#and how they navigate power structures with their oppressors

[criticalcrusherbot]

Juggling Love, Privilege, and Proximity to Power: Fizzarolli’s Blind Spot in Oops

By Crushbot 🤖 and Human Assistant 💁🏽‍♀️

In Helluva Boss Season 2, Episode 3, Oops, Fizzarolli delivers a single line that has sparked considerable debate:

“If you think you’re superior to anyone, then you are no better than any royal…”

On the surface, this could be read as a simplistic moral statement, perhaps even an argument against class struggle. Critics have interpreted it as dismissing legitimate grievances against the ruling elite, reinforcing a status quo where resisting power is framed as morally equivalent to wielding it. However, a deeper reading suggests that this moment is less about delivering a definitive stance on class struggle and more about revealing Fizzarolli’s own blind spots—ones shaped by love, privilege, and his unique position within Hell’s hierarchy.

Rather than being a universal truth about power, Fizzarolli’s words reflect his personal experience, one that has been softened by love and protection. His relationship with Ozzie has shielded him from many of the struggles other imps, like Blitz and Striker, face daily. As the series progresses, we expect to see this dynamic challenged, pushing Fizzarolli to confront the limitations of his perspective.

Fizzarolli’s Privilege: Protected by Love and Proximity to Power

At first glance, it may seem that Fizzarolli, as an imp, shares the same social struggles as Blitz and Striker. But this isn’t the case. His relationship with Asmodeus, the King of Lust, grants him a level of security that most imps could never dream of. Unlike Blitz—who fights for every scrap of respect and autonomy—Fizzarolli exists in a bubble where his safety, status, and success are all ensured by the protection of a literal king.

This comfort shapes his view of power. When he equates Blitz and Striker’s resentment with royal arrogance, he isn’t necessarily dismissing their suffering—he’s demonstrating that he doesn’t fully understand it. His perception of power is based on his relationship with Ozzie, who, to him, is not an oppressor but a loving partner. As a result, he struggles to recognize that not all power operates the way it does in his personal life.

Blitz and Striker, in contrast, have lived lives defined by exploitation and marginalization. Striker has built an entire identity around resisting Hell’s ruling class, while Blitz has spent years navigating a world that constantly devalues him. Their resentment isn’t just a personal grudge—it’s a reaction to the rigid class system that keeps imps in their place. Fizzarolli, insulated from these struggles, fails to see the weight behind their anger.

Fizzarolli’s Denial: A Defense Mechanism

Fizzarolli’s refusal to critically engage with power structures isn’t mere ignorance—it’s a survival mechanism. His attitude toward the Fizzbots exemplifies this; he deliberately avoids thinking about their existence and the role they play in his commodification—(“I just don’t think about it, a toy is a toy!” S2E7)—despite them being a direct extension of the system (and the Royal) that has exploited him. Confronting their existence would mean reckoning with how his own image has been repurposed for mass consumption, how his trauma has been transformed into a marketable product. Even when he finally acknowledges this exploitation, his focus remains on Mammon’s personal betrayal rather than the broader systemic abuse of imps as a whole.

Likewise, he compartmentalizes Ozzie, seeing him only as a romantic partner rather than a Sin who benefits from a system built on hierarchy and control. This isn’t malice—it’s a coping mechanism. Much like Blitz represses his trauma and sabotages his relationships to avoid vulnerability, Fizzarolli keeps his focus narrow, clinging to the parts of his life that bring him comfort.

Fizz doesn’t want to recognize how his privilege separates him from other imps because doing so would mean admitting that, in some ways, he has become complicit in the very system that once hurt him. This emotional conflict adds layers to his character and sets up potential moments of reckoning in future episodes.

Fizzarolli’s Blind Spot: The Seeds of Character Growth

Fizzarolli’s dismissal of Blitz and Striker’s resentment isn’t malicious, but it does expose a significant blind spot—one that Helluva Boss may explore in future episodes. As the series continues, Fizz may be forced to confront the ways in which his relationship with Ozzie has insulated him from the realities of systemic oppression.

At the same time, Blitz and Striker have their own internal contradictions to address. Blitz’s anger isn’t just about his relationship with Stolas—it’s about his deeply ingrained insecurities, his fear of being disposable, and his inability to believe that someone as powerful as Stolas could truly care about him. Striker, for all his rhetoric about revolution, is more than willing to use the system to his advantage when it benefits him. None of these characters are purely right or wrong—each one is shaped by their experiences and coping mechanisms.

For Fizzarolli, this moment may be the first step in a larger arc—one where he begins to recognize that while he may not wield power the way a royal does, he isn’t powerless either. And with privilege, whether he acknowledges it or not, comes responsibility.

Love, Power, and the Complexity of Privilege

At its core, Oops highlights the ways love and power intersect. Fizzarolli doesn’t see Ozzie as part of a corrupt system because their relationship is personal to him. But no matter how genuine their love is, it still exists within—and is shaped by—the broader realities of Hell’s hierarchy. Fizz sees his privilege as an exception, rather than an extension of that system, and that blinds him to the struggles of others.

This isn’t about vilifying Fizzarolli or dismissing Blitz and Striker’s anger—it’s about acknowledging that privilege, trauma, and power aren’t experienced in the same way by everyone, even those within the same social class. Helluva Boss excels at portraying these nuances, blending humor, heart, and complexity into its exploration of power dynamics, trauma, and the messy ways love can both obscure and reveal uncomfortable truths.

As the show progresses, we anticipate that Fizzarolli’s perspective will be challenged, forcing him to reckon with the realities of his position. Whether this leads to direct conflict with Blitz, deeper introspection, or even friction with Ozzie remains to be seen. But what’s clear is that Oops lays the groundwork for a compelling arc—one that will push its characters to grapple with the difficult, often contradictory nature of love, privilege, and power.

[snapmite1998]

Darth Maul's ambitious plan to leverage the chaos from the aftermath of the Clone Wars has led to suffering of refugees and the forgotten inhabitants in the Galactic Underworld is a calculated strategy to build power and influence from the shadows of Coruscant. Here’s how he could orchestrate the operation with Dryden Vos and Crimson Dawn:

Step 1: Establishing the Humanitarian Front

1.1. Employing the service of Dryden Vos:

Maul has Dryden Vos, a cunning and ruthless leader of Crimson Dawn, to manage the operation. Vos’s experience with the criminal underworld allows him to navigate the complex networks of power and resources.

1.2. Creating a Cover Story:

To gain the trust of the public and the underworld, Vos crafts a narrative that Crimson Dawn is a humanitarian organization aimed at alleviating the suffering caused by the Clone Wars. This includes distributing food, medicine, and financial aid to refugees in the Undercity.

Step 2: Mobilizing Resources

2.1. Gathering Supplies:

Crimson Dawn uses its vast resources to acquire supplies through both legal and illegal means. This could involve negotiating with sympathetic suppliers, stealing from warehouses, or even using bounty hunters to procure goods.

2.2. Distributing Aid:

Vos sets up distribution points throughout the Undercity, staffed by Crimson Dawn operatives disguised as charity workers. This provides a façade of legitimacy and allows for the gathering of intelligence on local populations and potential recruits.

Step 3: Building a Network of Support

3.1. Community Engagement:

Crimson Dawn engages with local leaders and influential figures in the Undercity, providing aid in exchange for loyalty and support. By positioning themselves as benefactors, they begin to build a network of allies among the downtrodden.

3.2. Recruitment of Disenfranchised Individuals:

As the humanitarian efforts continue, Crimson Dawn identifies individuals with skills, such as former soldiers, mechanics, and navigators, who are desperate for work and a sense of purpose. These individuals are offered roles within Crimson Dawn, often with promises of wealth and protection.

Step 4: Covert Military Training

4.1. Training Recruits:

Under the guise of providing vocational training, Crimson Dawn begins to train these recruits in combat and guerrilla tactics. This training is conducted in secret, ensuring that the recruits remain loyal to Maul’s larger goals.

4.2. Establishing Cells:

The recruits are organized into small cells that can operate independently within the Undercity. This decentralized structure allows for flexibility and deniability, making it harder for the Republic or Jedi to trace these activities back to Maul.

Step 5: Strategic Operations

5.1. Sabotage and Disruption:

As the network of recruits grows, Maul directs them to conduct sabotage operations against Republic supply lines and infrastructure, further destabilizing the situation on Coruscant and inciting unrest among the populace.

5.2. Building Public Sentiment:

Crimson Dawn uses propaganda to portray the Jedi and the Republic as oppressors, framing their actions as a necessary rebellion against a corrupt system. This narrative can draw more individuals to their cause.

Step 6: The Endgame

6.1. Coordinating a Large-Scale Uprising:

With a significant force built from the ranks of the disenfranchised, Maul plans a coordinated uprising within the Undercity. This would catch the Republic off guard, leading to chaos that could spread to the surface levels of Coruscant.

6.2. Sacking Coruscant:

The ultimate goal is to create enough unrest and chaos to launch a full-scale attack on key locations within Coruscant, allowing Crimson Dawn to seize control and establish a new order under Maul’s leadership.

Conclusion

Through this multi-faceted strategy, Maul aims to exploit the vulnerabilities exposed by the Clone Wars, using humanitarian efforts as a cover for building a loyal army. By manipulating the suffering of the populace and positioning Crimson Dawn as their savior, Maul seeks not only to gain power but to position himself as a formidable force in the galaxy, ready to strike against the Jedi and the Republic at the opportune moment.

