#which is not to undermine the jobs of social media managers because that is an important job it’s just not the job i thought i was hired to

[easeupkid]

i was listening to a podcast the other day that kinda talked about how the pivot to video was like the plight of a lot of young journalists in the mid 2010s and i was thinking about it i’m going to say the plight of young journalists today is having to take jobs working as glorified social media managers

[seashellsoldier]

“The Teachers: A Year Inside America’s Most Vulnerable, Important Profession” by Alexandra Robbins (2023)

As one elementary school teacher aptly summarized, “Politics, greed, and mismanagement have made [teaching] incompatible with physical and mental health” (p. 90, Libby).

Well, one more disheartening report on how our society’s pillars are crumbling, and it couldn’t be more infuriating. Education is the bedrock of any advanced society; well, education and overall health, and good health is attained through solid education. The United States of Hypocrisy is failing dramatically at both of these keystones, and the parallelisms are flagrant.

”Between 2020 and 2022, there was a marked increase in parents harassing, intimidating, and threatening school staff; in several states, parents physically assaulted teachers because they were upset about school mask policies even during virus surges. NBC News reported in 2021, ‘The teacher is now viewed by a small, loud contingent not as a public servant but as a public enemy.’ The following spring, FOX News host Tucker Carlson said that teachers should be ‘beaten up’—and encouraged viewers to ‘thrash the teacher’” (p. 68, Libby).

This mirrors how certain demographics in America have likewise railed against science and healthcare, and just about everything else that scares them. Now, look at education attainment within the United States (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/educational-attainment.html). It is terribly sad, but terribly telling too.

Any wonder such a drastic shift has happened in such a short period of time with a toddler tyrant and his sycophants in the White House, entire news networks pandering and puppeteering and propagandizing their virulent misinformation and weaponized disinformation, and global social media-empires profiting off such clickbait bs, to truly influence too many towards an undereducated and incredibly gullible Idiocracy, just so the entitled can reap all the rewards from it while the mindless mobs fight to hold onto xenophobic-based White Christian Nationalism (despite all the data saying it’s the absolute minority in this country now)? All the screeching Karens in Moms For Liberty exemplify this brainwashed desperation, and the GOP couldn’t work harder at watering these poisonous weeds at every opportunity. Heck, the GOP fights against anything that would best benefit the middle and lower classes, seemingly hell-bent on doing everything possible to reinforce systemic poverty. I wonder why. Now, teachers and librarians are under attack, verbally and physically, from emotionally stunted adults who have lost the skills required for good parenting, wanting instant gratification through their bullying and tantrums. The American Psychological Association (APA) has been tracking this well (https://www.apa.org/education-career/k12/violence-educators.pdf), which of course NPR cares about too (https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087137571/school-violence-teachers-covid).

I’ve written this so many times, but the priorities of this country are painfully delusive. Affordable health care and quality education SHOULD BE foundational rights for every single person, and free of charge. Teachers and police officers SHOULD BE the highest trained and best paid public servants on every budget. This is what creates an educated (dare I say “enlightened”), multicultural, vibrant and empathetic, and safe-for-all society. We need to trust our teachers; they are some of the most educated people in society, having to be experts in child development, social-emotional development, curriculum development and assessment, as well as unpaid tutors, parent liaisons, book buyers, charity workers, therapists, social workers, crisis managers, security staff, and human shields. Tell me you do more at whatever job you currently have.

Robbins gives some painfully clear examples of how both “the system” itself, and society at large, work to undermine education in America, save for the lily-white and wealthy enclaves and their for-profit charter school islands (even if teachers form cliques of their own, and fall into patterns of childish bullying, petty rumormongering, and mindless sabotage upon their colleagues). Systemic racism is baked into every fiber of this nation, and education is historically a glaring fault line. Read Poverty, By America by Matthew Desmond for kicks, and look at Florida for the reactionary, clownish insanity of today (and watch as the state slowly, ignorantly allows the sea to reclaim the peninsula in a constantly warming world).

From Columbine High to Robb Elementary, nothing has been done to stop mass murder in schools except to make teachers frontline shields for your children. All of this is a glaring national crisis that reaches the heart of what a nation is.

So: 1. We have a seriously undereducated populace . . . 2. The deep-rooted problems with tech addiction and an unregulated internet erode an undereducated society in all-too apparent ways . . . 3. Parenting, in so many ways for so many children, has changed over the past three generations to be another symptom of a deteriorating society . . . 4. And small-minded, primitive-brained people suck.

For two semesters, I was a counseling intern at an outpatient day-treatment center for kids and teens whose schools deemed them unfit due to behavioral issues. This was a partnership with the county school district, and we had an inpatient facility too. Individual, group, and family sessions were mixed into their weekly coursework, which we continued through licensed educators. Our goal was to help these kids, and their families, find some equilibrium with diagnosed conditions and help them reintegrate back to their home schools. This was, without a doubt, the most rewarding work I’ve ever done. While some conditions are biological or genetic in origin, all too many were direct products of toxic family dynamics. It takes a village to help a child; it takes a village to help a family help their child. Teachers, therapists, child psychologists, a psychiatrist, and all the supporting staff all worked as that village for every single kid. The emotionally, if not physically abandoned, the sexually molested, the physically abused, the psychologically tormented, and the otherwise traumatized were cared for through tears and screams and tantrums of furious energy, but they ultimately knew they were safe and protected, at least for eight hours each day. This is what every school should look like, working as interdisciplinary teams to help every child succeed and thrive. Every child should be given access to every resource imaginable in the wealthiest nation in human history. The future depends upon such a seismic shift in societal priorities.

Robbins also highlights the existential issues alongside viable solutions, which she apparently shared with the Next Big Idea Club (https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/teachers-year-inside-americas-vulnerable-important-profession-bookbite/41045/). Solutions are very possible with enough public willpower. We can dynamically transform society in radical ways that can empower the lower classes to thrive with the resources, infrastructure, and opportunities to do so. Ensuring teaching professions are “worth their weight in gold” is a crucial first step. This means giving them the respect and trust they deserve, safe working environments, fair and effective protections, collective bargaining, more staffing, loan forgiveness, supply-rich classes and small class sizes, well-defined and realistic job descriptions, and of course well-paid salaries with encouraging incentives. It takes a certain type of person to be a good teacher; it takes a system that nurtures those good people to pursue education as a life-long career. Again, this is the bedrock of a modern society.

Helping all struggling parents is a future-focused second step that benefits society holistically.

Let the Lost Cause racists scream into the ether, since our bought-out politicians can’t do anything about regulating and policing up the internet, AI, autonomous weapons, and whatever the whole thing evolves into (it will happen sooner than we realize). However, in the meantime, our police forces need the power and motivation to track, prosecute, and punish every ignoramus who bullies, assaults, and casts death threats at everything they don’t like, and protect our public servants from the slathering public, from brick-throwing dads to AR-15-toting teens. (I do realize the bind this puts me in: power to the people, but only those who behave themselves like the adults they’re supposed to be.) Behaviors have consequences, and we need to start policing up such behaviors, collectively. Online public shaming doesn’t seem to affect enough of them, and oftentimes they’re simply parroting their elected officials and media darlings. Adults who lack emotional intelligence will surely produce children doing likewise. The “moral majority” have turned into rabid dogs since the 1960s, and classrooms filled with gunned-down kids don’t phase them one bit. Instead of harassing teachers, they should be parenting their children and grandchildren, helping them prepare for a highly uncertain future. Education will help them. It takes a village, right?

We need to move forward, overturn the priorities of this country, and rebuild our infrastructure from the ground skyward. Education, health care, labor, and pensions. However, this country looks to be a sinking ship captained by selfish, deluded morons voted into office by equally selfish, deluded, and poorly educated idiots. Idiocracy, here we come as climate change falls like a hammer on humanity.

Thank you, Public Library System, for having this title available; and, thank you tenfold, to all the teachers who challenged, encouraged, supported, and enlightened me along the way.

[ledenews]

W.Va. Senate President Blair: 'Transparency and Accountability Are Critical to Democracy'

There’s an old saying that goes, “with great freedom comes great responsibility.” In my mind, one of the best examples of that phrase is the relationship between the government and the media. It’s an adversarial relationship by nature because we co-exist in the same sphere of operating with great freedom and great responsibility. You don’t have to like what the media reports. I’ll be honest – I often don’t. However, there’s a very clear difference between not liking what the media reports and actively working to silence them. The actions this week by the DHHR and the management of West Virginia Public Broadcasting went too far, and it appears our Executive Branch has gone from largely refusing to cooperate with the media to actively undermining it. A government that serves its people must respect the critical role a free press plays in the process. With that critical role comes responsibility on behalf of the media to be accurate and to leave political bias at the door. While I cannot say that every reporter I have interacted with has been able to do that – and some have been downright dishonest in their reporting – I can say with confidence that was not the case here. In this case, a reporter did her job, did it fairly, told the truth, and seemed to pay a hefty price. West Virginia Public Broadcasting reporter Amelia Knisely wrote about my letter to Governor Jim Justice calling for an investigation into DHHR’s policies and management of treatment for patients with disabilities in their care. Before we received a response from either the Governor’s office or DHHR about my concerns, former Secretary Crouch had already sent a letter to the executive director of Public Broadcasting demanding the story be retracted. If those priorities sound a bit off to you, they are. West Virginia’s most vulnerable citizens are suffering, and they need our help. After what I’ve seen as this story unfolds, I continue to have the strong belief that the help they desperately need cannot come from the DHHR in its current form. Transparency and accountability are critical to democracy. Our citizens deserve to know how their government operates, and I am proud of the Senate for the tools we have in place to keep our citizens informed. We live stream and video archive every meeting. We allow testimony before our committees to occur remotely. Every month, our Finance Committee publishes a General Revenue Collections report that gives a detailed picture of our state’s finances. Through our official social media, we make sure to share agendas, amendments, floor votes, and other real-time information as it happens. We also communicate with the press, even when it makes us uncomfortable. Our staff fields numerous requests every week, sometimes taking hours to walk reporters through routine and complicated processes, explain bills, and help the media tell a fuller, more accurate story. This is not something you’ll see out of the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch operates in carefully constructed, made-for-TV media events where there is no give and take, and their agencies seldom respond to basic questions from the media. That behavior undermines the confidence in our government and our leaders. The job of the media isn’t to make us comfortable. It’s to make us accountable. In turn, it’s not the job of the media to be opponents to everything we do, either. Respect is a two-way street, and we strive to be respectful above all things. Steven Allen Adams’s reporting about DHHR’s interference in the Public Broadcasting news department and pressure on it to silence negative stories is disturbing, and that behavior would not be tolerated in the Senate. I hope the Executive Branch disavows this blatant abuse of the First Amendment and holds the management of West Virginia Public Broadcasting responsible for it. Senate President Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, represents the 15th Senatorial District, which includes part of Berkeley County, and Hampshire and Morgan counties. Read the full article

[virajsingh11]

9 TYPES OF WOMEN TO AVOID

Young Men, Avoid these 9 types of women.

As a man, it’s never your duty to protect your woman from other men coming to toast her, flirt with her, or even sleep with her. It’s 100% your woman’s responsibility to create boundaries against men who want to encroach on her space. The moment your woman begins to entertain these external male figures, your job is not to protect her from them, start questioning her, begging, or trying to stop her. No, absolutely not.

There is nothing you can do about a woman whose eyes are outside. You will only hurt yourself if you try to caution her. As a man, you have failed if you try to talk her into leaving other men just for you. When a woman disrespects you by flirting with another man or giving another man access to her life, like the way that young man’s girlfriend left him only to be used by Omalay on stage, your best reaction is to abandon her and dump her back to the streets where you picked her from.

Women who act like this have no place being a wife to any wise man. She’s for the streets and will forever belong to the streets. The boyfriend should be happy that she revealed her true nature before marrying her. These are the types of women that are 100% destined to cheat on their men. As a man, avoid these types:

1. Promiscuous Women:These women are constantly seeking attention and validation from different men, making it nearly impossible to maintain a stable, trustworthy relationship. They lack loyalty and will bring nothing but heartache.

2 .Party Girls : Women who prioritize partying and nightlife over a stable relationship are not fit for a serious commitment. Their reckless behavior and poor decision-making lead to turmoil and instability, dragging you down with them.

