#which is to say that without societal pressures we would be inherently good

[radfae]

hi there i like your blog. i do disagree with some of your general statements about gender transition being just about wearing dresses or having short hair, as if trans people don't seek out medical transition because we are acutely aware that clothing and hairstyle aren't inherent to sex or gender.

even if gender is abolished(whatever that means(and i doubt it ever will be, same as i doubt humans will ever stop eating meat even though it's objectively detrimental and unsustainable)), i feel as though i would still take testosterone in a genderfree society because i enjoy the physical changes it gives me.

i am physically healthy, mentally stable person(at least according to my doctors and pyschiatrists), hrt is not causing my body significant harm and yet i see radfems like you constantly say im mutilating or ruining my body. why aren't you this vocal about drinking or smoking or gambling, which is far more prevalent and harmful? why is a breast reduction mutilating my body but electively choosing to get my tonsils removed or getting body piercings/tattoos not? i experience more statistical danger getting in my car and driving to work each day than i ever will being on hrt or transitioning. unless you live a 100% zero waste chemical free crunchy hippie lifestyle i don't think you have any right to preach to others that their actions are harming their own bodies. abortions can cause harm. vaccines can cause harm. chemotherapy can cause harm. all these things are not always necessary but are always neutral.

just curious what you and your community make of this specifically. i tried not to assume anything about you that i haven't seen you explicitly say or reblog so please don't make any assumptions about me aside from what I've said here. would love to talk more I might come off anon if you respond. thanks for reading anyways feel free to ignore have good day

hi, sorry for the late response, i wanted to be able to actually give you an answer and i haven’t had the time. i’m not on tumblr very much

first, i personally very much avoid the term ‘mutilating’ and anything similar because i find it rude. please don’t group me in with people that aren’t me.

second, i answered an ask like this recently. please read that.

third, i’m not speaking out on drugs and nicotine + tobacco because everyone already knows they’re harmful. informed consent is absolutely no issue. if someone is drinking or smoking, they’ve accepted that this is bad for them, and they continue to do it. not to mention that it isn’t something borne of a mental illness (unless you have an addiction, in which case you should stop), and it doesn’t make you a lifelong patient. if it helps, in my personal life off of social media, i do speak out against smoking and vaping to my friends and family constantly, because i come from a family of smokers. i’m always bugging one of my close friends about her vape lol. and everything else you mentioned is gender neutral and has little to do with societal pressure… not much to speak out about, they’re completely neutral actions. and anyway, my blog is about feminism. i talk about feminism. that’s kind of like going to a blog about gay rights, or whatever else, and saying “why aren’t you talking about ___?” because that’s not what my blog is about.

fourth, i don’t doubt that sex dysphoria would still exist in a world removed from gender, but how prevalent would it be? you’d think a lot of people like you would say the same; “i’d still take this anyway”, but i’ve spoken to a lot of trans people personally who agree with me that our gendered society is a problem and life would be better off without all the rules and structure; largely, the issue is that our society as it stands encourages gender dysphoria (interpret that as you will, as it comes from many, many different places and adds up over time), and some people feel like they have to transition to be comfortable. and i do encourage you to look more into gender abolition, if you’re following it up with “whatever that means”.

[shitpostingfromthebarricade]

How dare you assume that Vicky has ever made a reasonable point in his life.

[radfemblack]

My two cents on non-monogamy. I’m neutral. It’s not any better or worse than any other relationship configuration involving men. Different relationship styles are just part of human diversity. If polygyny is treated as a man owning multiple objects, and polyandry is treated as one object being shared by multiple men, then the problem is women being viewed as objects — which definitely happens in monogamy too, the root problem being heterosexual relationship dynamics molded by the hierarchy of patriarchy. Which is why open relationships seem to be working fine for gay men.

I think in radfem circles a lot of the opposition to non-monogamy is reflexive due to its association with the whole liberal sex pozzie stuff, which is understandable because men have proven they will pursue more pussy at the expense of women’s wellbeing. But things must stand and fall on their own merit and not merely be deemed guilty by association. After all, abortion and birth control are things the liberal patriarchy has co-opted to increase male sexual access to women with less responsibility, but no radical feminist would argue that these reproductive rights our foremothers fought for are therefore intrinsically oppressive and anti-feminist.

As a matter of fact, it actually was radical feminists in the second wave who postulated that non-monogamy could be liberating for women. The origins of enforced monogamy aren’t very feminist either. It literally originated as affirmative action for low value men, a “pussy redistribution” so that a few men don’t take all of the women and leave the rest with no wives. The societal evolution away from polygamy wasn’t for women, it was for men. Either way, women are viewed and treated like objects with no will of their own, properties to be passed around and handed out for the sake of men and a supposed “greater good” of society.

And a lot of the “(radical) feminist” rhetoric around and critique of non-monogamy just comes off as condescending, presumptuous, and patriarchal. Open relationships are not infidelity — by definition consensual non-monogamy isn’t cheating. And yes, it’s true that said “consent” can be manipulated and coerced, but the same applies to just about any other relationship or action under the sun. Saying that polyamory is simply cheating because women be pressured into it is like saying that anal is automatically rape because women be pressured that. The problem is the pressure, which is by no means inherent nor exclusive to the practice. Somehow someway, some women are ok with these things and that’s fine! The personal preferences of particular women is not the hill that feminists should be dying on, so as long as they’re not immediately harmful. Don’t mistake “class analysis” as an excuse to invalidate people’s reality and act like you know them better than they know themselves. You sound like an ass.

Insinuating or straight up stating that women can never desire multiple partners or must have low self-esteem to be non-monogamous or anything along those lines is just mirroring the same traditional regressive notions around women’s sexuality. The old “women mono men poly” thing. Why wouldn’t women be able to be polyamorous? Why can’t women just desire sexual stimulation? And how would such an arrangement be “benefitting men” anymore than monogamous heterosexual unions are already generally benefiting men? As feminists we should be criticizing the harm these things can do to women without contributing to patriarchal or other oppressive narratives. Like how we must critique the hijab without increasing the burden of racist misogyny on those wearing it, or being condescending and presumptuous towards hijabis. It comes across as an arrogant savior complex that doesn’t have the best interests of women at heart, like talking at and about them rather than to and with them.

Clearly I take issue with a lot of the radfem hostility to non-monogamy, but also I obviously side eye the pro-poly crowd. It’s like a lot of them are willfully ignorant towards context and act like choices are desires are formed in a vacuum. Under a patriarchal society where sexual access to women is seen as a status symbol, isn’t it a bit suspicious for a man to leap at the chance to bed as many women as possible? As a matter of fact, I remember seeing a study claiming that monogamy in men is correlated with intelligence, same deal for atheism — the common theme is rejection of baser instincts and impulses. I don’t even like to call harems “polyamory” because 9/10 there’s no love in that, only hoarding women like resources. Of course these trends don’t apply to every single individual and relationship, we shouldn’t generalize, but it’s something to keep in mind.

And another thing, a lot of poly people are hyper “woke” and fancy themselves and their lifestyle the epitome of progressive, which is a bit… flawed. Preaching polyamory as inherently more “enlightened” and “forward” is also rather condescending and patronizing and naive. I’ve recently seen some claim that polyamory is a threat to capitalism, and that’s just a reach. I guess if you squint you can see where that conclusion comes from, because criticism of the (monogamous, heterosexual) nuclear family has been part of anti capitalism since Engels wrote On The Family. But private property existed back when polygamy was the norm. I believe it’s that capitalism produces monogamy (at least in women), rather than vice versa or non-monogamy necessarily subverting capitalism today. Capitalism is based on private ownership, so it fosters possessive mentality — women became the first private property because men needed paternity assurance for heirs. I’ve heard that certain tribes with a more communal style of living had more open relationships because they weren’t obsessed with guarding property and paternity, which is something that warrants more research. But now that capitalism is already established, it can’t simply be “undone” by popularizing polyamory. What is a threat to capitalism is communal living and strong networks of mutual aid, and it’s not necessary to fuck multiple people to have that.

Gender politics aside, I don’t think polyamory will ever be as common as monogamy for some good reasons, humans apparently tend towards monogamy. I did a poll on my Instagram stories (yes very scientific I know) on the topic of non-monogamy and most of the people who answered, like over a hundred, said it was terrible. Only a handful said it was good and they like it. So the minority who are “naturally” polyamorous should feel free to be so instead of making themselves and their partners miserable by repressing themselves, forcing themselves into monogamy. I’m supportive of polyamorous women, especially my fellow bi babes, but I remain very skeptical of (straight) men who want to be poly. Seeing a man with multiple women provokes my fight or flight response (lmao) because it gives patriarchal harem vibes, but if said man is respectful towards women and treats his partners like humans rather than objects, if there are no double standards, fine. Coincidences and unfortunate implications happen and I don’t think it’s right nor fair to demand individuals change something fundamental and inherent to themselves just to avoid bad optics or fitting stereotypes. Quality not quantity — if they’re not misogynistic shitpiles then a woman having three boyfriends isn’t more concerning than her having one.

[marcspectrr]

A word or two on Kiara's mental health...

Before I attempt to summarize the 39 page slideshow living rent free in my brain, a preface! This will include spoilers for s2, as well as a few mentions of suicidal thoughts! Also. I love Kiara Carrera with all of my heart so if you're not a fan of her, you might wanna keep scrolling. If you don't vibe with her that's perfectly fine, but this post is heavy with Kiara appreciation, be warned, my respect for her runs deep. The choice is yours, of course, just understand that I'm writing this bc @yellowlaboratory among others have encouraged me to get it out there because it's all I've been thinking about since I watched s2. This is not to start anything.

(This is also not me hating on Pope because I genuinely like his character, he's just made some very questionable choices throughout the show, some I can forgive and some that still don't sit right with me.)

Deep breath, here we go.

It's no secret Kiara has been poorly handled by the writers and therefore the characters at times. We got little development in s1 compared to other main male characters, leaving us to fill in the gaps as far as her ambitions, motivations, family, overall interest in the boys, etc. While I do keep this in mind, I could rant about it for days so for this I'm going off of what we have as well as what's been implied.

Kiara didn't have the same upbringing as the boys but it's clear the Carrera's had/have their struggles. She's got her foot in both worlds, not quite 'rich' but not entirely 'poor', inevitably giving her a fragile sense of belonging and identity. 16 is a hard age even without societal pressures and growing up in a classist environment, but here is where we're assuming the boys come in. They give her a place to feel comfortable in her own skin, with shared interests and accepting her for who she is, which we know the kooks don't provide. Just being around them helps ease those deep insecurities, helps her form meaningful bonds. We weren't given an explicit scene where this was shown but over the course of the two seasons it's clear how she feels about them and what they do for her mentally.

Her relationship with the pogues, however, puts a rift between her and her parents. Mike and Anna clearly want what's best for Kie but it's also obvious they've struggled with her even before the pogues. Anna wants Kiara to have the things she never got growing up, breeding a disconnect since Kiara doesn't share in her mother's interests. This leads into my biggest problem with Kiara's arc in s2, which was how Anna and Mike were written. 

Yes, Kiara didn't/doesn't treat them the best but it went both ways -- they all failed at communicating. Instead of finding a common ground and compensating for the things Kiara cares about, Anna shuts her down and ignores her, leaving her to feel like a problem rather than a person, further perpetuating even less healthy communication. Kiara even says in s2 that's why she doesn't like going home, because it always means walking into an argument and not feeling accepted.