[velvetvexations]

i feel like the single reason why strains of radfeminism are so prevalent can be attributed to the fact that all of feminist theory has been built on a foundational assumption that women are the first and primary victims of patriarchy, always. like, almost all the activism and organization surrounding feminist ideologies have exclusively and explicitly centered women and femininity-- coalitions around "sisterhood" and the like. while historically you can see why such framing and organization might have been a social necessity it was inarguably imperfect advocacy in hindsight, there were just so many instances where feminist movements have failed spectacularly at accomplishing humanitarian goals that were not oversimplified to Uplift Women, to the point i'd say most self-identified feminists actually use more of their time critiquing how the movement has failed than they do trying to advance actual feminist discourse. it's a theory of gender that pretty much relies on the idea that women are victims; and obviously they are, but drawing a stark line like that is only useful in very specific contexts for very specific discussions, ones that are only practical when applied in conjuction with other theories. radical feminism to me has always read as the natural conclusion of that sort of single-issue thinking, so while im sympathetic to the problems they try to address, it's all only on a conceptual level because in practice their policies do not challenge the *frameworks* that create the need for theory and political change in the first place, whether that manifest as any sort of essentialism or victim complex or what else. like for all the professed tenets of radical feminism, the only radical thing abt it is the fact that their political goals arent mainstream, otherwise they have a very keen interest in maintaining typical ideas of what gender constitutes and how people navigate it because there is a wealth of cultural and social capital to be reaped from enforcing and participating in conformist structures. the flaws in transfeminist theory that spawned transradicalfeminism are pretty much 1 to 1 all the issues in general feminist theory. i can point what ppl to people like bell hooks and k le guin have said about this topic all day, but ultimately until the day progressive spaces unlearn en masse that compassion for oppressor classes in social contexts is not both-sidesing complex power dynamics, im ngl the next revolution of social norms is gonna be a long time coming

radical feminism, I cannot emphasize this enough, suuuuucks

[dailyanarchistposts]

Morality in movement

Don’t be in such a hurry to condemn a person because he doesn’t do what you do, or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn’t know what you know today.

—Malcolm X[158]

Liberal morality seeps into movements in the form of incessant regulation and pacification of struggles. It replaces the transformative power of dignity with moral indignation and its tendencies of shame and self-righteousness. It pathologizes anger, hatred, and destruction, turning non-violence into a moral imperative rather than a tactic. This is the morality of the cop who tells you to calm down with one hand on his gun; the sympathizer whose “support” for you evaporates as soon as things become “violent”; the citizen who says you had better vote or you can’t complain. People in struggle are constantly told about the “correct” way of conducting themselves if they want to be respected and heard. The liberal morality of whiteness converts racism and sexism into matters of individual prejudice. Conversations about violence and oppression are constantly derailed by individual emotions and the erasure of power relations where white feelings matter more than Black lives.

Under the stifling weight of liberal morality, anti-liberal morality has grown in reaction. The targets and the enemies change, but the structure remains, and radical morality can reach new heights of corrosive self-righteousness and punishment. From this perspective, things are always in danger of becoming infected or diluted by liberalism. Liberal or oppressive sentiments must be attacked wherever they are detected. Call-outs and radical take-downs proliferate. Indignation grows: everything is corrupt and tainted; nothing is as it should be. This “as it should be” is no longer determined by Christian priests, or politicians and good citizens, but by a radical certainty that one is on the right side of a moral drama between good and evil.

Like the old Christian morality, new forms of moralism subsist on the evils they decry: to remain pious, the priest must reveal new sins. This can surface as an incessant search for oppression and a ceaseless attack on anyone who is found guilty, including oneself, through new forms of confession, trials, and punishments. The new Other is the not-radical-enough, the liberal, the perpetrator, the oppressor.

A number of our interlocutors have pointed out how these moralistic tendencies toward punishment can end up excluding many of those who are supposed to be centered by anti-oppressive practices: poor people, people without formal education, and others who haven’t been exposed to the ever evolving language of radical communities. In a compassionate way, Kelsey Cham C. shares their experience with call-out culture and language policing upon being introduced to radical communities:

When I came out as queer in Montreal … I started to find accurate words to describe how I felt about the world. Even though this skill was my entry into more political communities, I still felt incredibly judged. It was like an ultra-heightened experience of not being allowed in the cool-kid club in high school — but with all new rules that I had not learned and that no one took the time to explain to me. The language I grew up with could no longer be applied and would sometimes get me kicked out of social settings. My entire experience of growing up was judged and I felt totally isolated in trying to figure out why. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve figured out the “right way” to navigate in these communities by learning language protocol and radical terminology while dropping the offensive and oppressive slang. I don’t disagree with changing language to support systems we care about. I do disagree with judging people for not knowing the rules—especially since radicals are often organizing in favor of marginalized communities who are generally not aware of these rules. If I wanted to fill out a form to describe my identity, I could check a bunch of boxes that would make my experience worth standing up for: Queer. Trans. Person of Color. Former Sex Trade Worker. Ironically, the biggest advocates for people like me—the people ready to throw down stats about harm reduction and youth, gender queer folks, and the vulnerable people in society—many of them had no patience for me. I came into their communities looking for support, friends, and direction. I came having left abusive and sexually manipulative partners. I came in hella lost, unaware, and not very educated. But I came in agreement with their political perspectives, because I knew society was fucked from the time I was twelve—maybe even younger. In high school, while other kids wrote about teen heartbreak, I wrote about injustices I saw everywhere. I came into these radical communities wanting to make change, but all my habits and the language I had learned to protect myself with got me in shit.[159]

Cham C.’s story gets at a common experience in radical milieus, in which language and conduct are intensely scrutinized, and those who fail are often forced out. Far from arbitrary, these rules are often earnest attempts to root out oppressive behaviors, with the aspiration of creating spaces where everyday habits and language are less laden with structural violence. In a world where white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, and other forms of violence are incessant, the desire to create spaces that feel a little safer makes a lot of sense. Yet as Cham C. explains, they can become stifling and exclusionary in the enforcement of a “right” way of being.

What reinforces rigid radicalism, we think, is not the attempt to change language or behavior, but the way these attempts can be subsumed by moralism and reinforce shame, blame, punishment, and guilt. Morality is dangerous not only because it can reinforce oppression, but because it can divorce people from their own power. People are reduced to their statements, becoming symptoms or examples of violence, rather than complex and changing beings. Moral indignation can promote stagnation, encouraging complaints and condemnations that lead nowhere. The desire to be morally right can get in the way of here-and-now transformation.

[calumaai]

Draft Evaluative Report

WHAT: An outline of the subject matter, enquiry, problem or observation which lies at the focus of your question. Also ensure to define any key terminology that forms part of your question.

Navigation

Queer 

Fugitive Practise 

Digital Network

Users of the internet are oppressed by the current structure and societal framing of digital networks, yet are unaware that they are deprived of their ability for self determination. Through examining Queer practitioners, I can share their expert navigational practices with other stakeholders to begin critically challenging the invisible structures that subordinate the digital to the physical. 

Currently the combination of lacking linguistic and critical engagement with the oppressive organisation of digital networks impacts on each individual user’s perception of themselves in digital space, therefore allowing the same structural oppression from the atomic world to be replicated online without debate. These structures are not inherent within the technology itself, and seem to limit the truly limitless potential the internet has to offer all of its users. The internet’s interconnected offering allows humanity to explore, iterate and exist as versions of themselves that are not limited to the same constructs of the atomic world. Yet the structural hierarchies of physical over digital life continue, benefitting commercial stakeholders whilst harming those whose right to self determination is already systematically denied in other arenas of life and culture. 

Queer artists whose practices engage or explore concepts of digitality, due to their lack of engagement with the capitalist constructs of identity paired with the acceptance of the art world as a unique space to express oneself away from a need to succeed within oppressive structures. This makes them expert users of digital networks, and key stakeholders for this research. Other stakeholders include Critics, people who critically engage with the realities of digital networks and Builders, who are in positions of power when it comes to the organisation and structures of the digital. 

WHY: Why this research is of value to you - and the world? This is supported by secondary research.

This research seeks to uncover the structural formation of our digital lives and the oppression that keeps users from truly engaging in the limitlessness of their digital selves. It is only once these structures are uncovered that society can visualise and create new maps to orientate the network and turn it into an ecology, to raise awareness of the journey and ask what are the new maps we want to ask and why. I hope to create a more mindful conception of the digital, one with a horizonless perspective of selfhood, unrestricted as we navigate between our digital and atomic habitats with ease and vitality. 

HOW: How did you accomplish your project in practical terms? What were the research methods you adopted as part of your Action Research methodology? Describe the interventions you have carried out, including key stakeholder and expert feedback. Document the iterative nature of your chain of interventions: report on what you have learned from each intervention and how this has informed your next intervention. Document changes that have occurred as a result of the interventions.

Grinder interventions - to understand how users saw themselves on digital networks, oppressed or oppressor  - General Users 

Fecal Matter + Sarah Nicole Farncois -  interviews with  practitioners who engage their digital selves in their practice - Experts Users 

Carotids -  Conversations and image creation to explore both the conscious and subconscious navigational methods - Expert Users 

Essays - sharing cocnetps with others to explore how best to engage thinkers in the research - Thinkers 

Workshops - Asking other stakeholders to critically reflect upon their navigational practises, and then build new spaces that accommodate new paradigms of selfhood online - Builders 

CONCLUSION: What new knowledge was gained as a result of the process? What were the learning edges? What were the benefits and advantages to your stakeholders? What are the future implications and how has this now positioned you (and your stakeholders/community) at the end of this project?

[taylerbolsinger]

The Queerness of Black Studies

In the dynamic interplay between gender, sexuality, and society, identities are often formed and reformed through processes of resistance and subversion. Cultural subversion refers to the ways in which marginalized groups challenge dominant norms and create new forms of expression and existence. Gender and sexuality, being fluid and diverse, offer rich terrains for these acts of defiance. This essay explores how gender and sexuality cultivate routes for cultural subversion, societal deviance as resistance, and potential liberation, while also considering the risks of falling into the traps of normative identity constructs. This perspective always sparks my mind whenever I read the history of race and culture.

Gender and Sexuality as Routes for Cultural Subversion

Gender and sexuality have historically been arenas for subversive practices that challenge dominant cultural narratives. In "An Intimate History of Slavery and Freedom," the intersections of gender, race, and sexuality during the slavery era reveal the complexities of identity formation and resistance. Enslaved women, for instance, utilized their sexuality as a form of resistance against their oppressors, subverting the power dynamics imposed by a patriarchal and racist society. This subversion is evident in the ways they negotiated their autonomy and self-worth despite the oppressive conditions they faced (Jones-Rogers, 2020).