3. Materialistic Women: If she values material possessions over meaningful connections, she will never be satisfied with what you provide. Her insatiable desire for luxury and status can lead to financial strain and emotional disconnect. She’s more likely to leave you the moment someone with deeper pockets comes along.

4. Women with a Bad Past: A history filled with problematic behaviors and poor choices can be a red flag for future issues. These women carry emotional baggage and unresolved issues that will negatively impact your relationship. You don’t need someone else’s drama in your life.

5 . Unsubmissive and Reprobate Women: Women who refuse to be cooperative or show respect will only bring conflict and strife. A harmonious relationship requires mutual respect and understanding, which these women lack. They will constantly challenge your authority and undermine your leadership.

6 Single Moms if possible : Let’s be blunt—taking on the responsibilities of another man’s child can be complex and challenging. It’s a burden that not all men are prepared for, and it can bring unnecessary complications into your life. Know your limits.

But if you are willing to father a child and trust that you won't hurt her by maltreating the child then go on because we all have a past.

7. Violent Women/Women with Anger Issues : These women can be unpredictable and potentially dangerous. Their inability to manage their emotions can lead to frequent conflicts and even physical altercations. They are a liability you can’t afford.

8.Women Obsessed with Social Media, Male Attention, and Validation : They crave constant external validation, which can undermine the stability of your relationship. Their need for attention can lead to jealousy, insecurity, and infidelity. They are never satisfied with what you give them.

9. Women Obsessed with Celebrities: If she idolizes celebrities, she may be living in a fantasy and have unrealistic expectations for your relationship. This obsession creates a disconnect between her expectations and reality, leading to dissatisfaction and conflict. You can never compete with her fantasy world.

Avoid these types of women when it comes to marriage and serious relationships. Be wise and make choices that align with a stable and respectful partnership. Your peace of mind and future happiness depend on it. Stay putinized

[queeranarchism]

Thank you. I think I made the wrong assumptions because this started with the word industrialization, which mostly took place in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century, while the 'modern' that you're talking about is more about digitalization. That makes a lot of sense.

I'd say that your emotions - a lot of which I share - are backed up by facts in the sense that a lot of things have gotten measurably worse in the last three decades. Less job security, less access to housing, the destruction of our climate, the rise of fascism, increasing backlash against all the rights that women and minorities have fought for in the last century.

Limiting myself to the US and north-west Europe, I'd trace a lot of that back to stuff like:

The erosion of the power of unions, the principle of solidarity and the welfare system by politicians like Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980s.

The embrace of capitalism by much the parliamentary 'left' (Labour, the Democrats, etc) since the 1990s, leaving no real push-back against capitalism and tipping the political balance in favor of an ever more right-wing shift.

The subsequent rise of the far right which started in the 1990s, picked up pace after 2001 and has managed to achieve positions of power in the last decade. That far right has done what it always does to get into power: spread disinformation, question reality, scapegoat, attack minorities, etc.

Capitalists using this ever more right wing political landscape to concentrate more and more wealth and push for an ever more precarious and insecure workforce.

I would situate these problems mainly in the economic system of capitalism and the political dominance of capitalist political parties. I wouldn't call them problems of modernity and I don't even think digitalization has much to do with them. Far right political groups were very good at spreading propaganda and undermining people's belief in measurable reality long before social media. Without social media they'd have one less tool in their hands, but we'd still have Trump and conspiracy theorists and far right antivaxers, etc.

In fact, I'd say that the far right benefits from the widespread vibe that modernity is to blame for the misery that people are feeling. Vibes like 'we used to work the soil and trusted our neighbours' are easily steered to the right and, they're selling the idea of a return to a better time. Which is part of why I'm always tempted to peel back the idea that there is a better past to return to.

A thing I love to do is telling prepper dudes that one of my disaster readiness skills is making stuffed animals. They never get it. Like, my dude, when things get very bad and we're all sharing overcrowded shelters, you're gonna want the power to comfort children. Trust me.

[sublimeobservationarcade]

Fox News Should Be Banned From Broadcasting to Australian Audiences

The evidence thrown up via the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News clearly shows that Fox News knowingly lied in their presentation of the news pertaining to the 2020 US federal election. Their CEO and owner both sent messages to staff directing them to refrain from telling their viewers the facts about the declared result of the election. They promoted the big lie, which contributed to January 6 and the undermining of social cohesion within America. This was because they were scared of the damage it would do to their viewing audience. This must contravene the standards of a network purporting to be a news station. How can purposely not telling the news be in line with the rules and regulations governing the media here in Australia. Fox News should be banned from broadcasting to Australian audiences.

'Hidden Figures' Media Interviews (NHQ201612130007) by NASA HQ PHOTO is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0

Imagine If Fox News Was Chinese Owned

I would like to stop and hypothesise for a moment. Imagine if this was a Chinese news service made for English speakers beaming into Australia. Suddenly, the news got out that this network was deliberately misleading viewers about the result of something globally important on the direction of their management and central Chinese government controllers. The outcry would be enormous and the calls for their immediate banning from broadcasting would be sharp and loud. Talking heads would be damning the network as propagandists. The rabid right wing fringe would be marching in the streets in protest with all their Nazi posturing.

Double Standard For Fox & Telling White Skinned Lies On TV

There seems to be a convenient double standard when it comes to capitalism and ‘money talking’ when blatant manipulation of the media happens in the West. Our much lauded ‘so-called’ free press, which is no such thing, is free of scrutiny from the Peter Hartcher’s and fellow war with China drum beaters in the local media. The Western media does not need to be dictated to by autocratic regimes, as in Russia, because the power of money does the same job without the jackboots and uniforms. The concentration of media ownership into corporate hands in America, the UK, and in Australia ensures that editorial toes the company line. Investigative journalism has been largely replaced by paid opinion pieces and PR. Look at what happened to Wiki Leaks and Julian Assange – and what the kow towing media made of that in their deafening silence at his treatment.

It is absolutely outrageous that Fox News should be able to carry on, indifferent to the blatant lies and media manipulation carried out by the network revealed by this lawsuit, it is a travesty of our media laws and confirmation of the toothless tigers that roam the corridors of government. Corporate power is so vast and unaccountable in the West it makes the whole Westminster system of government and our democratic traditions a very bad joke. Fox News should be banned from broadcasting to Australian audiences on the basis that they don’t tell the news. Not truthfully, anyway. They lie in order to pander to their rabid right wing audience. The first amendment does not give Americans the right to knowingly misinform and mislead others on any platform of freedom to speech. It is one thing to hold an opinion about something and voice that, it is quite another to deliberately lie and present liars and crackpots in order to make money from selling advertising space at a higher rate via a larger audience of viewers. The American dream is just that a dream and bears no semblance to the reality of life in the United States. Free press - BS. Free market - more BS. ©House Therapy Read the full article

[attemptsonherlifepdf]

bojack horseman and bo burnham: the art of acting like you’re acting and the comedy of misery

at the core of bojack horseman, raphael bob-waksberg’s 2014 comedy, is a story about the relationship between performance and depression. the protagonist of this renowned tragicomedy is best described as a sympathetic villain; he is shown to clearly be in the wrong across various events of the show, and is explicitly referred to as a bad person, but the audience is granted deep access to his personal struggles, resulting in some portions of the audience finding themselves on bojack’s side. the duality of his character is complex, but can be broken down into some core components, that all stem from the impacts of stardom and performance. the standup comedy of bo burnham arguably echoes this sentiment in real time. having been a performer from a young age, burnham creates work that serves as a satirical commentary on the life of entertainers. he uses original songs to explore the reliance upon and resentment for his performative nature both onstage and within his personal life. both the comedian and the netflix show are widely understood to be thinly veiling their critiques of the entertainment industry behind a particular brand of witty and absurd humour.

both bojack and burnham’s content openly criticises their audiences and explicitly states the manufactured nature of the narrative the audience is fed. in the fifth season of bojack horseman, the show satirises itself by having bojack star in a police procedural drama, parts of which are actively written by other characters to reflect events of bojack’s life. the titular character he plays, philbert, is the epitome of selfish male angst, and an example of what bob-waksberg’s show could have been; another story about a sad and angry man whose guilt supposedly makes up for the people he has hurt. according to bojack, philbert teaches us ‘we’re all terrible, so we’re all okay’, an interpretation that is harshly disputed by diane: ‘that’s not the point of philbert, for guys to watch it and feel okay. i dont want you, or anyone else, justifying their shitty behaviour because of the show.’ this moment is a direct reaction to some of the online reception bojack horseman has received. various circles of the show’s fanbase have found themselves relating to the protagonist to the point of defending his untoward behaviour, a response not intentioned by the show’s creators. this is not the only example of bob-waksberg’s ability to make his work self-evaluative. in season six’s exposure of bojack and sarah lynn’s problematic relationship, characters question their sexual encounter from the first season. the writers use this as a way of examining their own choices, and the harmful tropes they played into when using this exploitative sexual encounter as a gag. this self-evaluative quality is what sets bojack apart as a show that assesses the performance it participates in, much like the comedy of bo burnham.

bo burnham is known for directly addressing his audience, particularly in terms of discouraging idolisation and parasocial relationships. some examples of this manifest as responses to hecklers rather than a planned bit in the show, for instance:

heckler: i love you!

bo: no you don’t

heckler: i love the IDEA of you!

bo: stop participating!

he actively addresses the issues posed by being an entertainer, and encourages the audience to understand and recognise that his onstage persona is just that: an exaggerated persona. not once does burnham claim to be fully authentic onstage, and even moments of authenticity we see in his latest special, inside, are staged. we make the assumption that having the physical setting of a stage stripped away grants us a more personal look at the entertainer’s life, but he makes it clear that even in his own home we still see the aspects he has carefully constructed rather than the full truth. arguably though, parts of the show really are authentic; in his monologue during make happy, bo deconstructs his own show in a way that is similar to bojack horseman’s later seasons, admitting that all he knows is performing and thus making a show about the more mundane and relatable aspects of life would feel ‘incredibly disingenuous.’ in his attempts to separate himself from this onstage persona he actually manages to blur the lines between what is acting and what is now part of his nature as a result of his job. this notion is echoed in bojack horseman as bojack’s attention seeking nature is attributed to his years acting in front of a camera every day.

bo suggests that the era of social media has created a space in which children’s identities mimic that of an entertainer like himself, describing the phenomenon as ‘performer and audience melded together.’ in this observation he criticises the phenomenon. bo attempts to force the audience to recognise the ways in which their lives are becoming shaped by the presence of an audience and to some extent uses his own life as a warning tale against this. he points out the way in which the ‘tortured artist trope’ means that your cries for help or roundabout attempts of addressing mature themes such as substance abuse, mental illness and trauma become part of that on stage persona and therefore become part of the joke. both bo and bojack address these topics in more discrete manners earlier in their careers, but this eventually becomes expected, and thus they are forced to explicitly detail their struggles with these topics in order to be taken seriously. even then, portions of the audience are inclined to see it as part of the persona or as something that fuels the creators creativity and thus does not need to be addressed as a legitimate issue. the emphasis on creating a character or persona promotes the commodification of mental illness: any struggle must be made into a song or a joke or a bit, must be turned into part of the act in order to have value. this actually serves to delegitimise these emotions and create a disconnect between the feeling and the person, as it becomes near impossible to exist without feeling as though you are acting. even when an artist’s cries for help become blatant, they continue to go ignored because now they serve the purpose of creating content that criticises the industry they stem from. online audiences can be seen as treating bo burnham and his insightful work as existing to demonstrate the negative effects entertaining can have, and because this insight is useful or thought-provoking to audiences, he is almost demanded to keep entertaining and creating. in response to this demand, his work becomes more meta and his messages become clearer, and the more obvious his messages, the more people he reaches. this increases audience demands and traps entertainers in a cycle fraught with internal conflict.