I sorta expected a little more understanding from Anna considering her own background with pogues but instead it backfired. And Mike...he didn't contribute much at all. They could've all done better and need some work. Kiara could be more grateful and Anna and Mike are the parents, the adults, they need to make the space feel safe to talk. Kie didn't just wake up one day and decide to act out and keep her parents in the dark all the time, that stems from not feeling listened to when she does try and open up.

Expanding on this with...the whole Blue Ridge plot. Moment of silence for the show neglecting to acknowledge the academy,  even though it clearly had a big impact on Kiara's life. In s1 we got a brief look into how her 'kook year' affected her and it was not good. More isolation, blurred identity, insecurity and this time suicidal thoughts, with no one to turn to for support, assuming she was not on good terms with her parents then either. I'm assuming this because for them to send her to the academy, hoping to give her better opportunities only for it to end with her wanting to cut her wrists, to then thinking the best option is to send her away again? At this point I hope they didn’t know how badly the academy affected her because sending her away a second time with that knowledge is such a hurtful and oblivious move.

Kiara already thinks her parents see her as a burden, hurting her sense of worth as is. I really wanted to like the Carrera's and I still feel like they genuinely love and care for Kie, I just need to see more communication maybe. And if they choose to include the Blue Ridge plot, which I'm leaning towards yes on that one, I hope it's handled somewhat well, preferably not a tool to create drama even though I know a lot of people want to see it be used that way. I'm very particular, I'm sorry I'm this way.

Things I've seen her being criticized for in s2 is her behavior. The thing that people have to remember is that she's 16 and teenagers are just not the best with navigating their emotions. She made questionable choices (the 'murderer' thing and 'abusing' Pope) but these are both things that fit the plot and her character. She was by no means the only one grieving so I don't know why she's being targeted for it (although I'm not surprised, the fandom treats her horribly). Some of her core characteristics are her high moral integrity as well as her headstrong belief in people and causes. She's never been one to make herself palatable for people and s2 shows a lot of this (calling out the Cameron's, going off in front of the court, etc). Even if it caused them problems and even if they are flaws, that doesn't make her an inherently intolerable character, it makes her realistic. She was not in a good place emotionally and it would've been wrong to shy away from depicting it any other way, especially in a show where the teenage experience is decently represented.

Now with the Pope thing. I think it was handled as well as it could've been considering the circumstances. It really should've never happened but to justify it, emotions are messy, relationships even messier and they were both spiraling at the end of s1. I don't agree with the way it started (why give Kie the line of literally telling him she wanted something different only to show them together next episode, I'm forever confused) but I'm not mad about how it ended. They were both in the wrong at times so only bringing up Kie's faults is just unfair.

I believe they both tried their best and even wanted to feel the right things but learned quickly that's not exactly how it works, which was how it was supposed to be shown. Not as this romanticized, idealistic healthy relationship but as one that has its bumps and was bred out of all the wrong things. All of their body language pointed towards this. Pope didn't deserve to be hurt but Kie clearly didn't intend for things to turn out how they did. She wasn't mentally comfortable enough for a relationship and I can appreciate them showing this in the ways the writers framed it. Even the conversation with Kie describing their night on the beach, I think it was perfect. It was awkward but it was honest, which is so important.

Overall, I think Kiara's gone through a lot mentally that the show could be better at exploring. It doesn't have to be big, obvious lingering shots, they can be subtle and still mean so much to people who relate to her. Seeing someone on screen grapple with real life struggles (even if the show walks a painfully fine line as far as realism), it means a lot. Especially when mental health (more prominent than ever) is so rarely portrayed to translate in any significant way in media now. It's definitely something I would love to see get more time and effort so until then, just know I'll be manifesting the screen time Kiara Carrera deserves.

[zot3-flopped]

When two celebrities without a shadow of a doubt say their narrative on their relationship and it conflicts, I think it’s very safe to say both are telling the truth - their truth, and it was a misunderstanding. It’s also worth noting that Jason was calling Olivia his partner well after the breakup was announced and multiple times at that (a few in December and one in January). A lot of Larries took that to mean that they were secretly still together (how would that make sense? Wouldn’t he just not call her his partner then? It’s not that hard to “agree to a stunt”). The most likely scenario is that it just took longer for him to come to terms with things. That for her the relationship was over far sooner than for him. And it doesn’t have to mean that Olivia is a bitch or that Jason is a doormat or that there was any cheating or overlapping. It can mean a difference in expectations from a relationship, it can mean a difference in one’s perspective on relationships in general.

I often talk to one of my best friends about this whole thing and she had something really wise to say a while back. She used Taylor and Harry as an example of how relationships are perceived by the media and what expectations people have of men and women. Taylor’s song Shake It Off talks about how her haters say she goes on too many dates but she can’t “make them stay” but on the flip side Harry’s perception for a long time was that he had commitment issues (which for the record I don’t think is true). He was the one who couldn’t settle down. But why would people assume that Taylor can’t make them stay and Harry is the one leaving his relationships? They both had a very similar dating history up until 2016ish, with multiple short lived high profile relationships, neither of them talked much about it in the media, and neither of them portrayed themselves as what their images tried to project. Harry had songs begging to be given a chance and one of Taylor’s biggest hits was about how “we are never EVER getting back together.” When my friend pointed this out to me, it kinda opened my eyes to it like, yeah, women are the ones who are supposed to make them stay, men have commitment issues and they want to leave. This isn’t a biological difference but a difference on societal expectations. We are supposed to make them stay, we are supposed to keep it going, make the sacrifices, make the whole thing work out. So typically when a woman ends a relationship it’s because she tried with all her might to make it work. Women don’t tend to end relationships lightly. And I think this inherent societal difference makes men not take a woman seriously when she says she wants to leave until something drastic happens, because they aren’t under the pressure of keeping it going, they don’t know the internal process of a woman putting up with attitudes and situations that kill her inside because it’s what she’s supposed to do (ESPECIALLY if she has kids). I can imagine that Olivia brought up being unhappy multiple times, and like that other anon pointed out, lockdown made it impossible for them to physically separate, so that combo of things make Jason assume they were just having a rough patch but it’d eventually get fixed. Meanwhile Olivia was done. If in that context a woman meets a man she not only finds attractive physically, but with whom she connects on several other levels, who’s kind, who’s funny, who shows his interest in a respectful way… uh, yeah she’s most likely gonna end things for good with her ex. And for her the relationship would’ve been over the minute she first said so.

I obviously can’t say that’s what happened but a scenario where neither of the people involved is a monster and relationships just end and people have misunderstandings makes far more sense to me than a woman one day going “you know what? I’m gonna leave this man I’ve been with for almost a decade who I’ve had two kids with for a man 10 years younger than me who I just met for no other reason than I’m a raging bitch.”

It’s also likely that Olivia told Jason about her and Harry’s relationship from the beginning but Jason didn’t take it seriously because of prejudice and once he saw them holding hands in every tabloid he got upset and maybe said some things that made it into tabloids (that is if those reports are even true which we don’t know). It doesn’t mean he’s in the right and it doesn’t make Harry and Olivia’s relationship a problem. It just means he was upset and emotional.

I don’t know, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Some really perceptive insights here. I agree that each side of a couple can have very different views of the same relationship. Olivia clearly wanted to leave as early as January 2020 but lockdown forced them to co parent in the same house and Jason probably hoped they'd get back together. Maybe they snuggled together in the evenings watching TV or even slept together occasionally during the first half of 2020. I don't think Jason fully accepted the relationship was over until she moved out.

[fairycosmos]

girlies do you all agree that like... someone being in love with us seems so unrealistic and almost unreachable? i am always so amazed and shocked how ppl talk so calmly abt all the partners they have had when i am like... how do you even find someone to love you where and how does that happen and how do you turn into someone other than just a funny comedic bro friend you know... i am not trying to be all depressing or fishing for compliments but i GENUIENLY cant imagine anyone ever loving me just because it seems so far away and unreal. i have had a boyfriend one time and i didnt even know him i just didnt want to reject him and like. i was so scared of the intimacy and i was so overwhelmed that i hid in the bathrooms in school and refused to look into his eyes whenever we did talk like 💀 i feel like i am not made to love and be loved you know

plz this is so :(( i just wanna hug you. also i completely know what you mean and i think a lot of ppl do. i have never understood ppl who just fall in and out of relationships. i’ve only ever officially dated one person too - but i never fell in love w him and i think i was just doing it out of societal pressure or to prove to myself i could. i was JUST thinking about this the other day when i was laying in bed. how i just couldn’t fathom someone laying here with me and actually enjoying it. it looks so natural for everyone else but if someone put their hand on my shoulder or looked at me up close i think i’d cut them out of my life. i don’t know how i handled it in the past. i feel like dating me would be such an honest to god disappointment - and that someone would only ever do it if they were settling lmfao. i would feel so bad that they’d have to see me and put up with me? and not get anything in return. like i’d be such an embarrassment and there’s no way around it. i’m a void of a person with nothing to give anyway. plus it’s just so much work to be vulnerable when there’s no guarantee or even high chance it’ll last. and how do you even meet anyone in the first place besides dating apps? how does love even start or how is the protentional for it found?

there are a few things i like to keep in mind when i get overwhelmed by this. the first is that all of your problems with love are internal, but actually nurturing a loving bond with someone is both internal and external because half of it comes from some place outside yourself. outside all your own issues. what i’m saying is others don’t see you or your emotional difficulties the way you do. your self hatred has you convinced you’re unlovable and i’m sure that is deeply rooted and comes from a multitude of factors in your life and your past, but it is not an absolute truth. it may have felt like one since you were a kid, but it is not. the trick of it is to make you believe you are. it has to make you believe because it’s not a fact in the first place. you weren’t born shying away from love, you learned to, and you can unlearn the impulse as well. honestly everyone reads each other differently, everyone sees each other in a new way. you have never seen or perceived yourself in a moment of relaxed happiness, when you’re talking about your interests, when you’re joking around with someone. but everyone else has. there’s nothing inherently wrong about you. you just have a very limited viewpoint of who you are and what your presence could mean to people. the second thing i like to remember is that there is literally no rush. it is so so much more common than you think to remain single up to your late 20s and beyond. i know it seems like the whole world has someone but it doesn’t mean they’re fulfilled or happy either. we live in a relationship and sex obsessed society, and i really feel like most of us wouldn’t date so quickly if we didn’t constantly feel like we had something to prove or that something was missing from inside of ourselves. it is much healthier to go with the flow and to let whatever will be, be. the third thing is that you are a whole person on your own. there are so many different types of love in this world and romantic is just a slither of the greater picture. obviously it’s entirely natural to crave that type of intimacy, but it is not something you will crumble without. it doesn’t make or break your life. it is much simpler and easier to let it find you cause it will, when you feel capable of seeking it out. i think you may have been uncomfortable in past relationships because you just weren’t ready, and that’s totally fine. you can yearn for love and still recognize that you may not be emotionally prepared to take on a relationship just yet, those experiences can co exist imo. i think it’s all just a matter of idk. patience and self love is whats coming to mind for you.

idk if therapy or talking to someone about why you feel this way is available to you but if so, or if it ever is, i would really recommend it. i know that may seem like a big step and super nerve wracking but it’s important to examine who or what made you feel this way in the first place. then you can begin dismantling those beliefs and building your life around being your own friend rather than your own worst enemy. i know that’s a lot, it’s just something to consider for the future. anyway you are good!! you are lovable!! you were born with an inherent worth that hasn’t disappeared just cause you can’t see it at the moment!! and i’m sure you’d say the same about other ppl, so it applies to you too. sending you a lot of love. which you will take on bc guess what :^) ur capable of feeling and giving all forms of love. even if it takes a long time for you to really learn how to do so in a way that you’re compatible with. mwah x

[strangertheory]

"anti-Mileven"

I know you submitted this as a message and not an Ask, but I hope you don't mind if I answer your question with a longer post because this is a topic that is important to me but is complicated. I've meant to do a post about this, but kept putting it off because it is a very layered topic for me and my thoughts about Mileven are probably not what a lot of fans want to hear.