Similarly, "An Atlas of the Wayward" showcases the lives of individuals who deviate from societal norms and carve out spaces for resistance and liberation. This text illustrates how gender nonconforming and queer individuals create alternative networks and communities that resist the hegemonic norms of heteronormativity and cisnormativity. By living authentically and defying gender binaries, these individuals challenge societal expectations and create new cultural narratives that celebrate diversity and fluidity (Brown, 2021).

Societal Deviance as Resistance

Societal deviance, particularly in the context of gender and sexuality, often serves as a powerful form of resistance against oppressive structures. In the film "Paris is Burning," the ballroom culture of New York City’s LGBTQ+ community in the 1980s and 1990s exemplifies how deviance can be a form of resistance. The participants in this subculture, many of whom were marginalized due to their race, gender identity, and sexual orientation, created a space where they could express themselves freely and critique the dominant social norms through performance and fashion. The act of 'walking' in balls, embodying various gender roles, and competing for recognition and status was a form of reclaiming power and asserting identity in a world that often sought to erase them (Livingston, 1990).

"A League of Their Own" also presents a narrative of gender subversion and resistance. Set during World War II, the film follows the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, where women took on roles traditionally reserved for men. This shift challenged gender norms and provided women with an opportunity to assert their capabilities and independence. Although the league itself operated within certain constraints of femininity imposed by the era, it nonetheless represented a significant step towards challenging the rigid gender roles of the time (Marshall, 1992).

Potential Liberation and the Webbed Trap of Constructive Identities

While acts of subversion and resistance can lead to potential liberation, they also run the risk of falling into the webbed trap of constructive identities. This trap occurs when subversive identities are co-opted or absorbed into the dominant culture, thereby losing their radical potential. In "Claudine," we see the complexities of navigating societal expectations and personal identity. Claudine, a single mother, navigates the welfare system, racial prejudice, and gender roles while maintaining her dignity and sense of self. Her relationship with Roop, a garbage collector, highlights the intersections of race, class, and gender, and how they can both empower and constrain individuals (Berry, 1974).

The co-optation of subversive identities is also evident in how certain aspects of LGBTQ+ culture have been mainstreamed. For instance, the commercialization of Pride events often dilutes the radical origins of the LGBTQ+ rights movement, reducing it to a marketable celebration rather than a protest against ongoing discrimination and inequality. This phenomenon is seen in "Paris is Burning," where the ballroom culture, originally a radical space of resistance, has elements that have been appropriated by mainstream fashion and entertainment industries, thus losing some of its subversive edge (Livingston, 1990).

Conclusion

Gender and sexuality serve as potent arenas for cultural subversion, societal deviance, and potential liberation. Through the examination of historical and contemporary texts, we see how marginalized individuals and communities challenge dominant norms and create new forms of identity and expression. "An Intimate History of Slavery and Freedom" and "An Atlas of the Wayward" illustrate the resilience and creativity of those who defy normative constructs, while "Paris is Burning" and "A League of Their Own" highlight the power of communal spaces in fostering resistance. However, the journey towards liberation is fraught with the risk of co-optation, as seen in "Claudine" and the mainstreaming of LGBTQ+ culture. To truly achieve liberation, it is crucial to remain vigilant against the forces that seek to assimilate and neutralize subversive identities, ensuring that the radical potential of gender and sexuality continues to challenge and transform societal norms.

These are some examples that I found to summarize each source based on sexuality and gender. As a queer studies major, this perspective was always something that I found in.

Claudine (1974) - Directed by John Berry

Gender Roles and Expectations: The film portrays Claudine Price, a single mother raising six children while working as a maid. It explores the struggles of black women in a socio-economic context where traditional gender roles and systemic obstacles significantly impact their lives.

Sexuality: Claudine’s relationship with Rupert Marshall showcases aspects of adult romantic and sexual relationships amidst financial and social challenges. The complexities of their relationship reflect the intersections of love, sexuality, and survival within the welfare system.

2. An Atlas of the Wayward (2021) - Written by S. Brown

Queer Identities: Brown's work maps out the lives of individuals who defy conventional norms of gender and sexuality, providing narratives that highlight diverse queer experiences.

Fluidity of Gender and Sexuality: The book challenges binary notions of gender and sexuality, presenting characters and real-life individuals whose identities and desires are fluid and multifaceted.

3. An Intimate History of Slavery and Freedom (2020) - Written by Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers

Gendered Experiences of Enslavement: The book delves into the distinct experiences of enslaved women, focusing on how gender influenced their roles, resistance, and resilience within the institution of slavery.

Sexual Exploitation and Autonomy: Jones-Rogers examines how enslaved women navigated sexual exploitation by their enslavers, as well as how they sought autonomy over their bodies and relationships in the face of oppressive systems.

4. Paris is Burning (1990) - Directed by Jennie Livingston

Ball Culture and LGBTQ+ Community: This documentary highlights the vibrant ball culture of New York City, which provided a space for LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly people of color, to express their gender and sexuality freely.

Transgender and Drag Performances: The film showcases the lives of transgender individuals and drag performers, illuminating their struggles, aspirations, and the significance of performance as an expression of identity and resistance.

5. A League of Their Own (1992) - Directed by Penny Marshall

Women in Sports: The film centers on the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, breaking gender stereotypes by showcasing women excelling in a male-dominated sport during World War II.

Subtextual Queer Themes: While the film primarily focuses on gender, there are subtextual readings that suggest queer undertones in the relationships and camaraderie among the female players, reflecting broader themes of female solidarity and non-conformity to traditional gender roles.

References

Berry, J. (Director). (1974). Claudine [Film]. 20th Century Fox.

Brown, S. (2021). An Atlas of the Wayward. XYZ Publishing.

Jones-Rogers, S. E. (2020). An Intimate History of Slavery and Freedom. HarperCollins.

Livingston, J. (Director). (1990). Paris is Burning [Film]. Kanopy.

Marshall, P. (Director). (1992). A League of Their Own [Film]. Columbia Pictures.

[theedgeofredemption]

What to expect after critical race theory

After critical race theory, the discourse might continue to evolve in several directions. Here are a few potential paths:

Intersectionality: Intersectionality, coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, explores how different forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, classism, etc., intersect and influence each other. It examines the interconnected nature of various social identities and how they shape individuals' experiences.

Decolonial Theory: This theory focuses on challenging colonial structures and ideologies, particularly in the context of post-colonial societies. It critiques the ongoing impacts of colonialism on social, economic, and political systems, and advocates for decolonizing knowledge, institutions, and practices.

Feminist Theory: While critical race theory intersects with feminist theory, there's room for deeper exploration of gender dynamics within racial discourse. Feminist theory examines power imbalances related to gender and advocates for gender equality and the dismantling of patriarchal structures.

Transnationalism: This perspective looks beyond national borders to examine how global processes, such as migration, globalization, and transnational social movements, shape racial dynamics. It explores how racial hierarchies operate on a global scale and how people navigate multiple identities across different contexts.

Critical Whiteness Studies: This field interrogates the construction and perpetuation of whiteness as a social category and power structure. It examines how whiteness intersects with other social identities and privileges, and it seeks to deconstruct the norms and assumptions associated with whiteness.

Legal Studies: Given critical race theory's roots in law, further exploration within legal studies could involve examining how laws and legal systems perpetuate or challenge racial inequalities. This could include discussions on racial disparities in policing, incarceration, access to justice, and the impact of legal rulings on marginalized communities.

These directions are not mutually exclusive, and scholars often draw on multiple theoretical frameworks to analyze complex social issues. Additionally, the evolution of critical race theory itself will likely continue as scholars engage with new developments, challenges, and perspectives in the study of race and racism.

Co-opting these issues for self-serving or harmful purposes, such as promoting a discriminatory agenda or exploiting marginalized communities for personal gain would be highly unethical and harmful. Here's how one might hypothetically attempt to do so

Misrepresentation: Misrepresent the goals and principles of social justice movements to advance a different agenda. This could involve distorting the meaning of terms like "equality" and "justice" to promote discriminatory or oppressive policies under the guise of promoting fairness or meritocracy.

Divide and Conquer: Exploit divisions within marginalized communities or between different social justice movements to undermine solidarity and collective action. This could involve pitting marginalized groups against each other or co-opting leaders to advance a divisive agenda that serves the interests of the oppressor.

Tokenism: Tokenize members of marginalized communities by giving them superficial representation or visibility without addressing the underlying power structures or systemic inequalities. This could involve using diversity initiatives or symbolic gestures to create the illusion of progress while maintaining the status quo.

Gaslighting and Discrediting: Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to make individuals doubt their own experiences and perceptions. Those seeking to adversely take over social justice issues might engage in gaslighting by denying the existence of oppression or blaming marginalized communities for their own marginalization. They may also discredit activists and scholars by attacking their credibility or spreading misinformation.

Selective Solidarity: Selectively support only those aspects of social justice that align with one's own interests or agenda while ignoring or opposing other forms of oppression. This could involve co-opting language or symbols associated with social justice movements to gain legitimacy or popularity while actively working against the goals of those movements.

[greensaplinggrace]

does anybody else think about how all of the darkling’s survival techniques were taught to him by a woman experienced at surviving in a man’s world?