during bojack’s second season, bojack’s date asks him, ‘come on, do that bojack thing where you make a big deal and everyone laughs, but at the same time we relate, because you're saying the things polite society won't.’ this moment exemplifies how aspects of his genuine personality have now become a part of his persona and this is demanded of him in genuine and serious situations, undermining the validity of his emotional reactions. he immediately makes a rude comment to the waitress at the restaurant they’re in and satisfies his date by performing that character he has set himself out to be. some circles of the fan base have argued that bojack is written as a depiction of somebody with borderline personality disorder, offering a psychoanalytical lens through which to view this notion of performance. a defining symptom of borderline personality disorder is a fluctuating sense of self; having grown up on camera, being demanded to perform to others as young as six years old, bojack’s sense of self will have been primarily dictated by the need to act.  whether this acting is for the sake of comedy, or as a representation of masking his mental illness, when they need to act is taken away bojack entirely loses his sense of self and relapses into his addictions: ‘i felt like a xerox of a xerox of a person.’ burnham’s depictions of depression run along a similar vein; in his new special he poses the idea that his comedy no longer serves the same personal purpose it once did for him. he questions ‘shit should I be joking at a time like this?’ and satirises the idea that arts have enough value to change or impact the current global issues that we are facing. burnham’s ‘possible ending song’ to his latest special, he asks ‘does anybody want to joke when no-one’s laughing in the background? so this is how it is.’ implicit in this question is the idea that when the audience is taken away and there is nobody to perform his pain to, he is left with his pain. instead of being able to turn his musings and thoughts into a product to sell to the public, he is forced to just think about them in isolation and actually face them, an abrupt and distressing experience.

the value of performance and art is questioned by both bojack and burnham, particularly during the later years of their respective content. burnham’s infamous song, art is dead, appears to be a direct response to the question ‘what is the worth of art?’ he posits that performing is the result of a need for attention (‘my drug’s attention, i am an addict, but i get paid to indulge in my habit’) and repeatedly jokes throughout his career that the entertainment industry receives more respect that it deserves (‘i’m the same as you, im still doing a job or a service, i’m just massively overpaid’). his revelations regarding the inherent desire for attention that runs through all entertainers is frequently satirised in bojack horseman. bojack is comically, hyperbolically attention hungry and self-obsessed, and the show has a running gag in which he uses phrases along the lines of ‘hello, why is nobody paying attention to me, the famous movie star, instead of these other boring people.’ his constant attempts to direct the focus of others towards himself result in bojack feeling like ‘everybody loves you, but nobody likes you.’ his peers buy into his act and adore the comical, exaggerated, laughable aspects of his character, but find very little room to respond to him on a genuinely personal level because of this. interestingly, bojack appears to enjoy catering to his audience and the instant gratification it produces, whereas bo burnham becomes increasingly candid about his mixed feeling towards his audience. ‘i wanna please you, but i wanna stay true to myself, i wanna give you the night out that you deserve, but i wanna say what i think and not care what you think about it.’ he admits to catering to what audiences want from him, but resents both the audience and himself in the process as it reveals to himself which parts of his character are solely for the sake of people watching him.

within bojack horseman, this concept is applicable not only to the protagonist, but to the various forms of performer demonstrated in the plot. towards the show’s end, sarah lynn asks ‘what does being authentic have to do with anything?’ to which herb kazzaz responds, ‘when i finally stopped hiding behind a facade i could be at peace.’ this highlights the fact that because entertainers are demanded to continue the facade, they do not receive the opportunity to find ‘peace.’ this sentiment is scattered throughout the show, through a musical motif, the song ‘don’t stop dancing.’ the song stems from a life lesson bojack imparted to sarah lynn at a young age, and becomes more frequently used as the show progresses and bojack’s situation worsens.

sarah lynn is also used to explore the value of entertainers; in the show’s penultimate episode, she directly compares her work as a pop icon to the charity work of herb, arguing that if she suffered in order to produce her work. it has to mean something. she lists the struggles she faced when on tour: ‘i gave my whole life...my manager leaked my nudes to get more tour dates added, my mom pointed out every carb i ate, it was hell. but it gave millions of fans a show they will never forget and that has to mean something.’ implicit in this notion is the idea that entertainment is the epitome of self-sacrifice. there is a surplus of mentally ill individuals within the industry, largely due to the nature of the industry itself, but some may argue that the cultural grip the industry has, and the vast amounts of respect and money it generates annually, gives the suffering of these prolific individuals meaning.

the juxtaposing responses entertainers feel towards their audiences manifest as two forms of desperation: the desperation to be an individual who is held accountable, and the desperation to be loved and validated. we see both bojack and bo depict how they oscillate between  ‘this is all a lie’ and ‘my affection for my audience is genuine’, or between ‘do not become infatuated with me im a character’ and ‘please fucking love my character i do not know how to be loved on a personal level.’ bojack explicitly asks diane to write a slam piece on him and ‘hold him accountable’, similar to bo’s song ‘problematic’ in which the hook includes the phrase ‘isn’t anybody gonna hold me accountable?’ for his insensitive jokes as a late teenager. their self-awareness is what enables their self-evaluative qualities, but self-awareness is its own issue. bojack grapples with a narcissistic view of his own recognition of his behaviour before settling on a more nuanced, albeit depressing take. originally he makes the assumption that in recognising the negative aspects of himself, he is superior to those who behave similarly: ‘but i know im a piece of shit. that makes me better than all the pieces of shit that don’t know theyre pieces of shit.’ eventually, during his time at rehab he is forced to reconcile with the fact that self awareness does not, to put it bluntly, make you the superior asshole, it just makes you the more miserable one. the show does, however, make a point to recognise how the entertainment industry protects ‘pieces of shit’, prioritising their productive value over how much they deserve to be held accountable, demonstrated using characters like hank hippopoalus. the show itself obviously stems from the entertainment industry, as it is a form of media produced by netflix, one of the most popular streaming platforms available. bojack horseman and bo burnham represent the small corner of the industry that is reflective enough to showcase the damage it inflicts. this is powerful in terms of education and awareness, and urges audiences to question their own motives and versions of performance, but the reflection alone is not powerful enough to help the artists in question. burnham’s candid conversations surrounding his mental health continue to reveal a plethora of issues somewhat caused or sustained by the nature of his career. within bojack horseman, bojack is only able to stop hurting other characters when those characters construct a situation that forces him to face consequence, his introspection alone is not enough. while bojack ends on a message of hope, suggesting to the audience that reverting back to the status quo is not the only acceptable way for events to end, it leaves stinging lessons and social commentary with the audience regarding the unnatural and damaging narrative that performers live through. on a similar but markedly different note, bo burnham’s work and personal progression is playing out in real time, and not in a way that is as raw and genuine as it appears. each bit is planned, even the most vulnerable moments that appear unplanned and painful. his latest special is not entirely devoid of hope, but does translate to audiences as a somewhat exaggerated look around the era of social media and the development of performance, using himself as an example.

the absurdist humour that often acts as a vehicle for poignant statements or emotionally provocative questions is very specific to each media creator. bob-waksberg’s use of puns, tongue twisters and entirely ridiculous circumstances served to simultaneously characterise his points as an expected part of the show’s style of humour, similar to bojack’s emotional instability, but also to make them appear gut-punching in comparison to the humour. burnham’s work is similar in that poignant but blunt statements are often sandwiched between absurd and exaggerated jokes, making them stand out via contrast but not giving the audience too much time to dwell upon them as they are said. performance art is second nature to entertainers, and is presented a an issue that is infiltrating the general population via social media rather than solely affecting the ‘elites’. bojack horseman and bo burnham present the duality of artists simultaneously attempting to level the playing field and increase their chances of survival in the industry, and encourage audiences to know that everyone is bluffing and you’ll never have the right cards anyway.

i.k.b

[myhoneststudyblr]

every single student in the world has likely procrastinated at some point - i know i definitely have! sometimes i think it can be quite helpful because means that you don't spend every minute of every day studying... but on the other hand, it can become very hard to beat. there are so many advice posts in the community on this topic but i thought that i would share my own tips! 

disclaimer: everyone studies differently and these are my personal tips. they may not work for you but they can be a good starting point 

What is Procrastination?

i found this little summary of procrastinating on the internet and thought it completely covered everything that i wanted to say on this point:

Procrastination is the habit of delaying an important task, usually by focusing on less urgent, more enjoyable, and easier activities instead. It is different from laziness, which is the unwillingness to act.

Procrastination can restrict your potential and undermine your career. It can also disrupt teamwork, reduce morale, and even lead to depression and job loss. So, it's crucial to take proactive steps to prevent it.

The first step to overcoming procrastination is to recognize that you're doing it. Then, identify the reasons behind your behavior and use appropriate strategies to manage and overcome it.

- How to Stop Procrastinating by Mindtools

so what is learnt from this is that:

procrastination is not being lazy 

it is avoiding tasks by doing other easier tasks

it can have negative effects

you need to proactively take steps to avoid it 

first, recognise the procrastinating then use strategies to break the cycle

Conventional Tips

these are the basic tips that are some of the most well-known strategies for ending procrastination and can be some of the most important steps!

1. get organised. tidy up your desk to study space because there is nothing worse than having to work in a place that is chaotic and mess. collect the information you need for the task, for example, notes you've made or a textbook. 

2. to-do lists are your friend. a lot of people (including me) really struggle with timetables for studying because it can seem really structured and there is no flexibility or real allowance for things that may crop up during the day (your food takes longer to cook, you have to unexpectedly do a task around the house, you get a really bad headache and need to take a break). in my opinion, to-do lists help solve this problem! you can clearly see the tasks that you want to get done for the day but you don't have stressful time constraints. personally, i always use todoist to keep track of everything. to-do lists also make it easier to break tasks down

3. break the task down. one of the biggest cause of procrastination is having a huge task or project ahead of you because it seems really daunting and where on earth are you even going to start? so break it down *completely*. in your to-do list, don't just write ‘german homework’, write down even task that you need to do within it and be specific: for example ‘pg. 11 ex 4a, 4b and 4c’, ‘textbook listening task on pg. 47′ and ‘250-word essay on social media in Germany’. breaking it down makes the tasks seem more attainable and when you’ve done one and you can cross it off your list, it gives you a boost to keep going

4. eliminate distractions. this is a big one. even if you do all of the above, if you are constantly being distracted by things, you aren't going to get much done. try to find a place that is quiet enough that you can focus and you feel comfortable studying in. as well as this you need to think about what to do with your phone as the likelihood is that this will be the most distracting thing. you can simply turn it off, put on do not disturb, leave it in another room or use and app like forest (that last one is what i use and i don't know where i would be without it!)

5. use incentives. finishing a task is an achievement so treat it like one! before you study, decide on something that you will give yourself as a reward for doing it. this may be watching that new episode of your favourite programme or a tasty snack! 

6. set timers. don't just launch yourself into a task, because that again can make it seem daunting and feel unending. rather, set a timer for a specific time because you’ll know that you just need to focus for that specific length of time and then you can go take a break and do something nice. for timing your study sessions, you could use the Pomodoro technique 

7. allow for breaks (but try to avoid long ones). you are not a machine and as much as it would be great to be able to, you cant study for hours on end without giving your mind a break from focusing. so schedule in break time for yourself, particularly for times that you know your motivation dips, and do something nice. but be very careful that you don't accidentally slip back into procrastinating habits and keep breaks short. unless you are very disciplined it is unlikely that an hour-long break will stay just an hour.

8. know how you study but don’t be afraid to mix it up. everyone studies differently and so there are going to be some study methods that work better for some than others. so try to make sure that you are studying smart and that you aren't wasting your own time cause that can be incredibly unmotivating. HOWEVER, if there is anything that I’ve learnt from online school its that doing the same task all the time, every day is mind-numbingly boring and you just want to do anything else. so try to switch up what you are doing. if you usually just type notes from the textbook, maybe try doing it in a mindmap one week, or on flashcards, maybe do some practise questions to keep your mind engaged. 

9. play music. now this one really depends on the person and how you study. some people need absolute silence and that is fine, but others need something to fill the silence or maybe cover up background noise (for example if you live in a busy household). try to pick music however that is not going to distract you - the key tips for this is to pick music without lyrics. this can be classical music, video game music, or general ‘chill’ music (there are so many playlists out there for chill studying music). i personally listen to Francesco Parrino religiously while studying because he does piano covers of pop songs, so i know the songs and enjoy them but there are no lyrics that can distract me 

10. stay hydrated, well-rested and not hungry. this is part of eliminating distractions because if you are thirsty, you are going to be thinking about how you want a drink; if you are tired, you are going to be thinking about how tired you are; if you are hungry, you are going to be thinking about what you want for lunch or whatever. make sure you are hydrated, well-rested and not hungry so you can focus solely on your task or work.