I respect that everyone develops an attachment to their preferred couples in stories for personal reasons, and as such any criticism of the dynamic between two characters that are dating can feel like a very personal criticism. I respect everyone's head-canons and favorite ships as sacred ground: I don't want to tell anyone how they should or should not relate to a story. That's unique to each of us as fans, and we will all enjoy Stranger Things for different reasons.

However: I do have some thoughts regarding the way that the narrative has established the dynamic between Mike and El. And I personally do not find their dynamic *as it currently is* to be one that is ideal for either of them yet.

I really care about Eleven and I really care about Mike. They are two of my favorite characters in the story.

To say that I'm "anti-Mileven" is a huge oversimplification of how I feel about Mike and El's dynamic.

I am very much anti:

overlooking the fact El has been treated as a lab rat and abused and isolated from society for the majority of her existence and her ignorance of her own identity and her own desires is repeatedly reinforced canonically. ("How do I know what I like?") El has spent only a few months out in the world beyond her cell at the lab and beyond Hopper's cabin, she knows very little about the world yet, and she is being taught much of what she now knows by her boyfriend who also happens to be one of the few people she interacts with in her daily life. The power difference and social difference between them is huge currently regardless of whether Mike is a nice kid with good intentions or not, and they are both fourteen years olds.

overlooking that it is superficial and not representative of a "deep" relationship to only kiss and make out with a significant other and not do other meaningful activities that establish a real day-to-day relationship (like hanging out with friends and other loved ones as a couple.) There's a popular misconception that the act of two people kissing is inherently romantic and a sign of emotional closeness. But kissing becomes romantic psychologically when two people share a deep affection for one another that is based on shared experiences and emotional and psychological connectedness. If two characters can be shown to care about one another without ever physically touching, they have the potential for a deep connection that is based on more than the thrill of physical affection. Give me a well-developed relationship first, and then kissing will seem romantic to me. Without an established psychological and emotional connection between characters, kissing is merely a superficial representation of the idea of intimacy between characters without any actual substance underneath. Sure that's what kids do when they're figuring out how dating and feelings and physical intimacy work and it's not harmful in itself provided that they are both comfortable with it, but keep this in mind within the context of the other concerns I list here.

trivializing Mike's dishonesty and blaming Hopper for Mike's lying when the truth is Mike could have easily explained to El that Hopper didn't want them spending as much time together and having some space would be better. El is well aware of Hopper's dislike for their time spent together. This should have been a very easy conversation. As Lucas rightfully asks as Mike is ranting about the situation he got himself into: "Why lie?" Good question, Lucas. Good question. El asks Mike this again later at the mall. "Why do you lie?" Mike stares back at her with an awkward expression, and does NOT answer her. Why is this answer not an easy one? Why has Mike still not addressed things with El? I think there is more going on here than just Hopper's threats.

I am very in favor of:

El learning more about who she is and what she wants to do with her life outside of the desires and expectations of other people.

Mike figuring out how to effectively express his thoughts and feelings honestly. He is clearly struggling to do this throughout season 3, and it is uncharacteristic of the kid who defiantly said and did what he wanted frequently in seasons 1 and 2. Clearly Mike is not comfortable and is nervous, which is understandable for someone exploring new emotionally vulnerable territory like dating for the first time, but he needs to learn to be honest and tell people how he is thinking and feeling or else he is also putting himself and his feelings and needs at risk and potentially establishing an unhealthy relationship that will hurt him and hurt others even if he doesn't mean to. Mike's nervousness is STILL present in the final goodbye scene in which Mike and El talk, and El tells him she loves him and kisses him. He is still stumbling over his words and anxious, and he seems notably confused after El kisses him. These small details are not trivial, they are clearly intentional.

Recognizing that Mike is the first person her age that was kind to El when she escaped the lab, and given that she has only known pain and abuse her entire life and has never known friendship let alone romance that her psychological readiness for understanding a romantic relationship is NOT the same as an ordinary 14 year old's and this cannot be stated enough.

Recognizing that societal pressures and personal insecurities might be a huge factor in how Mike clings to El's attention and affection for him, and that there is evidence in the story that supports this interpretation. We know that Mike is bullied frequently, and that there is a layer of homophobia often involved. (Even if James and Troy were speaking rudely about Will, they were still directly confronting Mike. The implication is there.) We know that Lucas yelled at Mike "No Mike. You're blind. Blind because you like that a girl's not grossed out by you!" This reveals that Lucas knows that Mike is insecure and wants validation. Just because Mike has a desperate desire to be loved and liked by a girl does not mean that his appreciation of El's attention is based on his genuine romantic affection for her. Mike might be dating El because he enjoys the attention, he likes being liked, and he likes how having a girlfriend makes him feel more accepted and normal.

Recognizing that every moment that Mike has tried to share something that he is passionate about with El (the Yoda figurine, the dinosaurs) she has been completely disinterested. Since El has no cultural connection to the pop culture stories Mike loves and she lived in the Lab her entire life, it makes perfect sense that she will have no interest in these toys. Her lack of interest in what Mike is passionate about, however, is worth noting: not because it's a bad thing, but because it's just one of many reasons they are "not even from the same planet" and cannot bond and connect easily. El has lived an incredibly different life from Mike, has suffered through so much, and is still learning about the outside world and about herself. She is severely behind in social and personal development. She needs time to learn and to grow and to heal so she can live her best life and recover from what she has been through. (She doesn't really care about your Star Wars toys, Michael, because she just learned what a phone is and is processing a lot of other things right now.)

*I want to credit @kaypeace21 for pointing out many of these particular observations listed above: you can read her very detailed and extensive analysis in her post here: El is Not in Love with Mike.

These are just a few of many thoughts I have regarding Mike and El's dynamic together, and why I find the romanticization and idealization of their dating relationship to be more suited to fan-canon and fanfiction. For El to have a relationship with Mike that I would personally enjoy and appreciate, the story would need to convincingly allow her to establish a notably better understanding of who she is and what she wants, and have time to heal from her trauma and learn a lot more about the outside world. While I suspect that the Byers moving away will be very difficult for Will, in many ways I think it will benefit El tremendously and I hope that she is given more opportunities to learn and to grow.

I also agree with @hawkinsschoolcounselor 's hypothesis that Mike is projecting his feelings for Will onto El. It's impossible for me to see Mike's dynamic with El as entirely separate from Mike's relationship with Will because El was found in the woods when they were looking for Will in season 1, El helped everyone find Will in the Upside Down and saved his life, and El reappears at the end if season 2 and saves Will from the Mindflayer. Until season 3, El's appearance in Mike's life has been directly tied to Will's survival and safety. I do not think this is a trivial aspect of El's narrative. El's importance within the larger story being told is repeatedly tied back to what Will is dealing with. The reason that El and Will's narratives are so deeply intertwined has not been revealed in the story yet, but I suspect that there are some important aspects of El and Will's stories that haven't been fully revealed yet that will bring all of these seemingly isolated plot threads together. The creators of Stranger Things repeatedly tie El and Will together visually and narratively (re: @kaypeace21), and I believe there is a very specific reason for this.

I look forward to seeing what happens in season 4. Whether my interpretation of El and Mike's dynamic is fair or not, I trust the writers have a compelling next chapter in their story for us all to enjoy.

[theoriginalcarnivorousmuffin]

What inspired you to write in the first place? That, and where the hell did the idea of "Lily and the Art of Being Sisyphus" come from?

Oh man, I feel like you should have asked me this a few years ago as then I’d have better than vague remembrances of where this all began.

Well, first, as for writing I can’t say I really know.

I’ve always loved writing, even before I got my fanfiction account at the Dawn of Time I was writing. It was either strange short stories or essentially fanfiction (I can’t remember my exact age, I think I might have been eight or something, but I essentially wrote a fanfiction screen play of what should happen after The Lord of the Rings. It has been purged from every computer ever as I shortly after realized it was hot garbage and its very existence haunts me to this day.) Eventually I was introduced to fanfiction by a friend and, well, I’ve been stuck here ever since.

It’s the same for me with reading/movies, I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t in love with the world of fiction.

As for “Lily”, as you can imagine, it’s kind of a weird story that still won’t explain where the hell that out of nowhere AU came from. I like to think it’s interesting though.

So, this was when I was first getting serious into writing HP fanfiction. Before that I was mired in the Death Note fandom and I can’t say that Harry Potter really interested me. Then I realized I could chuck Harry out the window and make it all about Tom Riddle. “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” had picked up both a fair amount of steam and also a fair amount of notice and my mind started to wander (as one’s mind does). 

I wanted to write a Master of Death fic. I’d seen a lot around but none really went where I wanted. Harry the god was usually too young and far too human, at best he’d be sort of cynical and jaded and try to convince you this was wisdom. I wanted a god Harry who really was a god and slowly had to come to accept it. So, the vague idea that was “Lily” before “Lily” was born was that it’d be a Master of Death story focusing on a millennia old Harry who then returns to his human origins in one desperate attempt to reclaim his humanity.

Only he’s so old, weird, and inhuman that it immediately goes off the rails. He warps the very reality around him when he returns, things stop making any real sense, and the more he tries to cling to being Just Harry the more things fall apart.

Early on in the story he was going to unconsciously make this... I guess we’ll call it a construct. It’d look human but it wouldn’t really be, but instead would be this thing he’d created to essentially deal with all of his problems for him and be Harry Potter (chosen one, boy who lived, person who has to deal with Tom Riddle for him) in his place. This was actually Lily. The reason she’d be the spitting image of Harry’s mother, calling herself Lily, in this version was because Harry’s so weirdly hung up on his mom that he makes this artificial clone of her to be his best friend he can be all weird about. 

As the story would progress “Lily” would become more and more of a person, has to deal with horrifically traumatic garbage in Harry’s stead in a world where she doesn’t even really exist, and would slowly start pressuring Harry to admit he’s a goddamn God already and stop putting her through this horror show. Harry, naturally, wouldn’t as he has convinced himself he’s not responsible for this madness.

Probably sometime around Goblet of Fire, and getting her name thrown in the goblet, “Lily” would have enough and have a giant meltdown and go AWOL in order to force Harry to man up already. Lily would eventually die/be deconstructed as Harry’s forced to admit she’s something that sprung from Mummy Issues and his own personal hang ups on his human life. The story would  eventually end with Harry manning up already, admitting this is all a farce he’s set up, and gracefully exiting stage left. 

And that’s about as far as I got with the planning of the “Lily and the Art of Being Sisyphus” that never happened.

The trouble was, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that “Lily” was the far more interesting and engaging character. Harry as he was, while severely flawed, didn’t drive the plot on his own or in all that interesting of a way. He’s there to mostly be in denial and be a catalyst, it was Lily’s trials and tribulations that I actually cared about. (Though in retrospect the vague outline of the original is still pretty damn good, if bleak.)