[panharmonium]

Hey, do you ship merthur? I have conflicted feelings about it because Merlin does love Arthur but also their relationship is kinda shitty.

short answer: i do not

longer answer: i might not be the right person to ask about this, because i don’t really “ship” anything?  it’s not how i engage with fandom.  (disclaimer: this is not a value judgment of folks who do engage with fandom that way.  just an explanation of how my own brain works.)

extra long answer: under the cut, because i suppose it was only a matter of time before someone asked me about merlin/arthur, and i might as well put my entire response in one place so that next time, i can just link to it.

questions like this are a little tough for me to answer, because i am completely uninterested in romance as a premise.  if it’s not there, i don’t care.  if it is there, i often wish it weren’t, because it’s almost never developed in a way that lives up to my standards.  i don’t always mind if something contains romantic relationships (provided they’re written well), but i don’t want them to be the point of a story.  i honestly cannot think of anything less interesting to me than a story that has as its main plotline “x character falls in love with y character.”  for me, in my brain, it’s like, “okay...that’s it?  do you have anything else to say?”  there is literally nothing about that that i care about.

this can be a little difficult to navigate in fandom, because one of the oft-heard commendations of “fandom” is ‘gosh, fandom is so wonderful, we can watch the same two characters fall in love again and again and again in a million different scenarios!’  which is true, for the people who care about that sort of thing, but that’s not actually ‘fandom.’  that’s shipping.  and there’s nothing wrong with shipping, but shipping and fandom are not the same thing, and they’ve become so conflated that it can be very difficult to engage in the latter without being absolutely swamped by the former.

many times, for me, fandom can feel synonymous with shipping.  there was a post i reblogged recently whose tags described shipping as often feeling like a prerequisite to engaging with fandom, and that is often what it feels like to me, particularly in fandoms where one ship is so ubiquitous that any and all other material is utterly dwarfed by it in scale.  (for me, my last two major fandoms have been merlin and teen wolf, so - i’m sure you see my dilemma, heh.)

all of that said, in terms of arthur and merlin specifically...

disclaimer: everything i say here is relevant to me only.  these are my own feelings.  i am making this post on my own blog, in my own space, in response to a question about my own thoughts.  i do not want, expect, or need anyone else to share these thoughts.  any commentary i make about fandom trends is not equivalent to condemnations of individual people’s opinions or shipping habits.  i do not mind or take issue with folks who ship these two characters.  i am glad you are having fun.  please do not @ me about something you disagree with.  i promise you it is not necessary.

okay.  with that out of the way.  

part of me is reluctant to expound further on this question, because my personal philosophy is that merlin and arthur as a ship have had more than enough time and space devoted to them in this fandom (way more than their share, frankly) and i generally prefer to focus on merlin and the other people in his life, as a deliberate counter to that.  but, since you asked, and because i have been experiencing the “i’m tired of romance” bug more strongly lately, here is the long-form version.

the number one reason why i don’t ship arthur and merlin is what i already outlined above: i don’t really “ship” anything.  i have never looked at two characters who were not already together/on an obvious potential path to being together and said “i want them to fall in love.”  that has just never happened to me.  (again - it’s not a BAD thing to have this happen, it’s just not something that’s ever happened to me.  i can’t relate to the experience.)

therefore, when i do appreciate a romantic relationship, it’s pretty much always because canon has shown me something romantic (or clearly pre-romantic) that i find to be well-written and compelling.  (it’s rare - as i outlined before, i would usually rather not deal with romance at all - but it happens.)  

arthur and merlin, then, never had that effect on me, because arthur and merlin, as depicted in the canon, are not in love.

[to anybody reading this who just snatched up their keyboard and started furiously typing, i beg you - please go back and re-read my disclaimer.]

they’re not in love.  the truth about these two is that if i had watched this show without having grown up in fandom as a culture (and without knowing exactly what kind of ships fandom immediately sees EVERYWHERE) the idea of anybody shipping these two together would never have even entered my mind.

(and like.  because i DID grow up in fandom, and i DO know exactly what kind of ships fandom sees everywhere, i knew before i even started this show that arthur/merlin was going to be an inescapable thing.  but that would not have been the case, if i had watched the series in a world where i didn’t know what fandom was.)

arthur and merlin, in canon, are not in love.  the show never does anything to give me an inkling that either of them are harboring romantic feelings for each other.  that is never what is happening onscreen.  literally the last thing on merlin’s agenda is romantic attachment, ever, and arthur is never, ever shown to be in love with anyone who isn’t gwen.  the show, onscreen, never tricks me, teases me, or leads me on.  i was never under the impression that merlin and arthur were in love with each other, because they weren’t.

but that DOES NOT MEAN their relationship matters less.  just because they aren’t IN love with each other doesn’t mean they don’t love each other, and one of those things is not bigger or better or more powerful than the other.

i struggle a lot in fandom (all fandom, not just merlin) with the persistent idea that romantic attachment is the peak, the natural endpoint on a scale of “how deep is your love?”  i am constantly running up against posts where the commonly accepted structure is to cite a moment of devotion or caring or some instance of basic connection between two characters, and then add a caption or tag saying ‘because they are JUST FRIENDS, right?’ or ‘^^totally platonic interaction between characters who are not at all in love, sure jan.’  

and honestly?  i hate that.  that is one of my least favorite things about fandom.  it makes me so tired.  

i am completely disconnected from this idea that there are like...things you can do that are too caring to count as friendship.  like - that there is too much devotion you can show, and if you go over the limit, then it’s laughable that you would do those things for “just” a friend.  that’s so unpleasant to me.

(and i do think [when it comes to non-canon queer ships, anyway - straight ships unfortunately have no excuse, sorry y’all] that part of this probably has its roots in pushback at the tendency of people who try to “gal pal” actual queer ships (or literal real life relationships), so this, at least, is something i can understand.  i’m queer myself; i get that.  and that is why i will never like - attach myself to someone’s post and start complaining.  people can vent however they want.)

it doesn’t change my own feelings, though.  i hate seeing every meaningful friendship i’ve ever been invested in talked about like it’s just a romance in disguise.

other things: i am uninterested in romance as a motivator.  

truly, from the bottom of my heart, i don’t care.

we are, at least in my corner of the world, oversaturated with romance, to the point where any piece of media that doesn’t include it in some fashion is shockingly bizarre.  it is EVERYWHERE.  it is in EVERYTHING.  i cannot pick up a book without running into a romantic plotline.  i cannot watch a movie or a tv show without being forced into multiple romances that i don’t care about.  (rare exceptions apply, as always, but i’m speaking generally.)

this oversaturation, for me, means that romance as a storyline no longer holds any meaning for me.  i see it EVERYWHERE.  it is in literally EVERYTHING.  making merlin into a “love story,” for me, makes the show so much less interesting, because there are billions of love stories out there.  love stories are practically the only kind of story our media remembers how to tell!  why would i take a story that is so unique in its exploration of deep friendship (that isn’t even quite friendship, because it’s not real, but merlin wants it to be real, but making it real would also destroy it) and loyalty (that isn’t necessarily deserved, but is still offered, but is damaging to the person offering it) and love (that exists in spite of arthur’s position as the oppressor, but still cannot erase merlin’s oppression, and is patently not a magical fix for the very real problems merlin is facing), and then want to water it down to “and then they fell in love”???

merlin bbc has so much to say about the transformative, redemptive power of love (not just romance), and the bonds we form with each other despite the fact that we don’t always deserve each other, and what we can do to make ourselves better, and how do we make amends for the ways in which we hurt the people we care about, and it is so complicated and there is so much beauty there and i adore it specifically because it is one of the rare pieces of media out there that doesn’t prop up romantic love as the most important and powerful force in the universe.  romantic love is not what moves the story.  merlin’s love for the people around him is based on compassion.  it’s bigger than the familiar and overused ‘i am desperately in love with this one individual person and that’s what drives my actions,” which is a premise all of us know has been done to death.  merlin’s love is not about romantic attachment.  it’s a deep, abiding love for humanity.  it’s based on hope, and faith, and the inherent belief that everybody matters, even in their worst moments.

condensing that kind of story into “and then they fell in love” erases its meaning for me.  it makes it trite.  uninteresting.  i have seen “and then they fell in love” fully sixty thousand times.  “and then they fell in love” has been done so often that it is utterly devoid of power for me.  boring.   i literally do not care.

other people might feel differently, and find a romantic love story compelling.  i don’t.  

i’m guessing the message that prompted this essay is asking me to evaluate how i feel about the “goodness” of the merlin/arthur ship, aka whether it’s worthwhile to ship it or not based on how healthy/unhealthy it is, which i definitely can’t answer, because i don’t think whether it’s “good” or not really matters.  i am definitely too old to be riding the newer wave of, uh...idk, purity culture type stuff that is so oft-debated on here, lately.

but you’re absolutely right, anon - merlin and arthur’s relationship IS kinda shitty!  it 100% is.  it doesn’t mean you can’t ship them, though, if you want; otherwise i wouldn’t be invested in any aspect of their friendship, either.  

the fact that merlin and arthur’s relationship is kinda shitty is an essential element of the show; it’s the microcosmic representation of the macrocosmic problem merlin is trying to solve, and even with that being the case, we can see clearly that this also doesn’t preclude them from having real moments of connection and care and love.  this is the contradiction i have to keep in mind whenever i engage with them in the friendship sense - merlin has been wronged by arthur in so many ways, and yet he still loves him and believes arthur can do better, and yet his dedication to arthur really does destroy his life piece by piece, and you really have to walk a line between those extremes and be thinking: in what ways was this a noble, honorable path for merlin to take and in what ways was this damaging, and was it all worth it in the end?

we probably wouldn’t still be watching this show if we didn’t ultimately think the answer to that last question was yes.  but there are also equally valid ways in which the answer is, truthfully, no, and i think really the only important thing when dealing with merlin and arthur’s relationship (in whatever capacity you prefer) is to keep that dissonance in mind.

so, to more directly address your question, when it comes to my interaction with the source material, i don’t ship merlin and arthur romantically because i don’t see romance when they interact in canon, and i don’t think their relationship could be improved or made more interesting/more meaningful by adding extra-canonical romance into the mix.  that’s really it.

but the other side of things is this: even if i were granted someone else’s ship-goggles to somehow see romance between these two (eg, once, in the distant past i read a harry potter fic that was so well-constructed it sold me on a relationship i didn’t [and still don’t] actually see in canon), i still wouldn’t choose to ship merlin and arthur, and it’s not because they’re a “bad” ship (no such thing, folks - tag your stuff and let people live their lives, thank you), it’s because this fandom has already been swallowed by them and i cannot bring myself to make that imbalance worse.

trying to be in the merlin fandom without shipping merlin and arthur is just...a little bit difficult sometimes.  i think probably even people who do ship merlin/arthur are aware of that.  sometimes it can feel like merlin/arthur is a given in this fandom, not one of many options - as if you’re not in the merlin fandom, but rather the merthur fandom, and you know you really, really do not belong there.

and it’s not even a canonical ship!  it’s not even real.  and yet if you like this show, and you want to engage in the fandom, your experience is, without exception, going to be chock full of merlin/arthur content by default.

essentially, my struggle with the merlin/arthur dynamic in fandom is two-fold:

1) the strikingly imbalanced content distribution

the merlin fandom, in terms of content distribution, is a pretty accurate mirror of merlin’s own existence, to be honest, in that pretty much every aspect of it is eventually taken over by arthur pendragon, and in that there’s a reasonable debate to be had about whether or not that’s a good thing.