Unconventional Tips

these are some slightly more unusual tips that you might not have seen before but that I've nevertheless found very useful!

1. video yourself or do a timelapse. this is something that I’ve only recently done because i saw a tip on this from someone during my quarantine challenge and thought that it would be cool to do. and it really works! i did it twice once when i was typing notes and a second time when i was handwriting notes and it really made me focus on what is as doing because the video put some pressure on me to look like i was properly studying - i could take a 5-minute break in the middle of my work to mess around with my pen, I just had to keep going so it really forces you to do the work. also watching the video when i was done made me really proud cause i had visual proof of how much i completed!

2. accept that some days you are going to get very little done. this may seem a little bit odd to put on a post that is meant to avoid getting nothing done but it’s actually a very important thing to remember. sometimes you need to take days off because otherwise you are going to burnout and some days you are just not going to be in the right mindset for studying because maybe you are exhausted after a big exam, or you have a headache or you feel unwell. you just need to accept it, draw a line under it, take time for yourself, and resolve yourself to work tomorrow once you feel a bit better. there is no shame in taking time to make sure you stay healthy. if you can, try to get your quickest, easiest task done so you have some sense of accomplishment.

3. ‘churn it out and f**k off’. this was my mum’s motto when she was studying and working in academia. and she recently told it to me when i was getting stressed about all the big tasks during online school. i am a perfectionist and i always want to hand in my very best work, put 100% into everything, but honestly that is impossible. some days you just need to get stuff done and if that isn't your very best then it doesn't matter too much because at least you got it done. and once you get it done you can just forget about it.

4. ask a friend or parent to check up on you. when you are studying by yourself it can be hard to motivate yourself because you know that no ones actually going to check whether you made those votes or did the reading, so ask a friend or someone you live with to check whether you've done the work or get them to read essays. you then get an external reason to study or do your tasks because you need to show them something.

5. rephrase how you think of tasks. when you think that ‘you need to do this task’ or ‘you have to get this done’, a lot of the time this causes unneeded stress and anxiety that is not going to help you at all. also it makes it seem like you are being forced to do something and human beings generally don't act great when they are forced to do something. so try to change your language when thinking about task into one that is more forgiving such as ‘i choose to do this project so that i can go meet my friends tomorrow’ and ‘i choose to read this book now because it will help me in the lecture next week’. this is probably the most difficult strategy on this list and it will take a lot of practice (i am certainly still practising it) but in the long term, it can help you change the way in which you view studying for the better. 

✨✨✨

i hope this was helpful and that these tips will be useful, and perhaps you've discovered some new ones! if anyone has anything to add please feel free to reply or reblog with the advice <3

[foodbytesback]

The Rise and Fall of Bon Appetit

Sometimes life comes at you fast.  Sometimes, that means stories in the food industry break in such rapid succession that you have no time to blink in between.  Sometimes, it means someone found out about something racist you did a few years ago.  What happens when it’s both?  Ask the fine folks at Bon Appetit.

In recent years, Bon Appetit made a name for itself, rising from the ashes of dying print media, through its Youtube channel featuring a diverse cast of personalities.  But over the course of this past week, many of the publication’s executives have been found to foster a toxic workplace culture, rife with racism, sexism and homophobia.  

Before I get too deep (because this is going to be a long one), I feel the need to point out that while this story’s breaking happened to coincide with Black Lives Matter protests across the country and gained traction from people’s outrage towards inequality, the events that have unfolded should not be blamed on “cancel culture,” “political correctness run amok” or any other reactionary dismissal of critical thinking.  Adam Rapoport didn’t lose his job because Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter came to be because of the damage that many in positions of power like Rapoport have done in both mainstream media and society as a whole.

[Also, yes, there are going to be a lot of links to Instagram posts that have been screenshotted and uploaded to Twitter.  Clearly the real takeaway from this debacle is that I need to get an Instagram account.  Also also, thanks to Tumblr’s new rules about offsite links, you’ll have to go to my main site for the full receipts.]

Preamble

Shortly after the killing of George Floyd, Adam Rapoport, Editor-in-Chief at Bon Appetit, wrote an editorial highlighting some of the coverage they’ve given to black chefs.  Many criticized this as being superficial and performative, with others saying that BA has, on numerous occasions, shut down articles relating to black culture for not being “trendy” enough or otherwise was discriminatory towards black employees. (Also, the repeated use of “uprisings” instead of “protests” seems a little suspicious.)

An article from Eater criticized the role BA played in the appropriating and whitewashing of many cultures’ ingredients and cuisines (gochujang, Aleppo pepper, and sumac seem to be some of BA’s favorite ingredients) that had become prevalent in food media in recent years.

While it’s a fairly minor offense in comparison, it may also be worth bringing up the time Rapoport accidentally called Priya Krishna “Sohla,” the name of his other Indian employee.

Monday, June 8th

Food writer Tammie Teclemariam posted a screencap of an Instagram post made by Rapoport’s wife, which depicted the two of them donning Puerto Rican stereotypes as Halloween costumes, brownface and all.    

Many were quick to declare their outrage and demand that Rapoport either resign or be fired.  Meanwhile, Sohla El-Waylly, one of the leading stars of the Youtube channel, was one of the first BA employees to speak up, and disclosed that this kind of behavior was just the tip of the iceberg.  She said that BIPOC workers have been paid disproportionately for their work, including not being paid a per-video commission that the white stars of the Youtube channel receive. 

Molly Baz, one of the aforementioned white stars, announced that she would no longer make videos for BA until all of El-Waylly’s demands were met.  One by one, their white coworkers chimed in in agreement.  

Former staff photographer Alex Lau also wrote an extensive tweet thread about his experiences at BA, including how he had futilely tried to fix the system from within.

By the end of Monday, Adam Rapoport had resigned from his position as Editor-in-Chief.

Tuesday, June 9th  

Since Rapoport’s official resignation did little to fix many of the systemic problems in place at BA, many began to turn their attention to other senior members of the staff.

Some came for Andrew Knowlton, the Restaurant Editor, for behaviors such as gaslighting an employee for trying to bring up racist practices in the offices.

Others called out Matthew Duckor, a VP at Conde Nast and BA’s former “Head of Video” (Did a 3 year old come up with that job title?), for a series of old racist and homophobic tweets.  He tried to apologize by saying that he was young and didn’t know any better at the time, but many were quick to point out that he was, at the youngest, 20, aka for all intents and purposes An Adult when he wrote those tweets. 

Tammie Teclemariam returned to ask current and former BA employees to DM her information about Duckor that they didn’t want to go public with themselves, ranging from his hand in the aforementioned pay disparity to making inappropriate comments towards women.

Teclemariam also did even more social media muckraking and found that Drinks Editor Alex Delany had once decorated a cake to look like a Confederate flag, while others found things like a Vine where he says the f-slur and some questionable comments about women on this Tumblr.  He later deleted his Tumblr and Twitter, and issued a cookie-cutter apology on his Instagram.

She also vague-tweeted that Brad Leone, one of the most beloved stars of the Youtube channel, is “possibly not a great guy,” but later added, “don’t fret.” At that point, some began to accuse her of just trying to stir the pot.

Ultimately, Matt Hunziker, director and camera operator for Leone’s show, reported that the higher ups were ignoring the situation regarding the pay disparity, and that they were not “learning and growing.”

Wednesday, June 10th

By this point, journalists were able to do more thorough investigations and put together exposés that were more than a blurb about an accusation followed by a nut graph.

Business Insider published an article where they interviewed 14 current and former BIPOC employees of Bon Appetit.  In addition to information already discussed above, it also described events such as an incident where several BIPOC staffers were told they weren’t allowed the test kitchen. (Carla Lalli Music, the Food Director at the time, would later defend her stance in the affair on Twitter.)  Ryan Walker-Hartshorn, a black woman who served as Rapoport’s personal assistant, recalled that she would often spend her day doing menial tasks like polishing her boss’s golf clubs or trying to teach his wife how to use Google Calendar.  In another incident, Knolton called Rick Martinez a “one trick pony” for only developing Mexican recipes, which is what he was being forced to do so BA could tout “diversity” bonus points.  Martinez would also say that the magazine under Rapoport’s tenure “went from old and irrelevant and white-washed content to young and trendy white-washed content." (Martinez would also upload a more graphic description of the treatment he received  to his Instagram that same day.) Later that day, Business Insider would also report that Duckor had left the company.

Vice would liken Rapoport to Michael Scott from The Office, but noted that that kind of bumbling, endearingly insensitive bad boss archetype isn’t as charming in the real world where real employees are being affected.  Parallels were also drawn between the Youtube channel and The Office itself, stating that the “quirky workplace” facade put on in the videos helped hide the more sinister practices that lurked beneath the surface, and that the notion that they were “one big family” often pressured BIPOC into doing more than their fair share for the greater good.

Jezebel showed email transcripts where Rapoport argued the semantics of having his costume be called “brownface” when he wasn’t wearing makeup, and had to be explained to, like a child, that the term refers to the racist caricature and not the literal act of putting brown makeup on one’s face.  What a douche.

Bon Appetit published an official apology on their site, a whole two days after the controversy began.  Many believed that their empty promises of “learning from their mistakes” were a day late and a dollar short.

Meanwhile, on Twitter, former BA writer Alyse Whitney said that senior editor Andy Baraghani had, on several occasions, used his influence to undermine her efforts. Whether this had to do with racism, sexism, or just Andy being petty is up for debate, but still constitutes as unprofessional behavior to say the least.

Thursday, June 11th

As interest in the story seemed to wane for many in the industry, Claire Saffitz, arguably the face of the Youtube channel, released another statement on her Instagram.  She said that her relative silence was due to taking time to find the right words, and that the same-old promises to “learn and grow” that most had been giving felt empty and performative. Unlike many of her white coworkers, she directly apologized for being complicit in the toxic environment  and for not using her status to try to leverage even pay for her BIPOC coworkers.  

Another BA Youtube personality, Amiel Stanek, also released a statement in response to BA’s official press release, where he demanded Conde Nast to stop avoiding action by setting vague timelines for changes or making excuses for not giving BIPOC workers raises like “the money just isn’t there.”

Associate editor Christina Chaey also opened up about her experiences with being pushed into more and more videos to “diversify” them- all without compensation.  

Friday, June 12th

The biggest scandal of the day was that, as Teclemariam predicted, Brad Leone is possibly not a great guy.  A leaked screenshot of an Instagram DM showed him making callous, almost Trump-y comments regarding El-Waylly’s demand for better pay.  He also allegedly said that if Delany were to be fired (as of that day he had been sent on leave), he would quit.

Saturday, June 13th

The New York Times published an article suggesting that the issues prevalent in BA’s management may go all the way to the top of Conde Nast.  Highlights include Chief Executive Roger Lynch chastising the whistleblowers within the company for raising their concerns in such a public manner and an account of an incident where he gave his black assistant a guidebook on how to speak “proper” English.

The Sporkful released a special episode of their podcast containing interviews with several current and former BA BIPOC workers.  Nikita Richardson divulged that after she was laid off, a story she had already done all the leg work for was picked up and credited to Amanda Shapiro, a white staff writer who is now acting Editor-in-Chief in lieu of Rapoport.  Sohla El-Waylly confirmed that the self-congratulatory editorial Rapoport wrote in the wake of George Floyd’s death was the real beginning of the end, and that the racist photo was just the final straw.  She also described a company-wide Zoom meeting held after the photo began to be spread around where Rapoport issued a half-hearted apology, and began talking about how he would “fix the brand” before El-Waylly demanded he resigned.  Furthermore, she revealed that after her Instagram posts began circulating rapidly, Duckor had offered her a new contract with increased pay, but she is refusing to sign it until all BIPOC have received similar compensation.  She also said that she had a hand in the wishy-washy statement that BA had published on Wednesday, and said that it originally had taken much firmer stances on the issues but their PR office made them tone it down.  Also, she commented that Leone, for the most part, just seemed like she “genuinely think[s] [that he] just found out racism is real.”  Ultimately, she was glad that the story was getting as much coverage as it was, since it made her feel that her voice was finally being heard.