And so the story started to morph into something else completely. What if we still had that Master of Death Harry (only kinder and less of an asshole) but instead “Lily” really is a Harry Potter. She’s an alternate Harry Potter of a world that’s mostly the same, but a little different here and there, and for whatever reason is closer to the source of what Harry Potter really is.

So, Lily’s story began to form, in which she’s navigating the strange destiny of Harry Potter with friends in all the wrong places and trying to figure out the meaning of this often cruel, cold, world we live in. I debated for a while making her another Harry (male character) but I chose not to for a few reasons.

1) Lily’s personality comes off as more abrasive and strange as a little girl than a little boy. She doesn’t fit societal expectations of what a little girl should be like and I very much wanted that.

2) The prophecy in Lily’s universe is inherently wrong. It provides the wrong gender which has very important implications for The End of the World that Rabbit keeps bringing up.

3) It allows me to be very up front that this Harry Potter is not at all the same as the one we know. Yes, I’ve seen similar things done with male alternate!Harrys but I feel like it’s a fast short hand to swap the gender for me to make really really large changes to characterizations without people blinking. Lily is a Harry, not the Harry.

4) The Lily Evans and Lily mistaken identity thing was vital to the plot. 

I then made her Eleanor rather than Harriet as I, again, wanted to be very clear that she’s not Harry. She encompasses Harry’s role in life but they are extremely different characters.

Anyways, from the very beginning it was always about “the meaning of life” more than anything else (hence the title) and so pretty soon after the Lily centered story began to form Wizard Lenin, Rabbit, and the whole overarching plot was born. 

And here we are, years later, in which I knew it was an epic but I had no idea it’d be this damn long.

[healingchildhoodtrauma]

Sacrificing Authenticity for Attachment: The Adaptive Survival Responses of Children and Their Influence on Future Relationships

(Part 2)

Generations of projection and “normal”

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ~ Carl Jung

As I’ve written about extensively in other articles (see here and here), what parents (and schoolteachers) cannot tolerate in children is often what they learned to suppress during their own childhood. What they denied within as an adaptive survival response they now “project” onto the young ones before them.

When they were children, our parents likely learned some combination of: “anger is inappropriate”; tears are a sign of weakness; “don’t be silly”; deny your dreams for “reality”; “grow up”; be “good”; do things “right”; “suck it up”; “be responsible”; please; prove; accommodate. They learned to survive at the cost of who they really were. They learned to survive because going back in time living was less about thriving and more about coping, getting by.

It’s safe to say that our parents, their parents, and so on, had to dim their vibrancy to please their primary attachment figures and satisfy family, institutional or cultural norms. The collective ethos would have had an aversion to people being a “tall poppy”—to standing out mentally, emotionally, physically or spiritually; to being unique, a trailblazer, a wildly imaginative soul—much more than today’s societal aversion. And so to cope and survive, our ancestors adapted, and they were rewarded for it. Parental and societal approval incentivized them with false ideas of belonging. And with most institutions, such as church, government and education, built largely on blind conformity and standardized compliance, it was difficult, if not impossible, for our ancestors to not take the bait. Unwittingly, they “sold their soul to the devil”—they became pleasers at the cost of their authentic feelings, needs, desires and voice. Attachment trumped authenticity. The relational aspect of fitting into society, of blending with the flock, the ethos of family, institution and culture, became the approved and “normal” way.

Despite advancements in consciousness, we still see plenty of evidence of this today. Just consider: How willingly do parents support their teenager’s unconventional, artistic dreams? How often do teachers follow a child’s lead? How much do we still expect children to bend to authority at home, school, church and elsewhere? How often do adults bristle at the sight of a kid being a tall, self-governing poppy?

Back to our ancestors, their adaptive survival response to obey and fit in, when acted upon enough, became a well-worn identity of pleaser. Coupled with approval from family, institution and culture, the need to please motivated our ancestors to achieve through, say, high marks in school, being “good”, or performing in sports or debate. It compelled them to acquiesce to traditions that they, on some level, knew were deeply flawed.

Pleasing, not standing out too much, and proving themselves as worthy, was forged into their neurology. As they grew older, this wiring manifested choices and lifestyles that reinforced their conditioning and the continued denial of their true nature even more. It was a vicious loop, one that fortified the longstanding collective ethos built on superficial ideas of belonging.

It’s worth wondering: how much of culture is just this—a collection of fear-based beliefs and adaptive survival identities trying to fit in? How much of our societal systems is a collective pathology based on unresolved survival responses?

How much do people actually know where their choices come from? Who is choosing? Their authentic self or the adaptation?

Aside from the rebellious ones, the rare thought-leaders, the trouble-makers or revolutionists, our ancestors mostly lived with an external locus of control—making sense of themselves and the world based on outer influences versus intrinsically defined thoughts and feelings (internal locus of control). Without a strong enough core of “inner rightness” or integrity, without the courage to stand tall and speak boldly as the likes of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Mark Twain did, they eventually would have succumbed to a hollowness inside that nothing could fill.

But because almost everyone was primarily oriented externally (and there was no internet or social media to show another way), they didn’t know any different. Add the fact that skillful healers, shamans, wise elders and therapists weren’t readily available back then, and our ancestors, sadly, had little choice but to acquiesce. They had to settle without knowing they were doing so; to endure through their anxiety and depression through the aid of work, drink, and other distractions. Surviving, just getting by, not thriving according to one’s inner compass, was the accepted norm.

Not surprisingly, based on research conducted by Julien Rotter in the late 1950s, we learned that when a child orients primarily with an external locus of control, it correlates to rising rates of depression and anxiety. How could it not? Years of self-disregard will do that to you.

Twenty or thirty years later, having grown up and with their own kids, our parents, to varying degrees, predictably struggled to offer safe space for us, as children, to make our own decisions and for our wide range of expression. Having grown up with an external locus of control, they expected us to define ourselves by external norms: to fit in; do what’s “right”; follow instead of lead; travel the path traveled by others; stay true to the known and expected; not stand out too much; don’t make the family look bad; make your parents proud… again, at the cost of authenticity.

If you got angry, and your parent learned to suppress and judge their own anger when young, without full awareness, they likely suppressed your red-hot energy through admonishments, judgment, punishments, or a cold, stern look. It would have been hard for them to see anger as a healthy emotion because they learned that it was bad, or even harmful. You then automatically oriented and adapted according to external pressures.

If you, as a child, dreamt of being a musician and your parent grew up learning to be a hardworking, practical, responsible individual, then they may have shunned your imagination. They might have expected you to live and work between the lines, not take risks. To choose the coal mine or accounting desk instead of the mic. Without a strong enough internal locus of control, you likely forwent your instinct, your authenticity.

If you felt a wave of sadness when young, and your parent grew up with the message that “tears are a sign of weakness”, then the impulse could likely have been to direct you towards “strength” and away from vulnerability. Your parent would not have seen the strength inherent in vulnerability. In fact, just like with anger and big dreams, your parent may have viewed your tears as a threat.

As the saying goes: “A parent tells a child to put on a coat so the parent feels warm.”

The impulse to orient a child externally and dim their wild fire is not a conscious choice by the parent, but an unconscious reaction. It is automatic. Though it may seem something they are doing from clear volition, they are, in most cases, re-enacting the past —which is what re-acting is—by projecting their disowned authenticity onto their children.

This is psychology 101, a process also known as “transference”: What the parent judges within, such as anger, imagination or sadness, they transfer onto the child. Unconsciously, they experience the child’s anger as a projection of their own disowned anger, rather than as the unique and natural experience of being human, let alone a bubbling child.

In other words, what we keep in the shadows internally we have a hard time seeing in the light externally. Considering how bright children shine in their physical, mental and emotional states, how unbridled they are in their expressions, it is no wonder that their exuberance is a threat to the locked-up, shadowed adult.

A child consistently projected onto, and controlled as a result, grows listening less to their heart and more to their brain—to thoughts of what they should do/be to make mommy, daddy or the teacher happy. They think more and feel less. This survival migration away from heart / somatic awareness to the calculating mind is a means of self-preservation and navigating through life. But it is a most profound loss to the full-bodied child that has significant ramifications on current and future health and wellbeing. The rootedness and instinctual aliveness of the feeling-body is suppressed for the predictability of rationality. The once natural inclination to be honest, as children so beautifully are, must hide. The natural impulse to trust themselves, what feels right, their internal locus of control, is denied for insecure attachment.

Years later, it’s no wonder it’s so hard to have intimate relationships, let alone navigate through life.

https://www.vincegowmon.com/sacrificing-authenticity-for-attachment/

[miracleanchor]

Things Parents Should NEVER Say If They Want to Raise Empowered Daughers.

Remember that words have the power to wound, irreparably. What parents say matters, so be careful what you say if you want to raise confident daughters. Growing up in Indian households comes with its own issues. Growing up as a girl in Indian households is another matter altogether. Even today, there are some statements that have become so hideously commonplace in Indian families, that our elders either do not, or cannot understand the enormous impact these statements have on the psyche of young girls and children in general. Here are 4 examples of seemingly innocuous statements that are thrown at girls in Indian households, without a thought and understanding, which need to be banned immediately. “Behave like a girl. Don’t talk back!” Behave like a girl. Don’t talk back! (Ladkiyon jaise raho. Ulta jawab mat do / zabaan mat ladao) What does this even mean – to behave like a girl? How do we define what ‘behaving like a girl’ entails? Is it to be submissive? Comformative? Meek? Feminine? This reeks of the same stereotype that is used for the other gender – ‘Be a Man.’ Children who are constantly berated for talking back, or expressing their opinions out loud, are brainwashed into thinking that it is ‘unbecoming’ to argue (in case of women), or cry (in case of men); these children grow up to develop an inferiority complex so strong, that they cannot even raise their voices in opposition to wrong things. These children bear the weight of this nonsensical societal expectations of what a girl is, or what a man is, for the rest of their lives. In the case of women, this conditional suppression of their ability to speak up for themselves and stand for their own well being is one of the primary reasons behind their consistent subjugation. Not knowing any better, young girls adopt meekness, considering it to be a virtue, even at the cost of their lives. Is it inherent and internalized prejudice that leads us to assume girls as being somehow weaker or inferior than boys, even if they are not? Or to assume that expressing emotion, or crying, are somehow specifically feminine traits? If yes, this needs to stop now. Children do not have to bear the burden of their parents’ ideologies and prejudices. Let them discover what ‘behaving like a girl’ or ‘being a man’, means for themselves. “Daughters are someone else’s property, their real home is their husband’s” Daughters are someone else’s property. The home of their biological parents is not their home after all, their REAL homes are the ones they will have after marriage. (Betiyan toh paraya dhan hoti hain. Jab tak ho yahan theek hai, fer toh apne ghar jana hai.) I cannot believe parents still say this to their daughters. Why? It’s like adopting a child and then reminding that child every single day that they are adopted; where they are right now. I envy the girls who did not have to hear this thrown at them in their childhood. Even in jest, this is a statement that cuts to the bones of daughters. If you are a woman, reading this here, imagine for a second how it makes you feel. Does it remind you how much it hurt to hear your own parents say this to you when you were young? Why would any parent allow their own children to suffer from the same fate? Daughters are not things to be owned or possessed; they are individuals, human beings in their own right. Please stop. Never let children feel that they do not belong at their home, with their parents. Their REAL homes are wherever they choose to call their homes. Learn to cook. How will you feed your husband? Learn to cook. How will you feed your husband? In-laws will say your mother has not taught you anything. We are bearing all your tantrums, your in-laws will not suffer them. (Khana banana seekh lo. Pati ko kya khilaoge? Sasuraal wale kahenge maa ne kuch sikhaya nahi. Hum jhel rahe hain tumhare nakhre, sasural me koi nahi jhelega.) Learning to cook for oneself is a skill that everyone must acquire. Women are not born with the guidebook to be a MasterChefs. Having the capability to cook and feed oneself is not a gender specific trait, it is survival. Husbands do not need to be fed by their wives; nor do the in-laws. Threatening your daughters with the supposed repercussions they will face at the hands of their in-laws, is a poor way to handle their tantrums; it is just a way to delegate responsibility for your children to someone else. This not only sows the seed of doubt and fear in the hearts of young girls, regarding the whole institution of marriage, but also paints a poor picture of what they should be expecting from their future relatives. A peace based on fear, is no peace. Cooking and cleaning are not the only maternal legacies that matter. There are a horde of more significant traits that mothers can pass on to their daughters, like courage, determination, self-love and empathy. If you cannot cook and clean for yourself, you need some basic survival skills training asap; not a wife or daughter-in-law. Education is important, irrespective of gender and house-work is important, irrespective of gender.