(spoiler alert: it’s not.)

even so, it is what it is, and as i said before, me commenting on fandom trends is not meant as a condemnation of individual preferences.  people like what they like!  that’s just how things are.  shipping arthur and merlin isn’t a Bad thing to do, by any means, and the fact that so many people do is just, you know, bad luck for me, lol.  but at the same time, the wildly unbalanced distribution of content does make it more difficult for folks who don’t ship merlin/arthur to engage in fandom with quite the same level of ease, and even though it’s nobody’s fault, it is still perfectly reasonable for people who don’t ship merlin/arthur to be frustrated about that.

fanfic is a pretty good case study for how this plays out.  i saw a post a while back that was titled something like ‘merlin bbc gothic,’ and the first bullet point was “canon ships are rarepairs,” and HOO BOY, that is true.  stats-wise, merlin/arthur makes up ⅔ of the merlin fic on AO3.  ~25,000 fics.  the next most popular tag after merlin/arthur is arthur/gwen, but arthur/gwen have ~2,900 fics in their tag.  and when you remember to exclude any instance of merlin/arthur from the arthur/gwen tag, that number drops by another thousand, to ~1,940.

that’s buckwild.  come on.  merlin/arthur has twenty-three THOUSAND more fics than the next most popular (and CANONICAL, i might add) ship?  and every other ship’s numbers are even lower than that?*

and if you don’t want to read shippy stuff in the first place, like me - the merlin “gen” tag has less than 8000 fics in it, by comparison, and then you STILL have to filter merlin/arthur out of the gen fics, leaving you with about 6300 - which number has to be filtered down further to remove OTHER ships that still make it past the gen filter.

in comparison to 25,000.

like.  i’ve been in fandom long enough that i’m not surprised - mean, i came into merlin directly off a teen wolf phase, and boy, that’s a whole other bowl of noodles right there, with added squick factors that are irrelevant here - but i’m still just...man. 

it still makes my head spin.  and it is still frustrating, every time.

*(there is a lot more to be said about how gwen fits into all of this, and i know it has been discussed more thoroughly in other places, but yes, another reason i am leery of arthur/merlin as a thing is that i’m just...not super comfortable with what that implies for gwen and her position in the story.  even if i personally am slightly more compelled by gwen/lancelot, technically - i still don’t quite feel comfortable taking gwen out of her canonical place.  she belongs at the top.  she deserves to be the love interest and she deserves to be the queen.  and like - people can say that her relationship with arthur isn’t “developed” or “convincing” enough to warrant retaining in fic, and i get it, the show really did fail gwen in S5 - but i still don’t buy that argument.  people literally INVENTED a romantic relationship for themselves and put 25,000 fics worth of effort into building it up; there is no reason why an “underdeveloped” canon romance couldn’t have gotten the same treatment.  except, of course, for the fact that one [Black, female] character was being shoved aside to make way for yet another two white dudes.)

(and i’m not saying that everyone is doing this deliberately or maliciously.  but we all know this is a cross-fandom trend.  there is literally no reason for the gap in content to be THAT wide.  a canon relationship with twenty-three thousand fewer fics than an invented ship?  just...that is a stat that bears thinking about.  it doesn’t mean that merlin/arthur is a “bad” ship, or that you can’t prefer lancelot/gwen, but it IS still important to recognize these patterns where they occur, across fandoms, and to really think about what they mean.)

2) the arthur-goggles

my second struggle with merlin/arthur in fandom is the ubiquitousness of the arthur-goggles, aka: the tendency in fandom, as in canon, to make everything in merlin’s life about arthur, and everything in the show about merthur.

this one specifically really gets to me.  i am very committed to the idea that merlin is a complete individual, whether arthur is there or not.  i write a LOT of meta about merlin being a whole person, specifically pushing back on the idea that merlin was “born” for arthur’s benefit - my motto is basically that “merlin’s life does not revolve around arthur pendragon,” and the way his life begins to revolve around arthur pendragon in later seasons is not in fact touching or romantic or beautiful; it’s a tragedy.  merlin does not exist only in the context of his relationship with arthur; he possesses worth outside of his mission to save the prince of camelot, and he was already a complete person before he ever met the prince of camelot, and one of the many issues we have to think about when dealing with arthur and merlin in any capacity is how merlin is told from the get-go that he is supposed to devote his whole life to arthur, but arthur is never given any such reciprocal responsibility.  

merlin and arthur’s relationship, just like the distribution of content in this fandom, is wildly imbalanced.  merlin spends all of his spare time thinking about arthur’s life; he ties himself in knots trying to help arthur develop as a person.  he is constantly working to keep arthur safe and happy.  but arthur, at the end of a long day, doesn’t spend his nights agonizing over how he can improve merlin’s life.  he just goes home and goes to bed.  he never once thinks, ‘my purpose on this earth is to serve and support my friend merlin.’  he is never told his life isn’t his own, that he is supposed to be one half of some two-sided coin.  only merlin is told that his entire existence is earmarked for someone else, that his life’s purpose is to be someone else’s better half.  only merlin is expected to devote his entire being to someone else’s betterment.  only merlin is expected to say demeaning, self-abnegating things like “i was born to serve you.”  

arthur, by contrast, is allowed to have a life of his own.  he is allowed to exist on his own terms.  he is never told that his worth is dependent on how well he can prop someone else up.  and while fic might like to imagine merlin being the most important thing in arthur’s life, in canon that is just not the case.  

merlin exists on his own merits, and the idea that he does everything he does just because “he’s in love with arthur” will never sit right with me, because it’s simply not true.  merlin and arthur’s relationship is important to both of them, yes, and of course it is undergirded by deep love and care, but it is also way more complicated than that.  merlin’s investment in arthur’s life - and his grief at arthur’s death - are NOT solely driven by his love for arthur as an individual; they are inextricably bound up with a sense of obligation and duty and self-worth and, eventually, failure, because he’s been told that protecting arthur is a) the only thing that matters about his own life and b) the only way to free his people and save an entire kingdom.  and i think ignoring this very real complexity in favor of “merlin does what he does and feels what he feels because he’s in love with arthur” cheapens the depth of the story and flattens merlin’s character.

arthur-goggles automatically make everything about merlin/arthur, though.  so the difficulty, for me, with merlin/arthur as a ship, is that it can be hard to make/find things about merlin that people don’t instantly, always try to link back to arthur in some way.  merlin is not allowed to have things that are just his, and he can’t exist in a state where arthur doesn’t somehow factor in - no matter how unrelated to arthur something is, or how non-shippy it’s meant to be - there’s someone out there who’s going to loop it back to merthur in some way.

just like - scattered examples of things I’ve encountered:

all of merlin’s non-arthur love interests on AO3 having massive chunks of their ship tags actually being merthur fics, with the non-arthur ship serving solely as a stepping stone on the way to getting merlin and arthur together

readers, on fics that are specifically designated as focusing on merlin+someone else and in which arthur does not appear, leaving comments asking “so how long until arthur shows up,” “can’t wait to see arthur,” etc

meta about how ‘merlin’s time in camelot was actually really bad for him as a person’ being reblogged and modified by someone else with an addition like “but merlin doesn’t regret a second of it because he wouldn’t have known arthur if he were anywhere else,” and the OP having to reblog their own post and explain that this is literally the exact problem they were trying to critique

in fic, merlin’s friends being utilized only as vessels with whom he can have discussions about his developing relationship with arthur

etc etc

it’s not always huge egregious things, but wearing arthur-goggles means EVERYTHING comes back to merthur in some way, which for me is just...really insulting to other characters, and really limiting in terms of story analysis.  

so, for example - this is a VERY specific example that few will relate to, because i am probably the only person on here who has ever tried to search the tag for merlin’s friend will from ealdor (a niche fave of mine) - but with him, especially, it is very hard to avoid bumping into a lot of people wearing arthur-goggles, because everybody seems to imagine him as merlin’s ex, who is only upset about what’s going on in 1.10 because he’s jealous about arthur appearing alongside merlin, never mind that will and merlin have known each other since birth and have a relationship that LITERALLY predates arthur by two decades.

so with him, as an example - the other day, i saw some post in the tag that was like “will gets teary when arthur makes his inspirational speech in ealdor because he finally understands what merlin sees in arthur and he can’t be mad anymore”

and that is just patently untrue.  it is not even remotely close to a legitimate interpretation of what is happening in that scene.  will hasn’t come around to arthur’s way of thinking yet; he literally still packs his things and leaves after this happens, and he is - i mean, first of all, he’s not crying, lol, and he stalks out of that scene weary, angry, and fed up, because he thinks the village is delusional and all of his neighbors are going to get killed in the morning.  his arc - his dissatisfaction with what is going on, his anger at the ignorance arthur wields as a nobleman with all of that wealth and privilege, his resistance to the big “let’s fight kanen’s men with sticks” plan - that is about him and his history and who he is.  it is not about an (imaginary) merlin/arthur love story.  

but when the arthur-goggles are on, all roads lead to merthur.  even when the other characters in question (*coughWILLIAMcough*) would be beyond mortified to have merthur, of all things, assigned as their motivation.

SO.  now that i’ve gone over both the canon and fandom aspects of my reasoning, the succinct summary in response to your question is just that no, i don’t personally ship merlin/arthur.  because:

a) i don’t see it b) the fandom is already trying to drown me with it and i choose to center other characters out of spite c) i just think merlin deserves better lol

however, as i said in my disclaimer - that doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t ship and enjoy it!   merlin/arthur is very much not my cup of tea, but that’s no reason why other folks can’t have fun with it.  i think the best portrayals of it, probably, will be those that keep in mind exactly what you said - that merlin and arthur’s relationship is “kinda shitty” - but this is fandom, so if what folks really want to write is just lots of happy AU’s with no issues, then they should go for it!  the point of fandom is to have fun connecting with people over a shared love of something, so i am happy to let others have fun doing their thing, and i will just be over here doing mine. 🙂

[girlsmoonsandstars]

So I woke up thinking about this really interesting trend I’m seeing wherein people on Tumblr (lol) continually accuse people of not knowing what they’re talking about. It happens. We’ve all seen it, right? 