Sunday, June 14th

Baraghani released a statement on Instagram apologizing for his behavior, saying that trying to achieve his personal goals in BA’s toxic, competitive environment made him lose sight of solidarity with his fellow BIPOC.  

While that may seem like the end of the story for now, it’s important to note that, even with the resignation of two executives, nothing has truly been done to fix the systemic problems at hand.

[venhedish]

On the importance of platonic love: fanon romance vs. canon relationship dynamics in Supernatural.

Hey I’ve seen some posts going around about this little niggle, and I don’t want to say I’m exceptionally qualified to talk about it, but I have been an active participant (and celebrant) of relationship anarchy for most of my adult life and I also practice non-monogamy, though that’s far less relevant to what I’m gonna be talking about here.

This applies to all fandoms where people are shipped together and obviously have a connection but are never officially made canon, but since spn is my shit rn and a lot of this particular flavor of discourse seems to be centered around Sam and Dean’s relationship (which I’m also slightly maybe embarrassingly obsessed with?), I thought that’s what I’d focus on.

Basically what I want to say is that there’s nothing wrong with pairing characters together romantically in your fanfictions and headcanons (hello! im a big gay wincest/destiel/wincestiel multi-shipper, myself!), but arguing that Wincest (and Destiel to a lesser extent) went/was always canon really, really undermines the importance of non-romantic long-term relationship representation in popular media. I mean, seriously, how fucking cool is it that Sam and Dean are canonically soulmates and also brothers and also ride-or-die-best-friends? There isn’t much precedent in TV for the kind of complicated, blurred-lines dynamic that these dudes share, and minimizing it to they fuck or they’re just brothers really diminishes one of the best Right Things™ the show managed to accomplish. The same can be said for Dean and Castiel’s relationship, too. 

I think we as fans can do a better job of celebrating non-romantic canon relationships while also still shipping them together in fanon spaces. There’s a problem our communities seem to face where we have a really hard time distinguishing where the line is between The Written Word and What My Heart Wants, and both of those things are totally good and valid! But—here’s the part that I see people struggle with—you can appreciate both at the same time. In my headcanon, Sam and Dean fuck because I have a deep desire for complicated, all-consuming romance and I want to turn any two characters with chemistry into a thing. But as it pertains to my real life and the brain I reserve for fandom meta and social-justicey-intersectionality-ish-issues of representation and breaking from hetero-normative standards, I want to see more varied and sundry takes on the non-traditional family unit, on what it means to be queer platonic with your brother, on loving and cherishing your angel best friend more than society typically considers acceptable but without having the expectation of more.

This is a lot. But I just want to celebrate that we got to watch a television show on thee CW network buck societal relationship norms for fifteen years!!! Despite its failings in like, every other area of representation, this one is a big win from me and it’s just really cool and good so thanks for listening. I love you. Bye.

[amandajeanwrites]

The End of an Era

Seven years ago, yes count those, SEVEN years ago, in late 2014, at the peak of internet fashion hauls and makeup tutorials, during the rise of YouTube and Pinterest and Tumblr, I moved from podunk Montana to the big urban areas in and around Portland, Oregon. Portlandia was airing, hipsters were growing mustaches and wearing plaid on a global scale, and I was ready to drink craft beer and breathe in as much pine scent as I could muster. 

I wanted to be a Blogger or a Vlogger. I wanted to talk about travel, but also film, but also also makeup and fashion because I was growing into my fashionista-ness. I wanted to infiltrate little boutiques and hold events and start social media campaigns, you know, really get ahead of the curve. So my first(ish) job when I moved out here was working as a sales associate for a tiny boutique.

Now, this boutique was a chain based in Austin or Houston or something, so I wasn’t going to head their social media anytime soon, and I was just working as a lowly sales associate at minimum wage, and I’m pretty sure I only worked about twenty hours to start out, but I had confidence in myself and my abilities to grow up and out.

God, I remember during my interview, I wore this NEON FLORAL swing dress that I’d bought in Portland with my Mom that July, paired with a neon sports bra that matched the colors in the dress, all topped off with a God awful cobalt blue cropped cardigan and probably some glitter-embellished shoes. For those of you who have grown to love and appreciate my new sense of style (emo-chic), you’ll understand how mind-boggling that would have been. Oh God, I probably also had matching neon lipstick and eyeliner or something.

The point is, I was young and adorable and confident in my skin and my outfit decisions. I remember panicking throughout the interview, noticing bright colors on the racks of the stock room over the manager’s head and just talking about how much I loved color… the ENTIRE interview. It’s honestly a miracle she hired me.

The reason I’m talking about this now, and the reason it’s all come surging back into my memory so damn vividly, is because Sean and I were walking through that little shopping center over the weekend (the entire mall has been and always will be one of my favorite places in my area), and we walked by this little boutique to see it’s Closing. We hopped in and bought four pairs of earrings as a last donation to the cause, and I immediately felt bitter sweet and melancholy and nostalgic for everything I learned and did there.

I talk about my outfits, my prospects at that time in my life, to reflect on just how much I’ve grown. I was so young, on the edge of 23, and I moved away from home for the very first time. I dragged my boyfriend along with me, and we overstayed our welcome at my Grandma’s. I actually remember driving the 40 minutes to work and 40 minutes back in the middle of the night, fog coating the road and my car, cranking One Direction’s Four album. (A premonition that Zayn was leaving, don’t we think!?)

I was experimenting with a social media presence, with blogging, with fashion and makeup, absorbing everything I could. I explored Portland and the surrounding areas. We went to the coast constantly. I just wanted to get out and see the world, be whoever I didn’t think I could back home. I was making new friends and trying to figure out who I was without college or Musicals or the country western bars or Perkins.

The biggest issues I had were suburban Moms from Lake Oswego that wheeled strollers through our claustrophobic boutique, knocking breakables off the gift table and then scoffing at us before they left. I spent hours irritated with my boss for being a controlling 25-year-old (an actual child). I clung to the drama of my past, not understanding how to be without thinking of how much my hometown had “wronged me”. Dear God, I was dramatic. 

I had prejudices, against suburban Moms! And against sex workers and against hipsters and against Big City people that didn’t understand Little City people and against Little City people that didn’t understand me. 

I talked too much and didn’t work hard. My only real memories of actual work from that boutique were untangling the God damn necklaces, which TRUST me was an 8 hour task. Mainly, though, we dusted the room for the 40th time and gossiped about senseless things like boyfriends that wouldn’t hurry up and propose already! (Sean did two and a half years later.)

I met my best friend there, unexpectedly. I remember meeting her and thinking she was way too cool for me. She’s stunning, hip, knows how to style a French tuck, and she seemed to rule the boutique in a way that I couldn’t ever match. The actual manager hated it too, always trying to undermine her to appear superior. None of us could live up to the grace and beauty that was Rochelle. 

We bonded over our hatred for retail and our love for One Direction and YouTube and conspiracy theories, and I’m so so glad we did. I also met at least three of my other best friends as an extension, and if any of you are reading this, I love you all. 

I took up writing again in 2014. First, little blog pieces, like I mentioned before. I wrote about my favorite products and all the places I wanted to visit in Oregon (some of them, I still haven’t crossed off my list. Sean? Get the car!). But then, something in me whispered that I needed to try creative writing again. I don’t think I’d written a story for years, not since freshman year of college when I’d write dramatic love stories about the boys I had crushes on. (Do you remember that, Aubrie? So embarrassing!) 

So I sat down, the day after Christmas, at my grandma’s countertop, and I decided to start writing a tiny piece of fiction every single day for a year. That was my goal, just a year. Until I couldn’t stop. I think I did just over 550 days, and even then, I never thought that someday I’d call myself a “writer”. I was still working retail, planning on social media management and fashion blogging, at a different boutique and a different stage in my life. But that’s a story for another time. 

I guess the point of all this, the reminiscing and nostalgia, is that if I could go back and pay that girl a visit, walk into that store and help her untangle those necklaces, I’d tell her her colored mascara is fierce and that she should keep at it. I’d tell her that someday, she would laugh at all of the drama from back home. I’d tell her that she’d move on to bigger and better jobs, and she’d kick ass at them until she realized her true calling. I’d tell her to keep writing because nothing will make her happier. I’d tell her to buy less furniture, because she’s going to be in that apartment too damn long. 

But mostly, I’d tell her that time moves on and people change and interests change and the weather changes, so just have a total blast with everything you’re doing right now, in the moment. I want to look back in another 7 years with twice the amount of fondness, knowing that I was struggling with silly, minute qualms that won’t matter then. Knowing how much I’ve grown and learned and shaped, I can’t wait to see how much I’ll grow and learn and shape in the future. 

Although, I do hope, in 7 years, I’m still wearing strictly black and white. Hahaha! 

What were you wearing in 2014? It’s important I know.

Thank you so much for sticking around all of these years and putting up with me and supporting me. And thank you, as always, for reading xo

[hobbitkiller]

She-Ra, Supergirl, and Tangled: A Tale of Three Female Relationships: Part 3

*SPOILER WARNING FOR SHE-RA, SUPERGIRL, AND TANGLED: THE SERIES*

Previously on “A Tale of Three Female Relationships” AKA HobbitKiller clearly misses grad school but not enough to find secondary sources for a multi-part tublr. post (or thoroughly proofread):

In Part 2, I discussed the impact narcissistic mother figures, resentment for chosen ones, and repressing emotions has had on three female relationships in three different series: Adora and Catra from She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Lena and Kara from Supergirl, and Rapunzel and Cassandra from Tangled: The Series/Rapunzel’s Tangled Adventure.

These posts are a deep dive into where these relationships went wrong and will eventually culminate in a discussion of what these relationships say about the portrayal of female characters and female relationships in media.

For today’s installment, I will be covering two subjects: Blond Bulldozers and I Don’t Care (I Ship It). WARNING: This one gets reallllllly long. Like, possibly multiple sittings.

PART VI: BLOND BULLDOZERS

In my first post in this series, I jokingly mentioned that one half in all three of these relationships is a superpowered blonde who saves the world.

There are of course many implications in the fact that, though all three of these shows strive for increased diversity compared to their source material (It is also interesting that these are all shows based on pre-existing franchises), the main character continues to be a fair-skinned blond woman. 

That’s mostly a matter to be discussed another day, but I do find it interesting that all of these relationships feature one blond and one not-blond. Lena and Cassandra have black hair, and Catra is...well...a cat-person. Beyond that, the blond is not only the hero, but is typically depicted as morally superior and more righteous. Kara, AKA Supergirl, was literally declared the “Paragon of Hope” in the latest CW crossover, Crisis on Infinite Earths. That title could just as easily have gone to Rapunzel whose chief characteristics are her optimism, desire to see others achieve their dreams, and belief that everyone gets a second chance no matter their criminal past and exploits (seriously, everyone in Corona--the name of the kingdom unfortunately for right now--gets one total pardon as long as they’re sorry even if the tried to kill multiple people). Adora is a little less cotton-candy that Kara or Rapunzel. She has the same moral righteousness, but actually has more of an edge to her than many of her friends due to her upbringing as a child soldier. Still, all three blondes are meant, for the most part, to be the moral center of their shows.

But, the thing is, when I look at these relationships, I can’t help but think of another popular blonde/not blonde friendship that went wrong:

Ahhh, Wicked, the prototypical female friendship story for so many of us. Wicked aims to take this classic dynamic of the morally pure blond protagonist and their dark-haired frienemy and turn it a bit on its head. Throughout the musical, Glinda is treated as pure, superior, and good because she is flattering and pretty. In reality, Glinda is often selfish and lacks the courage to stand up to people and systems she believes are wrong. Elphaba, on the other hand, is treated like an outcast because of her green skin and social awkwardness. Yet, for most of the musical, she is the one with the moral righteousness. She is labeled “wicked” by those in power for challenging them and standing up to them.

We’ll discuss Wicked more in the finale of this multi-part post.

