempt to draw, but I cannot recollect that it was a strikingly attractive one—can you? What animal magnetism drew thee and me together I know not; certainly I never experienced anything of the Pylades and Orestes sentiment for you, and I have reason to believe that you, on your part, were equally free from all romantic regard to me.  Still, out of school hours we walked and talked continually together; when the theme of conversation was our companions or our masters we understood each other, and when I recurred to some sentiment of affection, some vague love of an excellent or beautiful object, whether in animate or inanimate nature, your sardonic coldness did not move me. I felt myself superior to that check then as I do now.

but he writes, anyway, not for Charles's benefit, but because he wants to be heard and understood as he was then. The companions have changed, but if there is anyone who will agree with him about their character and motivations, he believes it will be sardonic, cold-blooded Charles.

Yet Charles did not reply, and so he turns to us for vindication.

Am I reading too much into this? I don't think so. Here's a fragment from a reworked Preface which would have replaced this first section and given us an alternate explanation for the existence of the text:

I had the pleasure of knowing Mr Crimsworth very well—and can vouch for his having been a respectable man—though perhaps not altogether the character he seems to have thought he was.

Here, the signposting is even clearer: we are not to take Crimsworth's tale entirely at its word.

Catherine Malone highlights this fragment when she examines Crimsworth's perception of his relationship to sex.

while at the beginning of the novel he declares an interest only in women with 'the clear, cheering gleam of intellect' (p. 13), asserting that for a professor, feminine 'mental qualities; application, love of knowledge, natural capacity, docility, truthfulness, gratefulness are the charms that attract his notice and win his regard' (p. 120) ...

the puritanical image he presents is continually undermined by his regard for physical beauty, manifest in his obsession with the boarded window in his bedroom at M. Pelet's, and his observations on his female pupils and the women with whom he has already come into contact. During the party at brother's house, Crimsworth is not introduced to the 'group of pretty girls' surrounding Edward and feels that he can take no part in the dancing: 'Many smiling faces and graceful figures glided me-but the smiles were lavished on other eyes-the figures sustained by other hands than mine-I turned away tantalized' (p. 24). Similarly, it is Mlle Reuter's outer rather than inner charms wh chiefly attract Crimsworth. It is he who nearly falls in love Zoraide and she, confident in her relationship with Pelet, who with his affections. Although any relationship between the two had been largely of Crimsworth's imagining, on discovering the engagement, he considers Zoraide and Pelet's deceit an act of 'treachery' (p. 112)—one which does not just cause him momentary bitterness, shame, or embarrassment but temporarily extinguishes his entire 'faith in love and friendship' (p. 111)

What Crimsworth tells himself about his desires is at odds with his reactions.

One final aspect to discuss (because I really need to finish this post up and go to bed) is gaze. In The Professor, being seen is understood as an assault; The Professor exists, we are told, because Crimsworth wished to present his tale to 'the public at large'. When Crimsworth has a narrative he thinks he controls, he'll share it—but even in the bounds of that text it's clear that he bristles under scrutiny.

Glen compiles near-endless examples of references to sight and seeing in The Professor, but I'm most interested in the way that plays out in interactions with his brother.

His first meeting with his brother is described like so:

my mind busied itself in conjectures concerning the meeting about to take place. Amidst much that was doubtful in the subject of these conjectures, there was one thing tolerably certain—I was in no danger of encountering severe disappointment; from this, the moderation of my expectations guaranteed me. I anticipated no overflowings of fraternal tenderness; Edward’s letters had always been such as to prevent the engendering or harbouring of delusions of this sort. Still, as I sat awaiting his arrival, I felt eager—very eager—I cannot tell you why; my hand, so utterly a stranger to the grasp of a kindred hand, clenched itself to repress the tremor with which impatience would fain have shaken it.

He will concede to feeling eager, but he cannot—will not—tell you why. After all, he has moderated his expectations! He does not hope! Fuck off!

He hardens himself still further, and in so doing insulates himself from disappointment—or, indeed, connection:

I can't help but feel like it is deliberate on Brontë's part that we see his professed successes as defeats. This is a man who despite all his hardness and his flaws has found himself a wife—but is that worth anything? Has he allowed himself to be understood even as much as he was back in his schooldays with maybe-dead 'acquaintance' Charles? Does he feel even a fraction of the contentment he thought he would, if only he followed the rules? Does his wife?