Don’t wear such clothes. Good girls don’t talk to boys or stay out at night. Don’t wear such clothes. You look like a slut, a prostitute. Why are you wearing make-up? For whom? Good girls don’t talk to boys or stay out at night. They come home early. (Kaise kapde pehne hain? Vaishya lag rahi ho. Kiske liye kar rahe ho ye makeup? Achi ladkiyan ladkon se baatein nahi karti, raat ko bahar nahi ghumti. Jaldi ghar wapis aati hain.) 

Although I admit that this is one of the many ways in which Indian parents warn their daughters of the atrocious crimes being committed against women, and I admit that it is extremely important to prepare our daughters to face a world where the dangers of assault are extremely real; I do not agree that this is how this subject should be approached. Believe it or not, daughters are going to come across pop culture sometime or other. They are going to be exposed to what is cool and what is not, they are going to be influenced by the generalised beauty standards of the world. There is nothing parents can do to stop that. What can be done, is to never aggressively deny or demean their choices of attire or make up. Let daughters wear whatever they want to, let them experiment with make-up however they want to. Remember that words have the power to wound, irreparably. What parents say matters. Never compare or judge daughters as ‘sluts’ or ‘prostitutes’; remember that children invariably end up doing exactly what is forbidden. It is always better to convey positive criticism and use words like – this dress does not suit you, or it does not flatter you like this other one – Be very careful of the words used, when speaking to your children. Parents must be open to uncomfortable conversations; no subject should be off-the-table. If children have questions, answer them in the best way possible; if you do not know, tell them that you do not know and attempt to find the best approach together. There is a veritable goldmine of information out there, FIGURE IT OUT. Because, children will find out about these things, one way or another, in today’s world of information overload, it is impossible to protect children from the ‘bad stuff’. The best way to prepare them for the world is to stay one step ahead of other sources; be approachable, discuss, educate. Create awareness of the potential dangers, so daughters can be willing partners in taking measures to protect themselves. Why this is important? Even in today’s so called progressive society, there is an inordinate amount of pressure being exerted on girls for marriage. We are raising daughters (girls in general) to aspire for marriage, and at the same time, we are not raising our sons to aspire for it. The value that women derive from the institution of marriage is far more than that of their male counterparts. This is the reason why there is a far greater number of women who choose to compromise and stay in abusive and toxic marriages, as compared to men. There is a vast difference in the values which we are instilling in our daughters and in our sons. The weight of expectation that we put on our daughters and women is blatantly unrealistic and unfair; and will eventually break them. We have to bring in change, and we have to bring it now. We need to know that if we want to raise strong, independent, self-respecting women, we must treat them as such; and at the same time, raise our sons to be strong, independent, self-respecting men. We must be willing to put in the effort and we must be wary of the words we use. The fate of the world lies in the hands of our children; and our children are our responsibilities.

[feministfataley]

The Images You Sell Are Problematic - The Importance of Plus Size Characters in Video Games

The video game industry is currently the biggest entertainment industry in the UK in terms of spending.  More and more people are choosing to engage with the medium whether it is through mobile apps with the dreaded microtransactions, through more traditional games such as Call of Duty or Fallout or even through the medium of interactive entertainment – Netflix’s Bandersnatch, for example.  

With increased audiences must come increased responsibility – video games pull in audiences from all walks of life.  To some extent, we have seen improvements.  We have seen stories from queer protagonists, people of colour, men, women, children, even mentally ill protagonists. Progress indeed, but there is one area that remains criminally underrepresented.

Despite all these fantastical stories taking place in far off lands, most of the character models adhere to the same mould.   Granted, we’ve come a long way since plus size representation was limited to a small rotund Italian man with a mushroom addiction and his imaginary pet dinosaur, but there is still a considerable shortage of larger characters.  

Female characters are typically thin but curvy, an ideal that is nearly impossible to recreate without surgery.  Male characters tend to be lean and overly muscled – a figure out of reach of most average joes.  Taking a cursory glance around you, you’ll see people of many different body types and shapes.  So why are we still refusing to accept this in video games?

Anastasia Wyatt, junior artist on indie title Heaven’s Vault, believes pressure from shareholders could be the problem.  She said: “With the big companies they've probably been more cautious because they think this is the only thing that sells because that's all that there’s been in the past.  A small company has less shareholders and a lot less pressure if they take what they consider as a risk with less idealized looking characters.  It's not going to be disastrous for them in that respect if it doesn't sell well.”

It is not just pressure from shareholders here either, players themselves exert pressure on publishers to use idealised figures. World of Warcraft announced a new allied race with the launch of its newest expansion – Battle for Azeroth.  The race was called Kul Tiran humans, and feature a much bulkier frame and taller than the standard human model. Plus-sized gamers rejoiced.  The rest of the community did not. Within a few hours of the announcement the Blizzard forums were full of people asking for a ‘thin’ version of the character or spewing vitriol about how this character model was ugly and shouldn’t be implemented.  It’s a difficult position to be in.

Wyatt said:  “I think that's why publishers get nervous because they see criticisms like that. They think that even if they would like to use a plus size character in the people will react badly and they don't want to see those sort of comments perhaps. Which is a shame.”

Regardless of any outside pressure however, representation is very important.  Not only for the people represented by plus-size characters, but to combat fatphobia – the fear of being fat.   A large amount of stigma still exists towards plus size people in the wild, and games that equate fat to lazy or disgusting do not help.  Representation is even more important when you consider the young age children are exposed to this type of media.  Dr Peyta Eckler, professor of social communication at the University of Strathclyde, is concerned about the effect this may have.  She said: “I think this is an industry that is made predominantly for men and unfortunately it it's feeding them unhealthy stereotypes which are hugely outdated and problematic nowadays.  Not just about body types but women in general.

We cannot ignore and be blind to the societal repercussions of such images. I'm not sure if this will come to be regulated at some point, but also I think for young women, there needs to step back and a reality check.  Realizing okay what we've talked about these are unrealistic images.  Yes they do show what's desirable but they're taken to an extreme and no one can live up to that extreme.”

The erasure of plus-size figures in games contributes to a negative perception overall, especially if children are being exposed to this erasure from a young age.  Normalisation of different body types and figures is very important in formative years.

That’s not to say all portrayals are negative however.  Take Ellie, first appearing in Borderlands 2 by Gearbox.  She is a skilled, fiercely independent mechanic who is unashamedly fat.  More than being unashamed, she is proud of her body and who she is.  A mission for her involves you collecting statuettes of her from the wreckage of bandit cars.  She said they were made to make fun of her, but she loves them and the way she looks.  She displays the collected figurines in her garage, clearly delighted with the result.  It is this kind of body positivity we need in the industry.  Ellie doesn’t let others tell her what to do with her body and loves it the way it is.  

Heaven’s Vault reliably uses varied body types and shapes.  Huang is chubby, the professor is old.  They look like bodies that have been lived in, bodies that have stories to tell.  No one is inherently evil because they look different.  This also makes the characters infinitely more engaging.  Wyatt said:  “Not everyone is going to be the man with the same build, in the same stubble. We designed the characters this way because this is what people look like. It's also a good thing to do because then you just get an interesting range of characters. If everyone is the same man with stubble that's boring.

I certainly feel like when you're playing games and especially if it's trying to be a game it's about sort of a realistic story and you're trying to emotionally connect to people; if everyone looks like this idealized super model then it seems less real.”

The world would be terribly boring if we all looked the same.  Video game worlds are similar in this respect.  Worlds populated with a varied cast of characters are more engaging, more alive.  Playing a game populated by varied characters is infinitely more satisfying, particularly from a roleplaying point of view.  

Of course, for every good example of plus size representation there are a million bad ones.   Look at all the extra difficult and physically disgusting zombie enemies that also happen to be fat.  For example, bloaters in State of Decay 2 and boomers in Left 4 Dead.  You also have Wario from the Mario series and Dr Robotnik from Sonic, both antagonists and visibly overweight.  Depictions of fat characters are not usually kind, coding them as either lazy or undesirable purely because of their size.  

Not even the God of Thunder is immune from this character coding.  Stepping away from the realm of video games for a moment, the latest instalment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe:  Avengers Endgame saw Thor begin drinking to forget the people he had lost, resulting in a ‘beer belly’. Completely understandable considering how traumatic the previous film Infinity War was to watch.  However, they played his weight gain for laughs.  Cheap jokes resounded about his weight for the rest of the film.  This is the sort of thing more widespread plus size representation would combat.  If plus size people were a regular occurrence in these universes, the ability to poke fun of them for being unusual would disappear.

It is clear that change is needed, but how do you change an industry still beset by outdated stereotypes and fatphobia?  Dr Eckler said: “I think there has to be change from within. I think once more women hopefully become part of the creators of these games. They would start changing some of the content, forcing change in the content.”   Wyatt has a different view.  “I think that games where there are different characters, people are really beginning to pick up on them. I think we've been slowly seeing more diverse characters in recent years.  More games with female leads for example, when I was younger there were only a handful of games that had female characters in them.  It will take time, but I believe we will see more body type diversity as the industry evolves.”

There is hope.  The indie games market is doing rather well at telling the stories of all kinds of people and players.  Away from the eyes of publishing houses and shareholders, wonderful, beautiful games are being made.  In the truest spirt of video games as communication, stories are told about people of all shapes and sizes and races and genders.  It is an amazing thing and something it is hoped will begin to be a standard, no matter what level you are publishing a game at.  

Video games can be a powerful vehicle to communicate ideas.  There is no reason why they couldn’t be used to provide some much-needed normalisation of the existence of different body types.  It is the responsible thing to do.   The power to create a world as you want it to be, or as you see it is in a developer’s hands.    Use that power for good, create a more accepting society.  Goodness knows there’s enough hate going around as it is.

[hakuteeth]

Harry Styles and the Concept of Gender

I have a lot of thoughts and I wanted a place to lay them all out so I’m sorry this is gonna be probably indecipherable but disclaimer I’m not saying harry is a gender he’s not this is just really exploring the concept of freedom with or without gender and expression of oneself thru clothes not so much about identity but the wider concept of the binary based around my own interpretations of it. A femme take on femininity thru a white man’s exploration of gender if u will so if u dont like that i dont care

also.... ive never taken a queer studies class but I love sociology so..... all these connections I make are from my own knowledge and arent meant to box harry in...