For now, I’d like to contrast that relationship to the three being analyzed right now. None of these three shows goes as far as Wicked did to undermine this trope of the perfect blond versus the darker brunette. This makes sense as none of the three properties is seeking to deconstruct their source material or turn it on its head in the way Wicked aims to do so for the Wizard of Oz (the movie more than anything else). They seek to update and diversify certain aspects to be sure (someone heard loud and clear the criticism that there are no people of color in Tangled), but not to challenge them.

That being said, each show does try to layer in flaws in their blond protagonists approach to relationships. These flaws tend to be more subtle than those of the people around them, perhaps to protect said blondes from becoming too unlikeable, but they are clearly there.

In the last post, I talked a lot about the resentment of the non-blondes in these relationships and how that helped lead to the relationships falling apart. Those characters are also much more the aggressors in said relationships and are much more set on taking down the other party.

However, the blondes in each relationship are not without blame for it falling apart.

In the previous post, I discussed how being friends of a so-called “chosen one” or “golden child” can breed resentment. I also mentioned that raising someone as a “golden child” is its own form of abuse. It creates a level of unrealistic expectations to always be perfect and responsible. It can be the same for a “chosen one.”

Adora, Kara, and Rapunzel all feel a tremendous amount of responsibility as the “saviors” of their respective worlds. This manifests itself in a need to constantly “fix” everyone else’s problems. Adora frequently describes her need to fix whatever goes wrong in the Rebellion. Kara feels it’s her job to fix things so much that she contacted her former boss’s estranged son behind her back to try to reconnect them. Rapunzel frequently becomes involved in the personal lives of her friends for the sake of fixing their problems.

To an extent, this is a good quality. All three of our blond saviors have good hearts and don’t want to see anyone else suffer, partially because all of them have suffered their own childhood traumas from being raised as a child soldier to witnessing one’s entire planet and species destroyed to being held prisoner for 18 years.

However, as the title of this section suggests, all three of these characters tend to take a bulldozer approach to their involvement with their loved ones’ lives. This creates tension in many of their relationships, not just those discussed in these posts. Adora’s attempts to help her friend Glimmer after Glimmer becomes queen come off as controlling and as though Adora doesn’t respect Glimmer’s position of authority. Kara, in addition to the incident with her boss’s son, had also tried to control the life of another alien (and eventual boyfriend), Mon El as well as did things like break into her sister’s apartment when she was sad. Rapunzel promises to fix everyone’s problems, which leads to friends feeling betrayed when she can’t follow through. She also frequently intrudes in Cassandra’s life and plans.

One of the most threatening things for people like Catra, Lena, or Cassandra is to feel as though they do not have control over their lives. When you already have trust issues, feeling like someone else is trying to control you can feel like you’re being trapped. Control is particularly important to Lena. In many ways, she has the same feelings of responsibility as Kara. Like Kara, Lena, having been raised by one of the most powerful and influential families on the planet, feels a sense of responsibility to be a world leader. She feels that even more keenly in light of the villainous actions of her mother and brother--that she has to restore honor to the family name. As discussed in the previous post, this feeling in Lena manifests itself in her actions towards her friends through buying them things or trying to solve problems for them such as buying Kara’s and James’s place of work, Catco, to save it from being purchased by a scumbag.

This need to take back control of her life and legacy, to me, is why Lena reacts so drastically to discovering that Kara is Supergirl. Being mad at Kara for keeping secrets is, frankly, hypocritical on several counts. Not only does Lena keep many, many secrets from Kara throughout the show, but she is also fine with the fact that Alex, Kara’s sister, never told Lena explicitly that she was an agent of the Department of Extranormal Operations (DEO). Of course, the reason why Lena wasn’t mad at Alex is because Lena had already known who Alex was, thus giving her power and control in that relationship. Finding out that her friend had successfully hidden her identity for years and had been influencing events without Lena’s knowledge took away the control Lena felt she had over that relationship.

Cassandra also feels a keen lack of control over her life and her relationship with Rapunzel due to the fact that Rapunzel is both her monarch and direct employer. Cassandra serves Rapunzel and that is the first avenue through which they formed a relationship. Early in their relationship, Cassandra resented Rapunzel’s attempts to become friends and said the chance of a Lady in Waiting and a princess becoming friends was a million to one. Rapunzel, by nature of being “irrepressible” (as her friends call her), manages to worm her way into Cassandra’s heart to the point that Cassandra almost forgets that she and Rapunzel are not equals.

What I find interesting about both Cassandra and Lena is that they both, in some ways, considered themselves the protectors of their naive blond friends. While it’s true that Cassandra always knew her station was below Rapunzel, part of her job early on was teaching Rapunzel how to be a member of the court--what to do, when to curtsy, who was who, etc. In fact, Rapunzel had so little exposure to the outside world, Cass was partly responsibly for teaching her how to interact socially in general. There’s also the added factor that Cassandra is 4 years older than Rapunzel, which can seem like a lot at their ages. Lena, as previously discussed, saw herself as a major figure in shaping the future of the world. She went out of her way to help Kara by buying Catco and tried to protect Kara if they were ever in physical danger together.

Both of these characters suffered from an abrupt challenge to the relationship roles they previously thought they had. Cassandra in this scene and Lena when Lex tells her that Kara is Supergirl.

It’s interesting that, in that scene, Lex emphasizes the idea that Lena has been a fool. (And, fair enough, I’m pretty sure everyone who’s ever watched the show found it hard to believe that Lena never once realized her best friend was Supergirl. I mean...really, glasses?) But this idea, that she had been a fool plays right into Lena’s fear of losing control. It’s the idea that someone else was pulling strings while she was oblivious that taps right into her deepest insecurities.

Catra’s issues with feeling controlled by Adora are mostly revealed in the episode discussed last post called “Promise.” They come up again in the third season finale when Adora tries to convince Catra to come with her and leave a world that is crumbling out of existence and Catra declares that she will never  go with Adora, and that she won’t “let you win” and “would rather see the whole world end (which it’s doing BTW) than let that happen.” Catra believes the way to get control back from Adora is to “win” at any cost. 

In the end, this idea of “winning” becomes part of all three relationships. It’s no longer about working together or “us against the world” for the not-blondes who have felt crushed under the weight of their friends. Now it’s about achieving their goals in spite of the collateral damage.

And the most frustrating part is that the blondes are largely oblivious to the fact that they make their friends feel this way or that they are overstepping boundaries. They just think they’re doing the right thing because they’re “taking care of” or “fixing” the problem. They’re so concerned with taking care of or protecting their friends, that they don’t realize how patronizing and condescending that can feel.

So, even as these relationship turn so sour, why are so many people not only rooting for the friendship to return, but for our ladies to go the next level beyond?

PART VII: I DON’T CARE (I SHIP IT)

I sometimes wonder how the greatest point of contention, the biggest source of toxicity, and the most exhausting part of fandom became shipping. I have seen more nastiness among fans and toward creators and actors about shipping than just about anything else.

Shipping has a long history in fandom, though that term is relatively recent. People have been writing fan fiction about Kirk and Spock getting together since the show was on and fan fiction was written and shared at either in-person gatherings or through semi-underground fanzines. 

And, trust me, I’ve been in the trenches of a ship war. Back when Avatar: The Last Airbender was airing, I was a hardcore Zutara shipper. And, to be more honest, it made me a jerk. Part of that is just because I was a teenager at the time, and teenagers don’t always realize the potential impacts of their actions due to brain chemistry etc, etc. But still, the intensity with which I argued that my ship either would or should become canon when the creators of the show clearly preferred the other relationship embarrasses me when I look back at it.

These days, fandom shipping has gotten even more complicated and contentious.

Back when those women (and it was mostly women) were typing their Kirk/Spock fan fiction and mailing it to other fans, they knew Kirk and Spock would never actually get together on the show. That was the case for the majority of fandoms until very recently--that there was no expectations of actual canon lgbtq representation. People could claim there was deliberate subtext or coding, but very few, if any people, expected shows to actually have openly lgbtq characters.

Then, it started to actually happen. Not just in a, “the actor said they saw their character as gay” or “the creators said they coded that character as gay” way. Characters actually started being lgbt on screen in ways that weren’t demeaning or stereotypes. Major characters, too.

For me, a big moment that gave rise to the hopes of many that their lgbt ships might actually have a shot at being confirmed as canon was, funnily enough, the sequel show to Avatar: TLA, The Legend of Korra.

The above was the closest the couple got to an on-screen intimate moment, and some fans didn’t believe it was romantic until it was later confirmed by the show creators. Nickelodeon was only willing to go so far, after all. The followup comics, however, are much more explicit with the relationship and the two share multiple kisses and intimate moments.

Many fans argue that Korrasami (as the ship between Korra and Asami is called) was too subtle to be considered real representation. But a wave could certainly be felt throughout the world of animation afterword. Shows became even more bold about confirming lgbt characters or at least became less subtle in their coding. 

And suddenly, the idea that a main character’s finale pairing might be anything other than straight became a real possibility and, in some cases, an expectation.

In addition to the growing visibility of lgbt relationships in media, another change was slowly taking place within fandom. 

For much of modern fandom, the most popular ships have been male/male (mlm). Back when I was getting into fan fiction (because I love reminding people that I’m old), this was called “slash.” Slash was exclusively a term for mlm relationships. Same-sex relationships between women (wlw) were labeled “fem-slash,” and were much more rare.

Multiple people have discussed theories for why mlm was, and continues to be in many cases, the most popular type of ship. Some believe it has to do with the prevalence of straight women in fandom who might fetishize mlm relationships. While I have no doubt that’s partly true, I believe the other common argument has a great deal of merit: there were more mlm ships because male characters were more interesting and more prevalent. 

Star Trek: The Original Series had only two main female characters and neither of them was given close to the emotional depth as Spock or Kirk. Lord of the Rings, which was one of the most popular pieces of media on which to write fanfic when I was younger, has so few women the movies had to add in a boat load of new scenes for Arwen.

Recently, though, not only have more shows invested in writing dynamic, interesting female characters, but they have included multiple diverse female characters with relationships with each other and not just the men in the shows. 

So, not only do more people ship wlw ships, but more people expect to actually see those ships represented in their media. Never before has a wlw ship becoming “endgame” seemed more possible.

In many ways this is fantastic. More representation being not only more possible but more expected is absolutely necessary for our media to progress and grow. This has, however, lead to some growing tensions in communities where shipping has, in some ways, become its own form of activism, which means that there is not only people’s personal feelings and preferences for ships on the line, but people who feel that fighting for their ship to become canon is a proxy battle for their own acceptance. 

All three of these wlw ships mean a lot to the people who ship them, and all three have been met with the desire, and occasionally demand, of canon validation as well as a heady mess of coding, accusations of queer baiting, and the lingering question of which, if any, relationships might get the same, and hopefully more explicit, validation that Korrasami had.

Let’s start this deep dive into these relationships as ships with the one that has, in canon, already been resolved.

Yep, that’s definitely a Disney twirl going on there.

One of the first points often made when the validity of a mlm or wlw ship is questioned is that, if you say an m/f couple do the same thing, no one would question that it was romantic. This makes it interesting, and sets off the shipping alarm for anyone who’s a fan of wlw ships when Tangled: The Series goes out of its way to not only give Cass and Rapunzel (ship name: Cassunzel) romantic moments like the above “Disney twirl,” but also directly parallels relationship moments that occurred between Rapunzel and her canon boyfriend/future husband Eugene (AKA Flynn Rider).

Look familiar? It’s almost a shot-for-shot remake of Rapunzel and Eugene meeting for the first time. In this episode, Cassandra accidentally wipes Rapunzel’s memory to the point where Rapunzel thinks she’s still in the tower. It plays out, in part, as “What if Cassandra had found her instead of Eugene?”--something every shipper had doubtless already asked themselves at least once.

Another major moment of paralleling between the two relationships is the endings of both the movie and the series. 

Eugene dies in the end of Tangled only to be resurrected by Rapunzel’s love. Cassandra dies in the series finale of Tangled: The Series, only to be resurrected by Rapunzel’s love. And it is love, that much is very clear.

The only debate really, is whether it’s romantic or platonic love. 

Cassandra and Rapunzel never get official validation in the show or by the executive producers. The most confirmation fans get outside of the text of the show are comments made by some people who work on the show saying that they deliberately coded Cassandra as gay as they could whenever they could.