Towards the end of the novel is a terrifying passage that demonstrates, imo, that Frances, his wife, knows his deal far, far better than he does. Their pal, Hunsden, shares a miniature of a woman he was once into, Lucia, admitting that 'I should certainly have liked to marry her, and that I have not done so is a proof that I could not.'

In Crimsworth's list of desirable attributes from above, it is docility that ranks highest, and Frances knows it. She loves him, as other passages show, but she also sobbed as they were married, and in the scene before the wedding criticised Hunsden for an attitude that Crimsworth demonstrates throughout the text: being a facts don't care about your feelings dipshit.

so: it is very fun to interpret The Professor as a surprisingly relevant satire of the self-made man. I think there's ample justification for this in the text, which repeatedly and deliberately sets up and exposes the contradictions in character that Crimsworth himself cannot see.

I can't decide whether it's worse to assume Brontë didn't know what she was doing when she wrote about this dickhead, or that she did and he's wonderful actually. Perhaps one of those interpretations is even correct—but I am a huge fan of unreliable narrators, and I think it's 100% defensible, and far more interesting, to see Crimsworth as one.

[fullhalalalchemist]

smut and nsfw works can be very deranged sometimes but how is it fair to compare it to the actual harm of porn? even if there was absolutely 0 effect on the people watching it(such as increased likelyhood of sexual aggression, decreased empathy for rape victims, irreversible effects on the brain etc) the actors in porn videos would still experience what they experience. you can fantasize and preach till your mouth goes dry about the self-sufficient empowered sex workers who choose their own work, but it won't make the truth of millions of trafficked male and female children fueling the industry disappear. the high rates of suicide, addictions to get through the scenes, physical harm thats basically part of the job description? there is so many porn stars that have come out with their stories of what they experienced on set, yes even the successfull ones that went into the industry willingly. their abuse is not comparable to words on paper.

not the mention "my christian parents are against it so i must support it" is a very weak argument. its cringe shortsighted reactionary bullshit.

1) if there is increased likelyhood of sexual aggression, decreased empathy for rape victims, irreversible effects on the brain then how come millenials and gen z, which grew up on these, have a better understanding of consent, more egalitarian views on gender and sex, there's less teen pregnancy and less sex being had overall by the younger crowd even pre-pandemic. secondly, WHO is having an increased likelihood of sexual aggression? WHO has a decreased empathy for rape victims? because i'm sure you can point to america's flawless and amazing attitudes towards women and rape victims historically (sarcasm, in case you're too stupid to realize). studies show that men who access sex work have more egalitarian and feminist attitudes than those with antisex and antiporn sentiment

perhaps youre talking about the cis men who already are prone to abuse women and are using things like 'rough sex' and 'bdsm' as an excuse, and its more visible now? because that takes a lot of nuance to talk about and i agree with you there that this IS an issue, but these men would have found ways to do that anyway. perhaps the issue is not the porn itself but the society that encourages violence in an era where increased societal collapse is happening all around us? where the trend of backlash against women has been happening for over a decade and really isn't tied to porn/sex at all but more towards increasing feminist attitudes toward work and gender roles going mainstream?

2) so you're ignoring sex workers yet again, got it. because there's also a lot of sex workers who came out and said that they love their work, they love being a sex worker. and in either case, these are the same people who have been criminalized and brutalized by police globally, the main source of their abuse. in fact YOU can fantasize and preach til YOUR mouth goes dry about how its the worst industry ever while ignoring the millions of queer, disabled, women, and poc who are in this line of work and love it.

3) and are these millions of traffiked children in the room with us now? you think that if there were millions of traffiked kids, they'd show up in mainstream porn more, right? except they dont. 100 members of congress asked the DOJ to investigate OnlyFans bc of 80 possible instances of CSAM in the same time that facebooks 20 million cases went ignored by literally everyone. and who's the site thats getting punished? pornhub and other porn sites which have a well-documented effort of putting time, resources, and moderation of getting rid of this content that some users upload. endtraffikinghub was a fucking psyop by far-right christian orgs posing as 'anti-traffiking' orgs, oh my god. where the hell are you getting these numbers anyway? because CSAM is NOT porn and NOT the porn industry and its psychotic to equate them.