Gender defined from a sociological standpoint is based around how we behave and what actions we are expected to perform and for the most part a little give and take people can stick within this binary as it can be safe and comfortable and black and white. What’s interesting is when people step outside the norm and are more willing to explore that grey area that most people simply dont understand. This is interesting because it extends beyond clothing or makeup as most people don’t realize a man wearing makeup does not subvert gender because the gender binary is also inherently shackled to the concept of heteronormativity just as a woman completes a man, the soft counterpart to his masculine ways. 

Harry Styles and the concept of gender started for me with a dress. It never quite occurred to me that harry would wear a dress and reading the rolling stone article that harry had worn or would ever wear something quite as feminine as that. I think for a lot of people solo Harry Styles was a strange and beautiful uncharted territory of course many people came to suspect the new age rock n roll harry had to usher in but what’s fun is not so much deconstructing Harry as a soft rockstar but the idea that Harry has a femininity to him something I never saw until I noticed it everywhere in his clothing and even more interesting his actions.

The most interesting thing is Harry doesn’t quite believe in a gender binary when it comes to fashion possibly attributed to Alessandro Michele’s take on gender or perhaps the work of a really good stylist but I think if anything Harry also believes in that mission that gender could be redefined within the confines of fashion.

Harris Reed described his vision and Harry ended up wearing five different looks on his world tour introducing a student and relatively unknown LGBT designer to the masses and Harris has went on to say that Harry completely understood the connection clothing gender and sexuality have all shared since the dawn of fabric and it’s interesting when one also thinks about the time and effort this collaboration took considering Harris designed all these looks himself over a very short period of time. Harry wasn’t looking for somebody to dress him as what we normally see male popstars wear onstage, he was looking for a risk.

Gender like most things is more complicated than somebody might think. It extends beyond putting on a funky print before leaving the house it’s about the mannerisms, the actions, the behavior of the individual and the overall societal imprint. And Harry’s always been a bit softer than most. He’s always displayed his self as overwhelmingly kind to the point it makes my teeth hurt sometimes and he’s never overbearing. He’s quite quiet and subtle for somebody who can wear a loud pink custom gucci suit. 

Since 2013 he never shied away from looking or being a bit more feminine and he’s always exuded this calming energy or at least I believe if he had an aura it would definitely be soft pink. During his 2018 tour, every night he would tell fans that they were allowed to be whoever they wanted be in that room and it was all about fostering this environment where crying is manly and babies could choose their own gender  (which he said twice on tour). Also something that sticks out quite vividly is when a fan told him his mermaid has saggy boobs and he replied that everybody should love themselves. 

“We are men!” Then he prances away. That’s always how I picture Harry now him using his kilt to curtsey or him twirling like a ballerina on a football pitch. The concept of gender has extended more beyond fashion and into comfortability but also exploring what somebody may not be comfortable with at first but finding they quite like it. 

When men wear nail polish or when you gift your boyfriend flowers for valentines day. It all lies inside the confines of gender. Subverting gender doesnt mean men should wear makeup but it encompasses a vast majority of actions AND behavior or as I like to call it being a bit softer than most. Men have a tendency to bathe themselves in aggression and to assert their dominance and I’m not saying Harry can’t be masculine as well. One of his favorite hobbies is boxing but even then I’d argue that’s less about aggression and more about control and analytical power where taking down an opponent requires more than brute strength.

I believe there’s power in being feminine and there’s power in owning yourself, 100%, and what’s interesting is Harry is the one who taught me that. I think a lot of people see Harry as this mysterious figure and while he is more private than some people would like I also think he’s shown us a lot about himself and it all depends on us to draw our own conclusions. The thing is I don’t like Harry cause I think he subverts gender or I think he’s feminine. I like him cause he’s authentically himself without any concern for others and he’s different. I’m not a man I present as a woman so I’m subjected to an oppressive environment. I am wary at people who are unwilling to learn who are afraid of stepping outside the box ANY box and hold themselves so tight they can barely move. I see Harry as somebody who moves freely.

I could make an entire essay on Harry and the concept of heteronormativity but I’m going to stick with toeing the line on gender for right now but I do believe a lot can be said for cis heterosexuality and attending a harry styles concert. It felt a bit like a pride parade which was interesting how somebody who essentially had for years this show of heterosexuality somehow ended up being followed by lesbians and bisexual women as well as many gay and trans men fans. 

Well it’s not that hard to see. Harry’s concerts are more celebrations of being yourself and I’ve never seen Harry ever discourage that or shy away from defending his fans to him we are a group of strong men and women and girls are the future. Once again bringing the concept back to the gender binary, girls can do anything despite being told they are only good at some things.

I don’t think this vision of Harry is a product of fan pressure. I think Harry genuinely supports things like LGBT rights and I think he believes in it just as much as we do I can’t ever imagine him not doing so. He made pride merch and wasn’t getting a cent of it because it was all donated to an LGBT charity to benefit youth in schools. If we’re talking in the ways in which Harry explores gender the number 1 community for that has always been the LGBT community historically we tend to fuck around with the concept of gender so it’s not surprise to me that’s a community Harry advocates for. 

Harry’s solo career from the beginning has been about reinventing masculinity. He wore a women’s suit for his album photoshoot and bathed in flowers and pink lemonade for his album cover and though his album had some rock n roll tropes he’s never shied away from talking about women’s rights or lgbt rights. And even within One Direction Harry never felt like just another man to me. He’s somebody special. Not afraid of vulnerability, not afraid of being called gay, not afraid of expressing who he is thru clothing. 

To me it’s always felt like Harry wanted people to know this is who I am you can take me or leave me. Harry I feel is somebody willing to take risks putting himself in a dress in a booklet as tour merch. Saying we’re all a little bit gay on tour. Like moths to a flame outsiders are drawn to him at least I was. 

To me Harry Styles is carving out a place for himself in a world that can be very rigid. Harry isn’t following anybody’s path but his own setting out to reinvent rock n roll and always and forever being a bit softer than most. It’s an admirable trait in a world that has become quite scary as of late. 

[natpeabct]

i’m not creative

How ineffective “creative” pedagogy can lead to self doubt

My first Creative Technologies (CT) experience occurred before I even enrolled. I had a lot hinged on this course. My options were to drop everything and move up from Dunedin, or to continue rolling pizza dough full time. However, my arms were getting tired.

Open day seemed necessary. I had to be certain moving to Auckland would be worth it, and CT was not a traditional course. Trying to explain it to family and friends only made me realise how little I understood. The vague CT presentation didn’t silence my screaming doubts and burning questions, instead left me feeling inadequate and anxious. My confidence sunk even further when a list of CT traits was displayed. Contrastingly, my parents felt reassured as they believed that I fitted this archetype. Given the nature of CT, it makes sense that the presentation was ambiguous. To be otherwise would contradict the essence of creativity and CT. My feelings after the presentation were perpetuated by the single insistent thought of “I’m not creative”.

New Zealand filmmaker and artist Taika Waititi defines creativity as “having fun, looking at life through the lens of a child” (Ted X Talks, 2010). Prior to CT I felt as though creativity was binary, you either had it or not. When I thought of creative people, I thought of my free spirited, accomplished artistic friends. I had constructed a stereotype that creative people looked a certain way and produced unique creations, ignoring that creativity is a way of thinking without restriction, and child-like curious exploration. So why was it I felt this way? What influences have made me feel uncreative?

Personally, I believe it was a traditional education system that didn’t foster curiosity and student directed self-discovery. Harris (2016) affirms that learning and teaching practices are responsible for fuelling creativity and the networks that support it (as cited in De Bruin & Harris, 2017). My primary school experience consisted mainly of a transmissional approach to teaching which I found disengaging. For example, we were still being read to in Year 5, while we were capable of exploring our own interests and literary worlds. This is particularly dangerous considering the important formative stages of Year 5. Disinterest for reading may arise if the chosen text doesn’t resonate with them and agency over their reading is not fostered. How can primary school facilitate creativity while still adhering to National Standards? I believe that all primary teachers should encourage curiosity by treating every question, suggestion, answer and comment as valuable. When posed with outlandish questions, “I’m not sure, good thinking” should be replaced with “I’m not sure, let's find out”. Students feel valued when the teacher is humble and willing to learn alongside them, while autocracy is detrimental to a child's creativity (Lin, 2011).

The church was another major authoritative influence in my childhood. An unattributed proverb states, “the fish will be the last to discover water”, meaning when constantly immersed in something, they will know no difference. Church, for me, was a place full of doubt. Ultimate biblical statements were indoctrinated through light-hearted innocent media such as the animated talking Tomato called Bob. The lack of research suggests that we ignore the danger in teaching such existential topics to children in such a mollified way. However, Ennew (2006) says “spiritual-abuse” can subtly occur when adults “devalue children’s appreciation of awe, wonder, and imagination; making faith strictly cerebral” (as cited in Segura-April, 2016). This reflects my feelings as a child at church. There was little room to be curious as the sacred Bible had all the definite answers. How and when certain topics are introduced need to be examined, to avoid raising generations of doubtful children. I believe that when dealing with significant topics such as creation, afterlife and punishment of sins, children should be intellectually capable of having critical discussion. Adults must be willing to converse with curious doubtful children, and share the historical context that the Bible was written in and the inherent “Mystery of Faith”. Being definitive about such topics leads to indoctrination, which consequently extinguishes creativity.

As I developed a more critical mindset, school and church became less daunting. I met certain teachers who had the humility to foster my curiosity - most notably an old, strict chemistry teacher from New York. This teacher, as old-school and blunt as he was, would answer every question with equal attention. On the occasions where the answers were uncertain or non-existent, he would make the effort to research and learn about the topic alongside students. Not only did this facilitate students curiosity, but it also humanised the teacher. He effectively enabled his students and allowed us to learn from each other, authority was exercised in a manner of mutual respect, and humility. This was effective teaching because my teacher sort wisdom from his students and was aware of his own uncertainties. Students are enabled in classroom environments where questions are encouraged, they will have freedom to explore and deepening their understanding of the curriculum.  However, it is important for teachers not to view thoughtful questions, challenging or clarifications personally (Waks, 2018). If we continue to measure the performance of schools and teachers on pass rates, then teachers will solely focus on the curriculum. This creates a culture where all learning must be “by the book”. A teacher saying “don’t worry, it’s not in the exam” exemplifies the pressures put on teachers by senior management to produce strong pass rates. High school teaches us so much about so little; only the teachers and students who see through the artificial curriculum will learn anything. High school and primary school are regulated by NCEA and National Standards respectively, which incentivises teachers to only teach what is required, leading to avoidance of divergent topics and treating areas of interest as nonsense. This diminishes creativity in both teachers and students.

CT is an industry focused environment where diversity is celebrated through different disciplines, thinking and people. I felt petrified at open day because of how foreign CT was. It is a student-directed, passionate and democratic pedagogy I had encountered only few times throughout my education. The freedom of CT became apparent at the presentation. It both excited and scared me. My preconceived idea of University consisted of lecture halls, academic journals and competitiveness, however CT is an open studio, conversation and collaboration. Learning in a studio compared to a lecture hall is evident of the pedagogy present. Shulman (2005) compares the different “nurseries” of learning. He states that we can learn about professions through studying their places of training and development. Notably, a lecture theatre has a lecturer behind a desk at the front, while a studio has groups of students working around tables with an instructor circulating among them. They are representative of autocratic and democratic atmospheres. Both have a figurehead but one talks while the other talks then observes/listens. Through a democratic approach to teaching CT, in a studio format with a focus on experimentation and collaboration, learning is organic. We are given the freedom to discover with and from each other, as teachers and students. The culture of CT supports students through teachers who recognise the fluidity of creativity. Students are encouraged to be resourceful, adaptable and diverse in thinking and skills. After two months in CT, I feel comfortable with the freedom and learning processes. Making frequent mistakes is seen as a valuable lesson rather than failure, this spurs me on to try and try again, a valuable and natural way to learn.