Yet, for the most part, the creators of this show are largely given a pass by Cassunzel shippers for not making their ship canon. Most understand that, as a Disney property, many hands are tied, particularly given that, due the previous establishment both form the end of Tangled and from the short Tangled Ever After that Rapunzel and Eugene do get married. The reaction seems to largely be that Disney and the show got about as close to confirming it as they could without doing so.

So let’s transition from the show that met, and in some ways, passed expectations to one that has set expectations super high: She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. 

She-Ra is perhaps one of the most lgbtqia coded shows out there right now. The first season even ends with them saving the day with a rainbow.

Here is show-runner and executive producer Noelle Stevenson on queerness in her life and She-Ra:

Yet, despite these deliberate attempts to show representation and to challenge heteronormative ideas, the show has yet to show any of its primary characters or even second tier characters in queer romantic relationships. We have seen a few parents, one pair on in a photo, and their is one married couple of women, but none of these characters are prominently featured on the show.

She-Ra has set expectations incredibly high and has yet to deliver.

Even so, part of what sets She-Ra apart from the other two shows discussed here is that there are multiple queer shipping opportunities. Catra and Adora (ship name Catradora) are one of, if not the, most popular ships, but both Catra and Adora have other female characters with which they could be just as easily shipped.

On the one hand, the pressure is pretty high to establish at least one major queer ship before the end of the show. On the other hand, the pressure is much less that the ship specifically be Catradora.

The near-certainty that there will be one or more wlw ships confirmed before the end of She-Ra means, to me, that Catradora has the greatest chance to become canon.

So, there’s Cassunzel that never really had much of a chance for canon confirmation and Catradora, which has a better chance of becoming canon, but also has less pressure to become THE ship. Where does that leave Lena and Kara?

Anyone who has been in the Supergirl fandom knows that it can feel like a battleground. While all fandoms tend to have their issues, Supergirl’s can be so contentions that it, frankly, makes watching the show less fun. This doesn’t all fall on one groups shoulders, I’ve seen nastiness from many sides over different issues. However, the biggest point of contention tends to center around the potential ship of Lena and Kara (Supercorp). 

Supercorp, as a ship, is completely valid. Kara has way more chemistry with Lena than she has had with any of her male love interests, and two of those guys were played by people whom actress Melissa Benoist was actually in relationships with (though the first was an abusive dirtbag, so lack of chemistry probably makes sense there). Lena once thanked Kara by filling her entire office with flowers. There are cuddles, and Kara’s unwavering (until recently) faith in Lena’s goodness. It’s hard not to ship them.

The issue in the fandom, is not so much that people ship Supercorp (though there are increasingly more people who have issues with the ship itself, which is something I’ll address about all three of these ships in the next post) but the vehemence with which some who ship Supercorp approach whether it will be endgame.

In a way, the frustration is understandable. Supergirl is, in many ways, a show that has made a point of including LGBTQ representation. The second season featured a multiple episode story arc of Supergirl’s adoptive sister Alex Danvers (I will stan her until the end of time) realizing she was a lesbian, coming out, and eventually starting a relationship with another woman. Supergirl also made headlines for featuring the first live-action trans superhero on tv with the introduction of Dreamer in Season 4. The trans actress who plays Dreamer, Nicole Maines, has even had input on how the character is represented including a recent episode that discussed the often ignored violence targeting trans people, particularly trans women of color.

She-Ra and Supergirl have different approaches to representation. She-Ra takes place in a fantasy world and appears to take the approach that nothing about identity or sexuality should be assumed about anyone. There is no heteronormativity in Etheria, yet no major characters are in non-m/f relationships. Supergirl on the other hand, is set in a world more similar to ours which has heteronormativity, homophobia, and transphobia, which leads to the show making episodes and story-arcs specifically about those topics while also somewhat constraining the show. There are arguments to be made about the worth of both approaches and both can serve a purpose for viewers, particularly young viewers, who are searching for characters like them in media.

So, why are the people behind Supergirl so often accused of homophobia?

I mentioned in the Blond Bulldozers section that it is a bit telling that all three shows being discussed here attempt to create diversity while having the whitest, most mainstream character as the lead. There are many who would argue that the true values of the shows are represented by their main characters, and that the rest are window dressing to try to make the show look good as a form of tokenism. The point being that shows won’t really show a commitment to diversity until the main characters are just as diverse as the rest of the cast.

These are all valid arguments. 

A less valid argument is the claim that Supercorp is being deliberately baited by the creators of the show. Queer baiting is a term that seems to have a lot of subjectivity tied up with it. The general idea is that it is when creators purposefully use queer coding or other means to inspire queer shipping of characters as a means to draw in the queer community to their show but then never delivering on that potential.

In some ways, all three of these shows could be accused of queer baiting. The direct parallels in between Cassandra/Rapunzel and Eugene/Rapunzel were no accident. The coding and “anything can happen” while very little does on She-Ra is much the same. And Supergirl is trying to center a large part of the show around the relationship between Kara and Lena, a relationship they know many of the fans see as romantic.

Yet, to me, Supergirl, is actually a less guilty party, at least when it comes to Supercorp. One can, again, argue that the canon LGBT ships and characters exist to pander and draw in those audiences, but Supercorp, I believe, genuinely came out of a place of wanting Kara to have a strong female relationship with someone other than her sister, mother, or boss, and I’m sure this falling-out was in the plans fairly early on.

Has the show completely shut down the idea? No, I don’t think they would be foolish enough to do that. But I don’t believe that it rises to the level of baiting. Shows like Sherlock or movies like Pitch Perfect 3 are, to me, much more egregious examples.

Still, as I said, I can understand the frustration of Supercorp shippers, I just feel like the level of anger directed by some not just at the creatives who make the show but at other fans as well is not fully justified. (And yes, I know “not all Supercorps” and I also know other fans have been jerks. Sanvers shippers who are being asses about Kelly are just as bad.) And who knows? I’d never say never to the ship maybe becoming canon eventually after Kara and Lena work out their issues.

That being said, all three of these ships, regardless of canon status, are incredibly popular, and I want to examine more of what that is and the reason some people are wary of these ships and the potential messages they send. This leads me to our topics for our next installment:

MY WIFE IS A BITCH AND I LIKE HER SO MUCH

and

POISON PARADISE

I will try to make the next one shorter. Also, sorry for typos, I did not give this a thorough read-through. I used all my brain power just writing it.

[ledenews]

W.Va. Senate President Blair: 'Transparency and Accountability Are Critical to Democracy'

There’s an old saying that goes, “with great freedom comes great responsibility.” In my mind, one of the best examples of that phrase is the relationship between the government and the media. It’s an adversarial relationship by nature because we co-exist in the same sphere of operating with great freedom and great responsibility. You don’t have to like what the media reports. I’ll be honest – I often don’t. However, there’s a very clear difference between not liking what the media reports and actively working to silence them. The actions this week by the DHHR and the management of West Virginia Public Broadcasting went too far, and it appears our Executive Branch has gone from largely refusing to cooperate with the media to actively undermining it. A government that serves its people must respect the critical role a free press plays in the process. With that critical role comes responsibility on behalf of the media to be accurate and to leave political bias at the door. While I cannot say that every reporter I have interacted with has been able to do that – and some have been downright dishonest in their reporting – I can say with confidence that was not the case here. In this case, a reporter did her job, did it fairly, told the truth, and seemed to pay a hefty price. West Virginia Public Broadcasting reporter Amelia Knisely wrote about my letter to Governor Jim Justice calling for an investigation into DHHR’s policies and management of treatment for patients with disabilities in their care. Before we received a response from either the Governor’s office or DHHR about my concerns, former Secretary Crouch had already sent a letter to the executive director of Public Broadcasting demanding the story be retracted. If those priorities sound a bit off to you, they are. West Virginia’s most vulnerable citizens are suffering, and they need our help. After what I’ve seen as this story unfolds, I continue to have the strong belief that the help they desperately need cannot come from the DHHR in its current form. Transparency and accountability are critical to democracy. Our citizens deserve to know how their government operates, and I am proud of the Senate for the tools we have in place to keep our citizens informed. We live stream and video archive every meeting. We allow testimony before our committees to occur remotely. Every month, our Finance Committee publishes a General Revenue Collections report that gives a detailed picture of our state’s finances. Through our official social media, we make sure to share agendas, amendments, floor votes, and other real-time information as it happens. We also communicate with the press, even when it makes us uncomfortable. Our staff fields numerous requests every week, sometimes taking hours to walk reporters through routine and complicated processes, explain bills, and help the media tell a fuller, more accurate story. This is not something you’ll see out of the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch operates in carefully constructed, made-for-TV media events where there is no give and take, and their agencies seldom respond to basic questions from the media. That behavior undermines the confidence in our government and our leaders. The job of the media isn’t to make us comfortable. It’s to make us accountable. In turn, it’s not the job of the media to be opponents to everything we do, either. Respect is a two-way street, and we strive to be respectful above all things. Steven Allen Adams’s reporting about DHHR’s interference in the Public Broadcasting news department and pressure on it to silence negative stories is disturbing, and that behavior would not be tolerated in the Senate. I hope the Executive Branch disavows this blatant abuse of the First Amendment and holds the management of West Virginia Public Broadcasting responsible for it. Senate President Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, represents the 15th Senatorial District, which includes part of Berkeley County, and Hampshire and Morgan counties. Read the full article

[gabegabe3205]

Blog Post 05: Fuchs vs Jenkins (Gabriel Choo)

Fuchs’ critical commentary focuses on exposing the flaws in the arguments given by other scholars studying participatory culture, revealing these authors’ lack of consideration for forces that shape and define the actions of users and producers on social media. Fuchs focuses largely on Henry Jenkins’ arguments, suggesting that Jenkins’ neglect of ownership, capitalism, and corporate motives in his celebratory writings of participatory culture fundamentally undermines his very own argument, at least according to the theory of participatory democracy. Another point Fuchs took issue with was how Jenkins conveniently assumed fandom in popular culture to be synonymous with activism. These are the two points I will address in this post.

I have to agree with Fuchs’ stance that ownership, capitalism, and corporate motives cannot be excluded in any argument celebrating participatory culture. These forces are the very foundation on which social media platforms are designed and promoted to society. Platforms such as Facebook and Instagram are deliberately designed to hook its users, from the colour of notifications to the endlessly refreshing news feed. In the famous documentary The Social Dilemma, employees from various famous Silicon Valley companies took their stand and moved on to businesses where designing addictive elements in alignment with profit motives is not part of the job scope. The stories these individuals tell are perfect microcosms of the exclusion that is mentioned by Fuchs – employees do not get to make decisions, they are not participating, they simply do as instructed by the owners and higher management. Fuchs shooting down of Jenkins’ assertion that social media is an expression of participatory culture is thus apt, as these platforms seek to exploit users through the hands and brilliance of employees who are held hostage by employment contracts and the obligation to further their employers’ aims.

I am also a proponent for Fuchs’ argument that fandom in popular culture is not equivalent to being politically active. From personal experience, identifying as fans of any celebrities, groups, or culture (eg. K-pop) is not indicative of an alignment in beliefs. These fans may parrot the views or political stances of their idols, but these are mere performative actions that often do not lead to any lifestyle changes or meaningful action outside of the online sphere. Those who retweet, repost, hashtag or share political movements do so not out of informed choice, but more because of herd mentality. Such performative activism is, in my opinion, quite useless and grating on the nerves. If fandom did translate to activism, after BTS’ numerous forays into environmentalism, their fans should also be spearheading environmental efforts all around the world. Whether this is so can only be determined by actual research, but I think what we should keep in mind is that these fans follow their celebrities primarily for entertainment and aesthetics, and thus I would be leaning towards the obvious result – fandom does not equate activism.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 4, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

Today Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) proposed giving at least $3000 annually per child to American families. This suggestion is coming from a man who, when he ran as the Republican candidate for president in 2012, famously echoed what was then Republican orthodoxy. He was caught on tape saying that “there are 47 percent of the people who… are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

Romney’s proposal indicates the political tide has turned away from the Republicans. Since the 1980s, they have insisted that the government must be starved, dismissing as “socialism” Democrats’ conviction that the government has a role to play in stabilizing the economy and society.