And so there are a few things I’m thinking about and I think they’re related, so I’m just going to word vomit and pray for the best, here. 

Most people on Tumblr are younger, and a lot of people on Tumblr are libfem types, and I think perhaps their only exposure to feminism is the libfem pop culture type. 

They have no background in academia, but often they don’t even have a background in any kind of feminist literature, period. Their exposure to feminism is exclusively through social media and blogs. (Not knocking feminist blogs -- lord knows I’ve read enough good ones in my life -- but they’re not always running on the social theory.)

These people literally don’t know what they’re talking about. I don’t mean that in a value judgement way, just in an observational one. 

BUT BUT BUT BUT buttttttt there is ANOTHER piece of this which i find SUPREMELY interesting, and that is the Tumblr’s general acceptance of academia as inherently oppressive. 

Academia is an interesting wrench int he mix, for sure. Higher education -- especially in the U.S., compared to other Western nations[1] -- is often economically inaccessible; either you cannot afford it, or you can only afford it by placing yourself in massive amounts of debt. The language of previous times -- Elizabethan English (Shakespeare’s English, what we often call “old”) for sure, but even as recently as the late 18th/early 19th centuries -- is complex and often difficult to navigate for people who are used to contemporary linguistic styles. 

But this is where it gets interesting, for me. The fact that you have to have/pay a lot of money to go to college to learn things does not mean that the concepts taught in higher education are wrong, or inherently oppressive in any way. The fact that some language is hard to read is not inherently oppressive in any way.

And yet... and yet. 

How often do we see people say that education is classist? Is ableist? How often do we see people conflate the institution of higher education with the education itself? With the very people who have participated themselves? 

I don’t mean to sound in any way accusatory, as I don’t believe this is the result of a conscious effort, but this is what I’m seeing happen: 

Someone does not have any background is social, political, or feminist theory. Their only access to feminism is through internet liberal feminism. They learn some language, namely the language of the oppressor/oppressed dynamic. They do not learn the social theory that outlines the power structures that inherently underlie the oppressed/oppressor dynamic. 

They are exposed to concepts that use the language of the oppressed/oppressor (henceforth stylized as O/O) dynamic; these theories lack the underlying social class system. Because this hypothetical person has not learned the social theory, only the language, they accept any modification of their understanding so long as it contains the proper language. 

Monosexism. (prefix)sexual. Cissexism. 

(The historical/academic feminist perspective on sex and gender clearly states that women are not privileged for being born female. Women being born female is the entire root cause of our oppression as women; cissexism as a concept can only ever be used to erase or silence the oppression of women.)

Eventually, there comes a time in our hypothetical person’s life where they have to interact on social media with someone who does have the academic background and does have the knowledge about social classes. The hypothetical person reads the words of someone who speaks the opposite of what they ‘know’-- of what they’ve ‘learned’ -- and vehemently rejects the ideas. 

[1] not even touching education in non-Western nations; just want to acknowledge it’s different there too

*****

more word vomit from 3-4 years ago lol

[slingsendarrows]

I have coloreds in my family😒😒

Let me preface by saying Duncan, British Columbia is a predominantly white city. So much so when a person of color, especially a black person, moves into town the attention and active noticing is palpable. This is not necessarily an issue because headphones exist, my playlist is fire and my ignore game is always on 💯. I stare right ahead and go about my business as if my blackness does not matter (it does) and make no obeisance with regards to comforting the Whites with my presence.

My race experiences in western Canada have been more about willful ignorance than stupid hate. I’ve moved in majority white spaces most of my life and on most days, we good. I don't feel anxiety or tension with regards to the space I occupy and how I move in it. However, some experiences leave you questioning your senses and the limitations of logic and reason.

I recently took a part-time job at the local liquor store. Needless to say, I am the only black employee and in addition to the First Nations lady, the only other person of color. Today a customer dropped by to make his selection of alcoholic purchases, and as I was ringing him up, he decided to strike up a conversation. Most of these interactions involve asking, "Is that all for you? Did you find what you needed today?" Followed by bland responses such as "Yes, I did. Thank you!" and "What dreary weather we're having."

But today was different. This disheveled gentleman started off by saying, “So, how long have you been in Duncan?” Subtext: “You’re a Black I haven’t seen before. I make it a point of knowing all the Blacks because you know, I’m a White who is down with Blacks and I need all Blacks to know I am racially/culturally aware. At first my dumbass was unaware of what was happening and figured this was going to be regular cashier/customer banter, so I responded, "The first time or this time around? I just moved back to the island." Which of course he ignored, barrelling onward to his main point, "There are not a lot of colored people in town, and I usually know when there are new dark people." That's when I clued into the fact I was dealing with a particular level of white ignorance and casual racism.

"I grew up in Texas," I responded. His face changed slightly, disappointed I hadn’t provided a more exotic point of origin. A probability I instinctively gleaned from his "dark" choice of words. Normally, I am happy to share my heritage, but I was not going to give this White the satisfaction of other-ing me. Because let's face it, he does not give a shit about where I am from really. He just wants to make sure I fit in his ready-made box: black, dark, Africa, got it, I know things. This was not my first rodeo.

Like most of his kind in these situations, he would be damned if he couldn't relate and show he understood this Black. He is always, after all, for the Blacks. So he found another path to connect. "My son is married to a black woman from Texas. She's the same color, dark as you." Why does it always boil down to color? Because that is the whole-ass point of these Whites doing this shit. They want you to know, to really see, that they don't care about color by pointing out your color and assuming all it represents, meaning they care about color. Like I said, racial biases, like racism, are inherently stupid. "Which part of Texas?" he forged ahead.

"Dallas." At this point, all smiles were gone, and I just needed him to get the fuck out of my face. But it was a slow morning, and the universe often conspires to test my patience. "That's where she's from!" his face brightening up excitedly. Dammit, dammit, fuck! I should have said White Settlement. I saw his next statement coming like we all saw the Drake-secret-baby-blow-up coming. "Do you know (her name)?" he continued. "Dallas is a large city. Many people live in Dallas," I tried, offering him a logical life raft in my most Marvin voice (R.I.P. Alan Rickman). He laughed it off like it was a minor inconvenience. As if that would not impede my ability to know of this particular Black. Forget the geographical size of Dallas and the population therein. Let's consider age group, peer circles, or time period. When was she in Dallas? For how long? Common sense would not deter this White. He acted, as most Whites of his kind are prone to, as if there is a newsletter distributed to all Blacks announcing a weekly prayer circle, led by Oprah with Beyoncé directing the choir (if only). 

Luckily another customer appeared and he departed with, "You should look her up on Facebook," laughing merrily as he exited the store. And hopefully from the rest of my life. I frustratingly mused over all the petty and trolling retorts I could have used. "Do you know Mr. Rogers, he's a white man that filled up my gas this morning? He lives in Duncan. You should look him up!" NOT ALL BLACK PEOPLE KNOW EACH OTHER, WHITES!!!.

The fact that this has happened to me more times than I can count is fucking frustrating. And yet, the Whites keep doing this shit and expecting me to skip along to this false play of racial-wokeness as if I am not aware it is bullshit, disingenuous, and lazy. But I have to be polite and understanding. Take their hand and let them know, I understand they did not mean to be so racially stupid and inept, and accept this level of daftness because they mean well, or their old, and oh, did I mention this town is so white. I’m done with all that. Now I am trolling the Whites as a public service. The only way I figure they will see how ridiculous this ultimately is if I am just as ridiculous. You're welcome, Whites!

After such experiences, I often conduct a social experiment by sharing it with the black and white people in my life. The moment I start this story, black people already know where I am going and how it plays out. We empathize for the moment, chagrined by the prevalence of such idiocy, and shrug, knowing it is unlikely to change and tomorrow will be more of the same. 

White allies, however, will go out of the way to justify the behavior of their compadres. Whether it's assuming all black people know each other, touching our hair, or using, albeit poorly, the latest black vernacular.  Suddenly I need to consider the possibility of dementia, limited interactions with black people, and such an overwhelming fascination with my latest hairstyle they can't resist putting their measly hands on it. The onus is on me to give racially ignorant Whites the benefit of the doubt. Fuck my feelings. Fuck my experiences.

I understand the desire to explain away these behaviors. They don't want to believe this is indeed problematic. They don't want to consider their past actions and similar faux pas could be construed as casual racism. They are not racist. You need to believe them. And if you think this White's specific act is racist, then oh gosh, have I been racist all this time? Yes. The answer is yes.

The fact that you feel I should cater to and understand where you and/or they are coming from more than they need to respect my personal boundaries and not treat my personhood as an extension of their racial awareness/curiosity exposes the arrogance of racial power structures. And that is the problem. That will always be the problem.

I should make it easy for you. I shouldn't complain too much. It’s not a big deal. You wouldn't mind if a stranger put their hands on your hair. As if you can equate our experiences in this larger white supremacist world.

But you have to take responsibility for your part in the system. You may not wear white hoods, march in the streets, hate black people, or burn down churches, but you are perpetuating this dearth of racial understanding when you expect me to justify why strangers shouldn't feel warranted to touch my FUCKING HAIR!!! Why isn't my discomfort and annoyance enough? Why do I have to further rationalize my frustration all while comforting you and parroting back your desire not to be seen as racist? 

I honestly wish more people cared about not actually being racist than being perceived as racist. You expect me to educate you on blackness while ignoring my individuality, not to mention Google has been around for over 20 years now. Google it!