4) high rates of suicides, addictions to get through scenes. can you link any studies? and again, do you TALK to sex workers or do you just rehash claims made by these antiporn/"antitraffiking" "activists" who are almost always far-right christians in disguise (hello look at NCOSE, formerly known as morality in media) rather than the actual people who do the work? because i can point to you several thousands of people who show up to their non-porn non-sex work jobs faded as hell and also have suicidal tendnencies from being in those industries. the issue is LABOR & CAPITALISM, not sex and not porn.

5) sure, there is always cause for abuse of workers. but again that is a labor issue, because we live in a capitalist society and across the board there are workers being abused. sexual harrassment and assault is not unique to porn, and you're naive to think that lmao. if you truly gaf about getting rid of the industry you'd push for what sex workers are calling for, decriminalization. there are hundreds of sex worker unions who talk about the issues they face, and most of it is decriminalization. in india a union of 60k people recently won a big court case on this. its a labor issue if anything. the main source of abuse is extensive criminalization and banking discrimination which pushes people into poverty and homelessness as they're forced to do more irl work and come across the police who have been killing and raping sex workers this entire time.

6) and no, it's not a weak argument when we live in an increasingly christofascist state and world. its' actually a very very good argument for the suppression of sex and sex workers. because these same antiporn "activists" have co-opted feminist language and you're all falling for it and once again ignoring sex workers

and lets just clarify. people say "porn industry" and are referring to the sites like pornhub. the "industry" is where the workers are. there is no like, shadow overrulling company making all the porn. there are a bunch of filming companies who sex workers HAVE spoken out against and a bunch that they love to work for instead. there are millions of people who work on their own terms, from their own sites too. my PERSONAL opinion that has been motivated by listening to sex workers and reading both sociology and psychological research has been that i will always always always support the worker first before the industry. there are a lot of issues, that is true! but it's mainly a labor issue and sex workers have BEEN on the frontlines of negotiating for better working conditions. to say otherwise would be foolish and would show you simply dont pay attention. why do you think many of them go to use sites like onlyfans now over pornhub?

[nerdylilpeebee]

Ok, this is a genuine aks because this is the first time I've hear this idea. On one of your posts you said that the patriachy doesn't exist & or is a made up think. Can you elaborate and or explain? I know that's vauge, but I don't know a better way to ask.

The patriarchy, as feminists have defined it, is a system that keeps men privileged and women oppressed. Many even go so far as to insist cannot possibly have issues worth talking about BECAUSE the patriarchy benefits men so much.

But in reality, men have so many issues it's ridiculous feminists are so opposed to talking about them while (some of them, at least) claiming to be for equality. And women have so many fucking privileges under this supposed "patriarchy" it's ridiculous to act like it exists.

For example, men have no reproductive rights, are the majority of lab rats for medical study, their lives are valued significantly less than women's (even all media we have portrays a man valuing his life over a woman's as scummy), men cannot in most of the world even be legally victims of rape by a woman, men cannot fight back in domestic violence situations because if they do they'll get an even worse sentence than they already will because it is standard practice to just arrest the man in the situation (regardless of who is covered in bruises), men get harsher sentences for the same crimes, they get the death penalty more often, they get less sympathy in general from society as a whole (let alone when they're in criminal court), you don't really need proof to ruin a man's life when he is a accused of any form of sexual misconduct (unless he is filthy rich, and even that isn't a rule as Johnny Depp proved) and even little boys can be forced to pay child support if a woman rapes them and gets pregnant because of it. Literally I could go on and on about the disadvantages men face in society. Shit, EVERY SINGLE FEMINIST who has EVER lived as a man to "find out what it's like" has ended up an anti-feminist because how disadvantaged they become and how shitty everyone treats them when passing as a man.

How in the FUCK can we live under a system that benefits men but disadvantages women when all I listed above is true???

The reality is, feminists compare themselves to rich men and think that's proof some patriarchy exists and they're oppressed. But in truth, compared to every other man who is not some filthy rich celebrity, they have it significantly better than they do. And feminists don't wanna acknowledge that, cuz then what is the point of their movement if they aren't the oppressed? I'm not saying men are (imo, no one in the West is oppressed anymore, save for the disabled), but women are certainly not oppressed in most of the world. There are places where they still are, but "the patriarchy" is never specified to just exist in those places. It's everywhere, society in general that is called patriarchal. Which is absolutely fucking stupid.