And yet, that idea, which is in line with traditional conservatism, was part of the founding ideology of the Republican Party in the 1850s. It was also the governing ideology of Romney’s father, George Romney, who served as governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969, where he oversaw the state’s first income tax, and as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Richard Nixon, where he tried to increase housing for the poor and desegregate the suburbs. It was also at the heart of Romney’s own record in Massachusetts, where as governor from 2003 to 2007, he ushered in the near-universal health care system on which the Affordable Care Act was based.

But in the 1990s, Republican leadership purged from the party any lawmakers who embraced traditional Republicanism, demanding absolutely loyalty to the idea of cutting taxes and government to free up individual enterprise. By 2012, Romney had to run from his record, including his major health care victory in Massachusetts. Now, just a decade later, he has returned to the ideas behind it.

Why?

First, and most important, President Joe Biden has hit the ground running, establishing a momentum that looks much like that of Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. Roosevelt had behind him stronger majorities than Biden’s, but both took office facing economic crises—and, in Biden’s case, a pandemic as well, along with the climate crisis--and set out immediately to address them.

Like FDR, Biden has established the direction of his administration through executive actions: he is just behind FDR’s cracking pace. Biden arrived in the Oval Office with a sheaf of carefully crafted executive actions that put in place policies that voters wanted: spurring job creation, feeding children, rejoining the World Health Organization, pursuing tax cheats, ending the transgender ban in the military, and reestablishing ties to the nation’s traditional allies. Once Biden had a Democratic Senate as well as a House—those two Georgia Senate seats were huge—he was free to ask for a big relief package for those suffering in the pandemic, and now even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who had expressed concern about the package, seems to be on board.

FDR’s momentum increased in part because the Republicans were discredited after the collapse of the economy and as Republican leaders turned up as corrupt. Biden’s momentum, too, is likely gathering steam as the Republicans are increasingly tainted by their association with the January 6 insurrection and the attack on the Capitol, along with the behavior of those who continue to support the former president.

The former president’s own behavior is not helping to polish his image. In their response to the House impeachment brief, Trump’s lawyers made the mistake of focusing not on whether the Senate can try a former president but on what Trump did and did not do. That, of course, makes Trump a witness, and today Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the lead impeachment manager, asked him to testify.

Trumps’ lawyers promptly refused but, evidently anticipating his refusal, Raskin had noted in the invitation that “[i]f you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.” In other words: “Despite his lawyers’ rhetoric, any official accused of inciting armed violence against the government of the United States should welcome the chance to testify openly and honestly—that is, if the official had a defense."

The lack of defense seems to be mounting. This morning, Jason Stanley of Just Security called attention to the film shown at the January 6 rally just after Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani spoke. Stanley explained how it was an explicitly fascist film, designed to show the former president as a strong fascist leader promising to protect Americans against those who are undermining the country: the Jews. Stanley also pointed out that, according to the New York Times, the rally was “a White House production” and that Trump was deeply involved with the details.

Trump’s supporters are not cutting a good figure, either. Today, by a vote of 230-199, the House of Representatives voted to strip new Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) of her assignments to the Budget Committee and the Education and Labor Committee. It did so after reviewing social media posts in which she embraced political violence and conspiracy theories. This leaves Greene with little to do but to continue to try to gin up media attention and to raise money.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) had declined to take action against Greene—although in 2019 he stripped assignments from Steve King (R-IA) for racist comments-- and only eleven Republicans joined the majority. The Republican Party is increasingly associated with the Trump wing, and that association will undoubtedly grow as Democrats press it in advertisements, as they have already begun to do.

McConnell has called for the party’s extremists to be purged out of concern that voters are turning away from the party. Still, the struggle between the two factions might be hard to keep out of the news as the Senate turns to confirmation hearings for Biden’s nominee to head the Department of Justice, Merrick Garland.

Going forward, the attorney general will be responsible for overseeing any prosecutions that come from the attempt to overturn the election, and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will question Garland, has on it three Republican senators involved in that attempt. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been accused by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger of calling before Trump did to get him to alter the state’s vote count. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) both joined in challenging the counting of the electoral votes.

It is hard to imagine the other senators at the hearing will not bring the three compromised senators into the discussion. The Republicans have so far refused to schedule Garland’s hearing, although now that the Senate is organized under the Democrats, it will happen soon.

Trump Republicans are betting the former president’s endorsement will win them office in the future. But with social media platforms cracking down on his disinformation, his ability to reach voters is not at all what it used to be, making it easier for members of the other faction to jump ship.

In addition, those echoing Trump’s lies are getting hit in their wallets. Today, the voting systems company Smartmatic sued the Fox News Channel and its personalities Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, and Jeanine Pirro, along with Giuliani and Trump’s legal advisor Sidney Powell, for at least $2.7 billion in damages for lying about Smartmatic machines in their attempt to overturn the election results.

Republicans rejecting the Trump takeover of the party are increasingly outspoken. Not only has Romney called for a measure that echoes Biden’s emphasis on supporting children and families, but also Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) today released a video attacking the leaders of his state’s Republican Party after hearing that they planned to censure him for speaking out against the former president.

“If that president were a Democrat, we both know how you’d respond. But, because he had ‘Republican’ behind his name, you’re defending him,” Sasse said. “Something has definitely changed over the last four years … but it’s not me.”

—-

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[kathleenmcgregor]

September 6, 2020 (Sunday)

Heather Cox Richardson writes:

Earlier this week, New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo warned that American democracy is ending. He pointed to political violence on the streets, the pandemic, unemployment, racial polarization, and natural disasters, all of which are destabilizing the country, and noted that Republicans appear to have abandoned democracy in favor of a cult-like support for Donald Trump. They are wedded to a narrative based in lies, as the president dismantles our non-partisan civil service and replaces it with a gang of cronies loyal only to him.

He is right to be worried.

Just the past few days have demonstrated that key aspects of democracy are under attack.

Democracy depends on the rule of law. Today, we learned that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who rose to become a Cabinet official thanks to his prolific fundraising for the Republican Party, apparently managed to raise as much money as he did because he pressured employees at his business, New Breed Logistics, to make campaign contributions that he later reimbursed through bonuses. Such a scheme is illegal. A spokesman said that Dejoy “believes that he has always followed campaign fundraising laws and regulations,” but records show that many of DeJoy’s employees only contributed money to political campaigns when they worked for him.

Democracy depends on equality before the law. But Black and brown people seem to receive summary justice at the hands of certain law enforcement officers, rather than being accorded the right to a trial before a jury of their peers. In a democracy, voters elect representatives who make laws that express the will of the community. “Law enforcement officers” stop people who are breaking those laws, and deliver them to our court system, where they can tell their side of the story and either be convicted of breaking the law, or acquitted. When police can kill people without that process, justice becomes arbitrary, depending on who holds power.

Democracy depends on reality-based policy. Increasingly it is clear that the Trump administration is more concerned about creating a narrative to hold power than it is in facts. Today, Trump tweeted that “Our Economy and Jobs are doing really well,” when we are in a recession (defined as two quarters of negative growth) and unemployment remains at 8.4%.

This weekend, the drive to create a narrative led to a new low as the government launched an attempt to control how we understand our history. On Friday, the administration instructed federal agencies to end training on “critical race theory,” which is a scary-sounding term for the idea that, over time, our laws have discriminated against Black and brown people, and that we should work to get rid of that discriminatory pattern.

Today, Trump tweeted that the U.S. Department of Education will investigate whether California schools are using curriculum based on the 1619 Project from the New York Times, which argues that American history should center on the date of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans to Chesapeake shores. Anyone using such curriculum, he said, would lose funding. Government interference in teaching our history echoes the techniques of dictatorships. It is unprecedented in America.

Democracy depends on free and fair suffrage. The White House is trying to undermine our trust in the electoral system by claiming that mail-in ballots can be manipulated and will usher in fraud. While Trump has been arguing this for a while, last week Attorney General William Barr, a Trump loyalist, also chimed in, offering a false story that the Justice Department had indicted a Texas man for filling out 1700 absentee ballots. In fact, in 2017, one man was convicted of forging one woman’s signature on a mail-in ballot in a Dallas City Council race. Because mail-in ballots have security barcodes and require signatures to be matched to a registration form, the rate of ballot fraud is vanishingly small: there have been 491 prosecutions in all U.S. nationwide elections from 2000 to 2012, when billions of ballots were cast.

Interestingly, an intelligence briefing from the Department of Homeland Security released Friday says that Russia is spreading false statements identical to those Trump and Barr are spreading. The bulletin says that Russian actors “are likely to promote allegations of corruption, system failure, and foreign malign interference to sow distrust in Democratic institutions and election outcomes.” They are spreading these claims through state-controlled media, fake websites, and social media trolls.

At the same time, we know that the Republicans are launching attempts to suppress Democratic votes. Last Wednesday, we learned that Georgia has likely removed 200,000 voters from the rolls for no reason. In December 2019, the Georgia Secretary of State said officials had removed 313,243 names from the rolls in an act of routine maintenance because they were inactive and the voters had moved, but nonpartisan experts found that 63.3% of those voters had not, in fact, moved. They were purged from the rolls in error.

And, in what was perhaps an accident, in South Carolina, voters’ sample ballots did not include Democratic candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, although they did include the candidates for the Green, Alliance, and Libertarian parties. When The Post and Courier newspaper called their attention to the oversight, the State Election Commission, which is a Republican-majority body appointed by a staunch Trump supporter, updated the ballots.

Democracy depends on the legitimacy of (at least) two political parties. Opposition parties enable voters unhappy with whichever group of leaders is in power to articulate their positions without undermining the government itself. They also watch leaders carefully, forcing them to combat corruption within their ranks.

This administration has sought to delegitimize Democrats as “socialists” and “radicals” who are not legitimate political players. Just today, Trump tweeted: “The Democrats, together with the corrupt Fake News Media, have launched a massive Disinformation Campaign the likes of which has never been seen before.”

For its part, the Republican Party has essentially become the Trump Party, not only in ideology and loyalty but in finances. Yesterday we learned that Trump and the Republican National Committee have spent close to $60 million from campaign contributors on Trump’s legal bills. Matthew Sanderson, a campaign finance lawyer for Republican presidential candidates, told the New York Times, “Vindicating President Trump’s personal interests is now so intertwined with the interests of the Republican Party they are one and the same — and that includes the legal fights the party is paying for now.”

The administration has refused to answer to Democrats in Congress, ignoring subpoenas with the argument that Congress has no power to investigate the executive branch, despite precedent for such oversight going all the way back to George Washington’s administration. Just last week, a federal appeals court said that Congress has no power to enforce a subpoena because there is no law that gives it the authority to do so. This essentially voids a subpoena the House issued last year to former White House counsel Don McGahn, demanding he testify about his dealings with Trump over the investigation into the ties of the Trump campaign to Russia. (The decision will likely be challenged.)

On September 4, U.S. Postal Service police officers refused Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) entry to one USPS facility in Opa-Locka, Florida and another in Miami. Although she followed the procedures she had followed in the past, this time the local officials told her that the national USPS leadership had told them to bar her entry. “Ensuring only authorized parties enter nonpublic areas of USPS facilities is part of a Postal Police officer’s normal duties, said Postal Inspector Eric Manuel. Wasserman Schultz is a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

And finally, democracy depends on the peaceful transition of power. Trump has repeatedly suggested that he will not leave office because the Democrats are going to cheat.

So we should definitely worry.

Convincing people the game is over is one of the key ways dictators take power. Scholars warn never to consent in advance to what you anticipate an autocrat will demand. If democracy were already gone, there would be no need for Trump and his people to lie and cheat and try to steal this election.

But should we despair? Absolutely not.

And I would certainly not be writing this letter.

Americans are coming together from all different political positions to fight this attack on our democracy, and we have been in similar positions before. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln spoke under similar circumstances, and noted that Americans who disagreed on almost everything else could still agree to defend their country, just as we are now. Ordinary Americans “rose each fighting, grasping whatever he could first reach---a scythe---a pitchfork-- a chopping axe, or a butcher's cleaver,” he said. And “when the storm shall be past,” the world “shall find us still Americans; no less devoted to the continued Union and prosperity of the country than heretofore.”