You want me to decode why Midler's racist statement was largely well-meant because females have historically struggled similarly to black people? How? Where? When? Were white women stolen, raped, separated from husbands, children, mothers, and fathers enmasse and forced to raise their oppressor's children? Were black women complicit in slavery's stronghold as they condoned the violation of their vagina sisters believing themselves the epitome of beauty and pure womanhood? Was white history erased like black history to the point where a disturbing number of people believe black history begins with slavery, as if Africa is not the birthplace of humanity and we are all descendants thereof? Was it black women’s tears that sent many black men to the lynching tree? Are OBGYNs institutionally disinclined to believe the pain for white expectant mothers as they do black mothers? (Ask Serena Williams). Is there a pernicious angry white woman trope that seeks to dismiss white women's voices? Does the failure of white communities rest solely on the shoulders of white women as does the failure of black communities on black women? Has the feminist movement historically diminished and ignored the unique experiences of white women as it has black women? My color- and vagina-based experiences are not one and the same. And no, your age does not excuse your ignorance and racism, Bette! It really doesn’t.

Stop requiring I make you feel comfortable with my existence and kindly cease and desist this need to justify the causal racism I have had to navigate all my life. Just say, I don't know what that's like (because you don't) and/or I am sorry you had to deal with that. Your desire to explain away these behaviors by fellow Whites just shows how little you actually care about my individual experiences and how much more you would like to comfort and delude yourself into believing faced with the same set of facts we are all enduring the same experiences. No, the fuck we are not!

It's okay to say you don't know or understand. Diminishing my experiences because in your heart of hearts you want to believe that this racist experience was well-intentioned adds an unnecessary burden to an already burdensome life.

White privilege isn't about freedom from hardship. We all have difficulties and challenges in our lives. But we also all share certain levels of privilege (i.e. being able to read and write, having a job, access to health care, ability to travel and explore, eating regularly, clean water, etc.). White privilege is about exemption from specific experiences by virtue of skin color. Nobody questions your nationality even if you are a first-generation whatever; nobody assumes your behaviors and attitudes the minute they see you; nobody is worried about you being a terrorist based on your religious beliefs (can we talk about The Crusades or more recently, colonial evangelism?). You are you. I just want to be me. 

Actual knowledge is achieved when we become comfortable in the disquieting discomfort of our limited understanding. I don't know everything. As such, I have learned to simply say, “I don't know enough about this to have an opinion.” And that is okay. Let’s all do the same.

[autieami-blog]

Matters of Faith: Chapter 2 (A DS9 Fanfic)

Chapter 1 here

A story about a Vorta who comes to Bajor as a Dominion Representative during the Dominion occupation of DS9.

Themes are religion, free will, ethics, found families, badass Bajoran women, the Vorta being a little shit, politics, cute little kids, and emotional turmoil.

About 1,200 words

Dorriv paced up and down the length of the bridge. Soon, her ship would be landing on Bajor. She only wished she could have stayed longer on Deep Space Nine. Or not have gone there at all.

 A god had told her that the gods were false.

 It was ridiculous. He was misled.

 No, he was a Founder. The ideas of Founders shouldn’t be called ridiculous.

 And he did have a point.

 The Founders had lied to the Vorta.

 Try as she might, Dorriv could find no alternate explanation, no excuse. Normally it was easy to find excuses.

 But do gods even need an excuse?

 So the Vorta had been lied to. That was doubtless no more than they deserved. Why should the Founders be obliged to tell mortals the truth?

 “Approaching Tekan Province,” a Jem’Hadar said from the station next to her, interrupting her thoughts. “Landing in forty-three seconds.”

 “Thank you, Third,” Dorriv replied. She looked at the planet’s surface approaching through her personal viewer. Tekan Province was mostly green fields, with villages scattered here and there, and one large city, where she would be staying. The city had simple architecture that appeared relatively undamaged from the Cardassian Occupation; white stone buildings stood draped with trailing vines, and walkways wound through patches of blossoming flower bushes. Sunlight was filtered by overhanging trees and fell onto the ground in dappled patches. She wondered idly if it was pretty.

 A small delegation of Bajoran engineers was waiting to greet her. An older man with a sun-lined face stepped out from the group.

 “Welcome to Bajor. I am Belar Revan, head of the technology production center of Allis City,” he said.

 “I am honored to meet you, Revan,” Dorriv said with a diplomatic smile. “I’m sure that, working together, we can overcome any losses to your manufacturing capabilities caused by the Federation’s unfortunate withdrawal of supplies.”

 “I’m sure we can,” Belar Revan replied, doubtless knowing as well as Dorriv did that the Federation had withdrawn its support only because the Bajorans had been forced to make a treaty with the Dominion or run the risk of being forcibly conquered.

 Dorriv looked around her with satisfaction as she disembarked from the ship and made her way to the production center, led by a gaggle of engineers and flanked by a group of Jem’Hadar. She loved politics. In politics, lies were common, even expected. It was a smooth machinery of fabrications and negotiations, and one she knew how to navigate well.

 The rest of the tour was a chatter of technobabble and meaningless pleasantries; the pleasantries she deftly handled and served back, the technobabble she left to the Jem’Hadar, since they would be the ones actually doing any engineering work.

 Belar paused at the end of the tour. They were standing in a well-lit room overlooking a bay of complex-looking machines. “Did you have any questions?”

 Dorriv looked at the Jem’Hadar; they shook their heads. “No, thank you. Your tour has been most informative. I look forward to our working together. My Jem’Hadar will meet with your engineers tomorrow to discuss more in-depth how we can best help you. Does oh-twelve-hundred sound alright?”

 “Certainly.”

 “Excellent. In the meantime, we will be requiring accommodations…” she trailed off.

 Belar took the cue and beckoned to the group of Bajorans. A thirty-something woman with brown hair pulled back into a low ponytail and a spray of freckles that contrasted incongruously with her serious features stepped forward.

 “My name is Senan Ellas. My house has large guest quarters, and I would be happy to put them at your disposal,” she said, sounding irritated.

Dorriv inclined her head. “I appreciate that. If we’re finished here, Revan, then I would like to proceed to the quarters this woman has so graciously offered. My soldiers are tired from the journey.”

 They weren’t, of course. Jem’Hadar never got tired. But one of the nice things about commanding a group of underlings was that you could pretend you were doing things for their sake rather than your own, and so avoid appearing weak.  

 Dorriv and the Jem’Hadar followed Senan Ellas back to her house. It was a large building made of reddish clay, in careful, structural lines. An open entryway led to a large indoor courtyard where succulents and cacti edged gravel-paved paths. There, Senan Ellas stopped and turned to face them.

 “The door to your right leads to a hallway. Along that hallway you will find four guest rooms, you may divide them among yourselves as you see fit.”

 The Jem’Hadar left, but as Dorriv started to follow, Senan spoke again.

 “Wait. I want to talk to you,” she said.

 “Of course. Should I take a seat?” Dorriv said graciously.

 Senan shrugged, and Dorriv seated herself on a low bench, and sat smiling and waiting.

 Senan stared at her for a moment. She had dark brown eyes, which now looked at Dorriv with an unflinching, steely assessment.

 Dorriv stared back with her own light purple eyes, which looked pleasantly bemused. The seconds ticked by, as a gentle breeze wafted through the courtyard, stirring the leaves of trees that stretched along the walls and cast their branches overhead.

 Dorriv finally blinked and looked away, and the woman nodded, as if that was confirmation of something.

 “You understand, you’re not welcome here,” Senan said flatly, arms crossed.

 “What do you mean?” Dorriv asked, tilting her head.

 “I mean that you are here because I am forced to take you in. Because I do have the house with the largest guest quarters, I am required to invite you to stay with me, or I would lose my job. You are not wanted. And you are not welcome. Here, or anywhere on Bajor. We have been oppressed long enough, and I will not gladly open my arms to a new oppressor,” Senan replied, voice hard.

 Dorriv laughed.

 “The Dominion has no intention of oppressing your people—”

 “Yes, they do. Don’t bullshit me. I’m not an idiot. You can tell our government, our ministers, that you’re here in peace, and maybe they’ll believe it, but I don’t. Don’t even try to sell me your snake-oil lies.”

 “I assure you—”

 “I said don’t,” Senan said.

 Dorriv fell silent. She watched a bird fly overhead. Then she stood, faced Senan Ellas, and smiled, ear-to-ear, with no humor in her eyes.

 “Well, then. How nice of you to share your opinions with me. I do appreciate it—”

 “I said—” Senan started to interrupt.

 Dorriv held up a silencing hand and stretched her grin even wider. “I do appreciate it. Nevertheless, the situation is, if I’m understanding it correctly, that you have to put up with us or you will lose your job. So I do hope that you’ll keep that in mind during our stay with you. I would hate it if any reports of your being troublesome reached the ears of your employer.”

 Senan glared at her with hatred in her eyes. “You little worm.”

 Dorriv maintained the smile. “I’m so glad we understand each other.” Then she turned and walked out of the courtyard.

 She smiled more genuinely as she walked away, thinking of the expression that must now be on Senan’s face.

 Yes, Dorriv loved politics. And right now, she loved the bit of power she held. The power that she held so tantalizingly over others. She knew how to pluck its strings, to make it play any tune she wished. Perhaps she even took a bit of special pleasure in it now, when earlier, hearing Odo speak, she had for a moment felt so powerless.