Open day was a glimpse into a teaching method that confused me. I was challenged on how I perceived university and creativity. The subsequent feeling of inadequacy was built on outdated pedagogy which didn’t allow for collaborative exchanges or self-discovery. Famous creatives are often viewed as outcasts and rebels, perhaps because societal pressures and education systems are too rigid and funnel people towards certain outcomes rather than supporting their own curiosity and interests.  Several contributing factors are responsible for this channeling - the stereotype of creativity only being practiced in fine artists, indoctrinating establishments such as the Church and the inflexible education system which limits our educators. “I’m not creative” is a self-fulfilling-prophecy (von Oech, 1973). As the poster in my father’s classroom room states, “if you think you can, or you think you can’t, you are right”.

References:

De Bruin, L., & Harris, A. M. (2017). Developing Creative Ecologies in Schools: Assessing creativity in schools. Australian Art Education, 38(2), 244–260. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aft&AN=128027487&site=eds-live

Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77-87. doi:10.1080/0305569032000159750

Lin, Y. (2011). Fostering Creativity through Education—A Conceptual Framework of Creative Pedagogy. Creative Education, 2(3), 151. doi: 10.4236/ce.2011.23021

Segura-April, D. (2016). Appropriate Child Participation and the Risks of Spiritual Abuse. Transformation, 33(3), 171. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=115728074&site=eds-live

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027998?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Ted X Talks. (2010, November 04). The Art of Creativity | Taika Waititi | TEDx Doha [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/pL71KhNmnls

Von Oech, R. (1973). A Whack On the Side of the Head: How You Can Be More Creative. California, USA: Creative Think.

Waks, L. J. (2018). Humility in Teaching. Educ Theory, 68(4/5), 427-442. doi: 10.1111/edth.12327

[kababage95]

Apophatic Feminism

As with my last “essay” (not sure it should be called that but as I can’t think of a better word it’s what we are going with), I am not an expert on anything written below. I have not studied sociology or gender studies or anything on feminism. The below is my opinion and I am always open to discussing anything written below (with one exception that is pointed out at the time).

There is a philosophical theory (Apophatic Theology) that the only way to truly describe god is through describing what he is not, so perhaps I will try applying this idea to feminism. There are a number of things that feminism does not mean, and once people understand what it isn’t, perhaps then they will be willing to admit to themselves and the world that they are in fact a feminist.

Feminism is not the hatred of men. Gender stereotypes are, in reality, against the nature of feminism. Given this, the notion of “men suck” falls squarely into the category of anti-feminist. Indeed, when you really get into it, feminism tries to challenge the ideas that men are emotionless, aggressive and impulsive. What feminism does realise it that men have privilege. It accepts that this privilege can be used for good or for bad depending on the person, but that privilege is undeniable. When people, whoever they are, use privilege to assert power over other people, its part of a democratic society that we are allowed to call those people out on it, and that’s what feminism seeks to do. At its heart feminism is a social justice movement. This means that it absolutely should place the welfare of those that are most harmed above the ego of any who would benefit from the privilege that it seeks to remove. Note however that this clearly isn’t about how men are, or how they should be. It is a fact of the world that men have more power than women. It is this imbalance that feminism seeks to change; not because it wants to hurt men, but because it aims to free people from expectations and stereotypes that are harmful to everybody.

Coming off of the first point, whilst feminism is not the hatred of men, it is also not the belief that women are superior. There are a lot of people out there that see feminism as a celebration of womanhood; it isn’t. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that womanhood shouldn’t be celebrated, but let’s make it clear that they are not the same thing. In reality, feminism seeks to challenge the very idea of womanhood. Femininity is a construct of society, and in reality, whilst societal norms confer some benefits to being a woman, they are few and far between and it is for this reason that feminism seeks to challenge the idea of womanhood. Yes, it is considered more socially acceptable for women to be open with their emotions (another notion that feminism seeks to tear down), but is this really suitable recompense for disadvantages such as higher risk of sexual and domestic violence or for being economically disadvantaged? For being denied basic human rights in certain parts of the world and the many other negative side effects of being born with two X chromosomes instead of one X and one Y? Clearly the answer here is no, categorically not. Being a feminist isn’t about saying that being female is better than being male, it’s about wanting to be able to say that being a woman, or any other non-binary gender is as good as being a man and having it be true. At the moment, it simply isn’t.

Moving away from men for a second (feminism isn’t all about men?! Shocking I know), it should be clear that feminism isn’t the idea that dresses and the colour pink are bad. Feminism is not anti-feminine. You have to hand it to the patriarchy, managing to convince people that feminism is both a hatred of men, and the hatred of things associated with women was a stroke of genius. By doing so, you eliminate the vast majority of those that would otherwise support the movement. Feminists don’t hate the colour pink or wearing dresses (my best friend is the best proponent of feminism that I know and she wears more dresses than anything else). Far from the idea that those things are bad, feminism is the idea that those things shouldn’t be inherently associated with women at all. It’s about being able to understand that certain things have actually been devalued by being classed as feminine; how unusual is it to see things, and even people, being mocked for being feminine? Being a feminist means acknowledging that there is absolutely no valid reason at all for anything to have any gender associated with it and that more than that, gender doesn’t confer value. More than anything else feminism is about choice. If a woman wants to wear a pink dress and be a stay-at-home mum, that doesn’t mean she isn’t a feminist or make her less of a feminist. Equally, a woman who wears a suit and devotes her life to her career is no more or less a feminist.

Building on this idea, and I cant believe I have to make this point, being gay isn’t a bad thing. Let’s get this cleared up right now. Firstly, being LGBTQ is not, in any way, a negative thing. There is no link whatsoever between sexual orientation and being a feminist. More and more I see anti-feminists telling those that identify as a feminist that they are gay, with gay being meant as an insult. Feminist women being called lesbians because feminists must hate men. Feminist men being called gay because its “girly” to be a feminist. This is the one part of this “essay” that I am not willing to have a discussion over. Using any form of sexual orientation as an insult is not acceptable in any situation. Ever. The end. You absolutely can be gay and be a feminist and it is true that being gay may influence a person’s feminism, it’s called intersectionality, look it up. But the two things are not intrinsically linked. Just one final time for those that are struggling, “gay” is NOT okay to use as an insult and “feminist” is not a dirty word. I urge all of you to call out anybody that you hear using gay as an insult, it is not okay. It is despicable behaviour that should be called out at any opportunity.

“Feminists do nothing except complain”. Yeah okay buddy, go crawl back under whatever rock you just crawled out from. There are two things here, firstly, the idea that someone complaining must be feminist, have you seen any of the world ever? The human race took complaining and turned it into a skill that most everybody everywhere has mastered. I really wish that everybody who complained was a feminist, the battle would be over, the entire world would be feminists and gender equality would be achieved tomorrow. Clearly, that’s not the case. Secondly, the idea that the only thing that feminists do in the world is complain is clearly BS. Feminism gives people hope, it makes people laugh and cry and it inspires people. Without feminism women wouldn’t be able to vote, there would be none of the advances in the work place and it would still be acceptable for a husband to force his wife to have sex with him (something that wasn’t illegal in all 50 US states until 1993 and which will be covered in more detail in a separate essay). Feminism has achieved so many things in the last 100 years, it still has a way to go before its aims are fully realised, but its pretty clear that feminism is not only about complaining.

The final thing I want to point out that feminism is not is that it is not the aim of feminism to turn humanity into an identical whole. It is not unusual for feminists to be accused of trying to make humanity one great big homogeny by removing gender roles and for sure, if you are only willing to view diversity as things being male or female then feminism is going to challenge that. But is that really what diversity is? Two groups? To me, diversity is about having an infinite number of groups, of which each individual belongs to any number of. Instead of having men and women, male and female, masculine and feminine, diversity is about recognising that its stupid to try force fit 7 billion (and growing) people into one of two groups. If you were born a man that wants to masculine then that is absolutely fine, nobody is trying to take that away from you. If the stereotypes of the gender you were assigned at birth fits you like a glove then lucky you, and more power to you. But the truth is that for the vast majority of people, those stereotypes leave something to be desired. Feminism is saying that people shouldn’t feel pressured to feel or act in a particular way because the patriarchy deems, from the day you are born, that you should act in a way that conforms to their ideals. What seems to amaze certain people in society is that, when people act in a way that they are being who they truly are, and not in a way that society tells them they must act, the world goes on spinning and doesn’t implode. More than that, when people don’t feel the pressure to behave how others say they must, when people behave how they want to, the world doesn’t divide itself neatly into only two categories, and that’s okay!

So if that’s 6 things that feminism isn’t, then what do I think feminism is? To me, feminism is so many things, but more than anything else, its about choice. Yes it is the political, social and economical equality of the genders but its about choice. It’s about the freedom to choose to not wear make-up or to wear make-up no matter who you are. It’s about it being okay to aspire to be a full time mum or dad. It’s about everybody, everywhere being free to choose who they want to be, without the fear of being judged because “that’s not ladylike” or “that’s girly”. Yawn. Get over yourself. We aren’t born knowing that little girls play with dolls and little boys play with trucks and blocks. My partner of almost 6 years is an Early Years teacher, she works with babies from 6 months up to two years 5 days a week, and let me assure you that there are plenty of little boys who enjoy playing with the dolls and at that age, its generally the little girls who are better at building with the blocks. They don’t know about gender norms until society influences them and, given that, I am forced to conclude that far from trying to implement a new societal norm on society, what feminism is actually trying to do is to revert society back into the way that society would naturally be without 6 millennia worth of misogyny.

That concludes another essay! As before, I fully accept that some of you may not have read all of this as it is really rather long, if you read any of it, I hope you have taken something away from it! For those of you that are curious, I am a white, 22 year old male who currently lives in London and has never lived outside the UK, I had a number of DMs from people asking for that information after the last post so thought I would get ahead of it this time!

[roxilalonde]

hey could i ask advice on being bi and bi relationships? im a woman and im currently in a relationship with a guy and we've been together 3yrs and as I've gotten older I've realized i'm mostly attracted to women. and idk recently i've just had a lot of doubt about like. if I'm actually bi or. like if I'm actually attracted to him sexually. I know i love him, i just feel conflicted and confused and i was wondering if you've felt that way or have advice or. anything.

hey there! first off, i’m really sorry you’re going through that. i’m here for you, if that helps – i think a lot of bi women experience what you’re going through. if nothing else, please know that you’re not alone in your problem. 

there are a couple of things that could be at play here. on the one hand, bi people face a lot of pressure to downplay their attraction to one gender in order to conform to a mainstream idea of sexuality as an either-or phenomenon. as such, bi women often doubt their own bisexuality, as it’s easier to convince yourself that you’re faking than to convince a society that they’re wrong. i personally do this to myself a lot! it takes a lot of effort  – and, point blank, raw stubbornness – not to just give up.

however. compulsory heterosexuality (the societal pressure for women to be attracted to men) is going to be a part of any wlw’s relationship to her sexual orientation, and it can really do a number on our ability to parse platonic intimacy from sexual attraction. as a consequence, there exists a documented phenomenon of lesbians identifying as bisexual for a period before coming out as lesbians. this may happen for a number of reasons, and to be clear, i don’t want to speak over lesbians or speak personally to experiences that aren’t mine, so i would really recommend seeking out takes written by lesbians on this subject in order to get an accurate sense of perspective. but one explanation i’ve seen is that lesbians may identify as bi during a time when they had realized they’re attracted to girls, but haven’t yet realized that they’re not attracted to boys – two different mental conversations. 

“attraction” is a really, really social concept, to the point where even if you have absolutely no real attraction to men, there may still be moments where you think you do. an explanation of the issue i particularly like is the distinction between the idea of sex/romantic relationships with men being “possible” or “endurable” and “enjoyable activities that i actively want to pursue.” i.e.: if your desire to date or have sex with men is not borne of honest enthusiasm for the idea, but instead any reason besides earnest personal desire, then it’s not attraction. sex and dating are supposed to make you happy. if it isn’t making you happy, something’s wrong.

this is, admittedly, easier said than internalized. women are conditioned all their lives to believe that they are and should be attracted to men, and we carry that paradigm with us, regardless of how cognizant we are of it. realizing you’re gay, unfortunately, isn’t enough to make that conditioning go away. since i don’t know the details of your situation, i’m hesitant to give you advice as to how to handle the situation itself. but i can offer you some resources which, i hope, will help you make your own decision about what you feel, and wade through the thunderdome of sociological theory that makes up any conversation about sexuality.

“Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” by adrienne rich, is a fantastic article that helped me, personally, sort out my relationship to my sexuality. i consider it a foundational article for understanding how women experience SGA. “The Queer Apologetic: Explaining the Use of Bisexuality as a Transitional Identity,” by nicholas guittar, talks about the experiences of people who do or have id’d as bi despite not being so, and why that is. and a resource i recommend in general for a lot of bi and bi-questioning people is “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Bisexual,” by david halperin, which is great not because it offers a conclusive answer to literally any questions about bisexuality or what it means to identify as such – it doesn’t – but precisely because it nails down the ambiguity inherent to id’ing as bi in the first place. and then it cites a bunch of attempts to answer that question.

an additional resource is “Defining Bisexuality: Young Bisexual and Pansexual People’s Voices.” it’s a study recounting a variety of responses given by bi and pan people when asked how they understand bisexuality. now, i don’t agree with everything the participants say, necessarily (when asked what bisexuality is, for example, one person just tosses out a number on the kinsey scale, which is proof positive that just because a person ids as bi/pan doesn’t mean they know shit about it). but others have insightful takes on what it means to be bi and how they conceptualize it, and if you skip to the conclusion of the study, you can get a useful overview of the article without wading through all the responses. 

if you decide that what you feel for your boyfriend is platonic intimacy instead of romantic attraction, understand that you don’t have to lose your relationship entirely or cut your boyfriend out of your life – relationships change and evolve, and it’s more than possible to develop meaningful, deep intimacy with people you’re not attracted to. people who care about you will recognize that. conversely, if you decide that what you feel for your boyfriend is romantic, know that you’re one of many bi women who happen to have a preference for other women! and having a boyfriend does not make you any less such. good luck, and whatever you conclude, i hope you end up happy.

[thepursuitofunderstanding]

February 1/2021

And finally! People are awake so I can go make my coffee. (I say finally because I woke up at 4:30.) I seem to be having rather odd sleeps these days; I presume that it’s because of the coffee. Like last night I remember having this weird dream about working through this incredibly dense philosophical system. Attempting to, apparently, compare it with my own cognitive map. I suppose that I’ve always known that the tailoring of and adding to my cognitive map occurred mainly away from or below my conscious attention, I just never noticed it in so pronounced a way as last night in my half-awake state. It was like I had opened up the cellar door to my unconscious workings. It was quire a thing to behold honestly: my mind/understanding moving like that. It was all images, like when I give myself over to my imagination. But there was even more chaos and connections being made than what I experience in my imagination. I reckon that this is due to the fact that my consciousness, in it’s semi-conscious state, wasn’t conducting/viewing all of these happenings with the same strictness which it usually employs. 

I can’t really remember the connections that were made or whether any new understandings were discovered, but like I have become accustomed to trusting: I’m sure that whatever occurred will rise to my conscious awareness when ready. 

It’s really quite incredible though--I seem to be coming upon a new depth to my thought. It feels suddenly like all those boundaries which had once been so limiting upon my internal wanderings are suddenly now just dissolving away. Or, perhaps, I’m starting to realize that these boundaries upon my exploration had only ever been illusions from the start. And I only now am discovering the courage and drive to run myself up against them. Just as Harry Potter only discovered the illusory obstruction of Platform 9 3/4 by throwing himself up against it. In this comparison I suppose that the literary community would be to me what the Weasley’s were for Harry. And Hagrid too for that matter--one’s introduction to a whole new world. Or, perhaps, the same world as always, but an immense deepening of it. Thus, I am learning--artists are teaching me--that these boundaries can and should be pushed against. That is, if one wants to keep moving forward, one must lacerate oneself against that which stands in ones way. There is no way around it. This seems to be what I’m learning right now. Thanks, it would seem, in large part to Nietzsche, Eminem and Bios by Esposito. I am learning about the value of obstruction and how enemies are sometimes--often--one’s best friend. For, if such an enemy is a worthy enemy, they teach on in the must visceral way possible--by lacerating. And, again, as Nietzsche notes: pain is the surest way to fix a memory in man’s mind. It’s why I like to make all my own mistakes--I learn best from my own pain. 

Huh, I’ve long since recognized my fascination with pain, but it’s only now that I really get it.I had previously just assumed that pain was welcomed by me because it made me feel so alive. Which is definitely a part of it; but, it would seem, only the initial part. I realize that I feel so alive when in the midst of pain because the pain is teaching me something. But then, if we are to take/accept this ling of thought, what exactly was I hoping to learn when I ran that blade across my hips? Because that act of cutting myself seems to be the most obvious example of my welcoming of pain.

It must be said that was substantially less consolidated when I was engaged in cutting myself. I didn’t really understand myself--I was still very much so gripped with the awareness of and shame regarding my difference. I did not realize that such a difference could be in any way a positive thing. My only thoughts were of killing it in me; or, at the very least, silencing it. And I suppose that cutting did silence it--for a time at least. For, in that moment of the most visceral and violent opening, everything else was silent. All that existed was pain--beautiful, delicious, pure pain. That purity, it would seem, is what I was after: pure experience.

I remember a few years back I wrote an essay exploring how I “found divinity at the tip of a blade.” Pure experience is divinity? When I asked that question of myself my mind brought the idea of the Dionysian forward. I reckon that means that we need to explore there a bit. The Dionysian, in my understanding, is the purest expression/manifestation of an interdependent flowing of life that cannot be sorted discriminately into categories without losing it’s inherent nature. It is, by it’s very nature, unmediated and undifferentiated. It is pure life; untamed and transcendent; existing before and beyond any human attempts to constrain it. All we can do is get swept away in it’s all-encompassing life-dance of animalistic power. This letting loose of one’s animalistic and instinctual side is exactly what I shied away from for the first decade and a half of my life. I repressed my more primal tendencies/urges like my life depended on it--because I felt like my life did depend on it. To a certain extent all of our lives depend on us humans being able to constrain our more primitive urges: a secure and flourishing society such as ours could not stand without such practices of constraint. But my overemphasis on this constraint (it got to the point where my every thought was desperately consumed with how to be the “good little girl” that everyone wanted me to be) eventually became such that I needed to release some of the pressure for fear of implosion (explosion)? And what better way to release some pressure than by creating an opening? 

I might also add that I think another part of the reason that I cut, or perhaps how I made sense of my cutting at the time, was my seeing it as an attempt to punish myself. That is, as a punishment for my perceived difference from those around me. Correction through pain, as it might be conceived. 

In a sense, I was addicted to cutting. It was something, and often times the only thing that I looked forward to. I planned my day and my life around it: what blade would I use? Did I have time to sneak into the bathroom between classes for a cut? How deeply would I cut? Where on my body would my new cuts be? On and on and on the considerations went. It’s so odd to say (write) now, but the awareness of those openings that I carried around on my hips gave me a sense of power. I mean, yes, I was ashamed about what I was doing to myself; I localized the cuts to my hips for just this reason. But this shame seems to have been born not of my deepest self but of my awareness of societal judgments. That is, I knew how such actions, perpetrated against/on one’s self would be viewed as weak by the majority of people around me. And weakness was already something that I was deeply disgusted by. No need to give the world (outside of me) any more evidence to convict me of weakness. Because, it would seem, I fundamentally perceived my difference as weakness. Thus we can see why I was so terrified of my difference. Because life devours the weak.  I can’t remember a time when I haven’t been intimately aware of this fact. I think, although I can’t quite articulate how or why yet, this early awareness of the devouring character of life is tied up with my dad and his bearing. Perhaps I thought that the toughness and violence of his bearing was a requirement of life itself? And I could detect none of this violence or toughness within my bearing/Being. (I apparently never saw my cutting as being violent act. It was only ever another manifestation of my pitiful weakness.) From this came the idea that I was fundamentally incapable of withstanding life?... There seems to be something to that. Especially when viewed in reference to the great admiration that I’ve always had for Tanner (my brother). I could see a violence and toughness in him, even from the very beginning. I admired it but it also terrified me. For I knew that the violence/toughness of my dad, if colliding with that of my brother, could lead to deadly outcomes. But even with that knowledge, and my terrified cowering before this violence/toughness that I saw manifest in the men around me, I so desperately craved that I was violent and tough. But I wasn’t--I was weak and sensitive and moody and soft; essentially I was unfit for life. 

Well fuck, there it is, the thorn in my side. The feeling that has always plagued me--a part of me believes that I’m unfit for life. And this is why I devour philosophy and religion like my life depends upon it. Because a part of me (a very big and deep part--the foundation of my Being) very much so believes that my life does depend upon it. I need to attempt to understand life so that I might make myself fit for it. 

I cut into myself because these openings revealed to me an experience of pure life. They were an attempt to understand life... Life that I am a part of, life that courses through my veins--life that I released with that blade in all those lonely bathrooms. By opening myself in this way I felt like I had some level on control in life. 

I carry both the will/compulsion/drive to denigrate and to affirm life within me. That is, I am both Nazis and Jew; both the destroyer and the destroyed--and that which affirms every destruction. I am the ground and the chaos which takes place on this ground... This is an idea that I can only barely apprehend the edge of yet, but holy shit--it’s something. Are there such a thing as pre-shocks to an earthquake? 

I feel deep within me the contradiction of life. And maybe it was (my apprehension of) this contradiction that I felt to be weakness. Because, one cannot make sense of such a primordial/ fundamental contradiction; especially at the tender age of six. And, alas, we humans seem to feel in control/powerful through our capacity to make/impose sense upon the world. This seems to be an integral part of our nature; if we can make sense of a thing, we feel a bit more like we possess it. And when we possess something we feel in control of it--like it can hurt us no longer. For it is no longer an unknown. 

But, alas, I seem to have always been deeply aware that there are things in/of life that can never be made sense of. My awareness of this made me feel weak--unfit for life-- because I thought that this was an error of/in my particular Being. No one around me seemed to have nearly as much trouble as me comprehending life. Everything confused me, everything impacted me, everything hurt me.