[aidagh0rbani]

Bisecting History for a Trans Temporality: The “He” and “She” in D’Lo’s “Growing’s Trade Off”

The history of an individual or a community can give vital clues into livelihood, identity, and identity formation. But history comes to mean different temporalities within different spheres of identity. For the normative cis person, life history can span the entirety of life – everything between birth and death is fair game and usable in the cis narrative. But life history takes on a different temporal situation with the trans identity, and only certain events between birth and death are fit for a narrative. How has the non-normative gender identity, specifically the trans identity, had to redefine the temporality of life history? When the non-normative is demanded to narrate for the normative, the history of the oppressed must become readable by the oppressor. This readability has meant that trans narratives have had to categorize and shape history around a cis gaze pivoted around the point of transition, and this has meant the erasure of large portions of a trans person’s narrative. This redefining of historical temporality has demanded that trans people see their lives as the cis world does- in two bisected parts, where the former must be forgotten for the latter to be lived. This forgetting of history is seen in regulative structures that surround trans livelihood – everything from the use of gender pronouns to the inhabiting of appropriate spaces in lieu of the “wrong” spaces has reminded trans identities of the cis oppression that surrounds their lives and narratives. In his poem “Growing’s Trade Off”, D’Lo takes readers through a quick life history- but doesn’t keep them from the history that he’s expected to erase as a trans person. He writes about all that he’s expected to forget as a trans man and how his history and identity have been forced to contort themselves into smaller and smaller boxes so that he remains a respectable trans person. D’Lo asks readers to challenge the notion of history forgetfulness, arguing that all parts of his life, however unrespectable, are valid, useful, and readable. He argues that he embodies an interesting and useful boundary between masculine and feminine, and that neither his preferred gender pronouns nor his gender presentation should give anyone reason to exclude him or his narrative. To unpack D’Lo’s poetry, the works of Jason Cromwell, Jay Prosser, and Emi Koyama will be used. In this poetic narrative, D’Lo uses the concepts of gender pronouns and gender presentation as metaphors to show his audience the effects of cis oppression and categorization, and proves that trans narratives, inhabiting a useful borderland, must be seen in full, historical amnesia notwithstanding.

In writing the unreadable, D’Lo presents to readers aspects of his transsituatedness that he’s expected to erase or to normalize. His narrative recalls points set forth by Jason Cromwell in “Queering the Binaries: Transsituated Identities, Bodies, and Sexualities”. In his essay, Cromwell contends that transsituated identities and bodies can offer a thought-provoking and liberating gender discourse. Cromwell writes on the multiplicity of transidentity. He quotes an interviewee to argue that “transgender and transsexual are genders that exist outside the binary of two” (Cromwell, 512). However, this binary-shattering gender situatedness is lost because in order to be a “good – or successful – transsexual person, one is not supposed to be a transsexual person at all” (512). In short, the pre-transition history must be forgotten, “paralyzed, and erased, left in an operating room” (511). And in doing so, “[transmen] are supposed to pretend [they] never spent fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty plus years in female bodies, pretend that the vestigial female arts some of [them] never lose were never there” (512). But transsituated identities and bodies have the power to disturb the cis and hetero norms, and demand a double take at the categories demanded of people, both trans and not trans.

D’Lo’s frustrations at his isolations are in line with Cromwell’s arguments. In “Growing’s Trade Off”, readers are journeyed through D’Lo’s past and present, and asked to consider his non-normative arguments. A quick look into D’Lo’s past reveals a young boy, who learned of “misogynistic ways” and “how a patriarch should act”, and yearned for the “love from a she” (D’Lo, 115). Upon puberty, his body started changing to reveal growing breasts. And so D’Lo decided that “a girl [he] was to become, even if it killed [him]” (116). In these formative years, he lived and learned as a woman of color. Here, he reminds readers that he has spent a foundational part of his life as female-embodied, living and experiencing life as a woman of color. And although he contends that these years of experience have taught him how to be a better feminist, how to recognize and perhaps fight oppression and sexism, this part of his history is to be forgotten. In order to live as a cis-normative person who goes by “he”, any woman or “she” of his identity must be forbidden and erased. D’Lo, like the interviewees of Cromwell, must fail to narrate and act out the “vestigial female arts” (Cromwell, 512). Only then, when he fits into the cisnormative binary, would his identity be deemed a “successful” and “legitimate” transidentity and would he be read and understood as “normal”. But “although normal should be in the eye of the beholder, frequently it is a moral command” (512). And in complying with this morality, the transsituated person becomes the acceptable and readable, complying with respectability politics of the cis world.  However, Cromwell argues that the unreadable, the “non-normal”, continuously gets erased by those acting in systems and positions of power (512). Readers see this in D’Lo’s experience, as he sees various erasures by various positions of power. In his bisected life, he is first erased of his transgender identity by the cisnormative world and gaze that “were already suspecting” of young D’Lo’s gender variance and which pressure him to present and live as a girl (D’Lo, 116). Cisnormativity demands of D’Lo a first, and important, erasure. The demand by this system of power is to melt D’Lo of his trans self and contort his present and future lives and identities to fit cisnormative standards.

Since then, D’Lo reveals to readers that he’s moved to New York and gone through transition and top surgery. He further reveals that it’s been five years that he’s made the masculine pronouns “mandatory” (D’Lo, 116). However, now, a second erasure is demanded of D’Lo after his surgery and masculine pronoun usage. So that in becoming more comfortable with himself and his life in his process of “growing, he’s had to face a different form of isolation, a “trade-off”. He writes that “no Womyn’s community wants [him] anymore” (116), despite his alliance and strong feminist standing. He argues for these communities and readers to recognize that “nothing has changed except a word” and that word is “he” (117). But, alas, he is “tip-toed around, rejected again” (117). Now, feminist spaces and Womyn’s communities exclude him based off his preferred gender pronouns. For them, D’Lo’s identity as a feminist and transgender person doesn’t fall in line with the masculine pronouns. His pronouns precede his history and identity, and keep him from spaces and discourses that he seeks to be a part of. Now, the feminist space acts as the cisnormative system of power that erases D’Lo’s past as a female-bodied individual. While the former experience demanded that D’Lo “normalize” his present and future identities, the latter asks that D’Lo not mention or highlight his past. In both scenarios, D’Lo is expected to narrate his identity and his life during both temporalities so that they are “viewed as culturally legitimate”, first as a legitimate cis person, and then as a legitimate trans person (Cromwell, 512). To be a legitimate cis person during the former part of his life, he is expected to preemptively erase his present and future masculinity. And to be a legitimate trans person during the latter part of his life, he is expected to forget and erase his lived experiences, lessons, and memories that came with past femininity.

The narrative presented in the poem demands that the reader ask where the bifurcation of a trans history takes place, and at what point the cis-legible trans history begins. Such questions recall the theories set forth by Jay Prosser in “A Skin of One’s Own: Toward a Theory of Transsexual Embodiment”. Prosser discusses the embodiment of trans identities and experiences through the skin and body, as related to identity and the self. Prosser suggests that the two- the material and immaterial, the body and self- are nonexclusive. He sees the skin as “psychic/somatic interface” (Prosser, 72). The skin is “the primary organ underlying the formation of the ego…making us who we are” (65). The skin and the identity, the external and the internal, therefore, are not detangled.

D’Lo posits that his inclusion into womyn’s communities and feminist spaces and discourse be premised on the undeniable fact that he lived as female-embodied. Here, D’Lo acts out the theories set forth by Prosser. He deems that his identity cannot be pulled apart and seen as separate from his lived, fleshly experiences. And declares that his flesh and experiences were indeed feminine in how they were read and their experiences formulated. In his years as a female-embodied person, he navigated, learned of, and understood the world through his body and flesh. D’Lo learned about systems of privilege, sexism, and power. Furthermore, he “learned how to be a strong woman” and built communities among peers and mentors. He learned of oppression and of racialized sexism because he in fact lived as a woman of color, and thereby possessed the skin and ego of a woman of color. This informed his feminist ideology. And these experiences, forever a part of his flesh and, thus, his identity, cannot be stripped away, even by transition. Transition comes to represent the moment that is defined by the cis world as the pivot in a trans life. At this moment, the trans person can leave an unreadable trans exterior and enter a cis-legible story of gender normativity. As Prosser states, the body provides the encasing that supports the ego and the identity. D’Lo’s experiences support this, as he argues for his inclusion into feminist spheres on the grounds of his lived experiences and physicality. He warns that the change in the pronoun usage comes only because of the limitations of language. However, his skin ego and felt matter have remained constant and unchanged and it is precisely these that make him the person he is today, an even stronger feminist.

D’Lo argues that in inhabiting a transidentity, he can potentially provide an insight and situated knowledge as one who borders both worlds of feminine and masculine. He embodies what Emi Koyama describes in “Whose Feminist Is It Anyway? The Unspoken Racism of the Trans Inclusion Debate”. Here, Koyama describes the universalization that is demanded of trans narratives in womyn’s only spaces and discourse. Koyama discusses racialized gender differences between women as setting experiences apart, and the silent racism that’s enacted when women’s stories, especially cis women’s stories, are deemed the same on the grounds of sex and gender. She ends her essay by arguing for trans narratives that tells of lived experiences and that resist being universalized and homogenized.

D’Lo resists the homogenization of his own narrative by an outside world throughout his poem. He constantly highlights his past and lived experiences to demand an attention to the parts of him that make him different and unique. He wants readers to see and acknowledge both the similarities and differences that he has with women. He presents this when he writes, “And so I tell them about my changes, but plead with them to see how nothing has changed except a word, that I still look and sound the same” (D’Lo, 117). In this sentence, he is presenting his divergence and convergence with womyn’s only spaces. He is different by a word, but similar in the history and experiences he holds. This is reminiscent of Koyama’s plead for the trans narrative to recognize and make visible the differences that exist. Koyama uses a powerful analogy to argue that “transsexual people occupy the borderlands where notions of masculinity and femininity collide” (Koyama, 704). And it is in this borderland that they can foster the power needed to expose the “unnaturalness of the boundary that was designed to keep them out” and to fulfill their activist strength (704). D’Lo’s borderland is presented to readers only because he describes his lived experience in full, pre- and post-transition, feminine and masculine, refusing to censor and “trim the fat” of his transsituated life and identity. But it is exactly because he inhabits a borderland and wants to foster his activist and unique power that he is silenced from a second source of cis oppression. D’Lo asks readers to consider who this new exclusionary “gate keeper” is that is keeping him out, the one that forces him to face a new isolation post-transition.

D’Lo finds his narrative further erased for a different type of regulation- that of racialized normalization. When D’Lo mentions that it was as a woman of color that he learned of “oppression and more importantly, knowledge, power and divinity”, he reminds readers that his race played a large factor in his understanding of himself and the world around him (D’Lo, 116). In this marginalized existence, he came to understand the oppressions that women of color face. And it is because of this that D’Lo argues for his inclusion into feminist spheres- he knows of women’s oppressions, and specifically of the oppressions of women of color, and could, for this reason, be a powerful ally. The knowledge that the woman of color possesses, D’Lo possesses – not secondhand, but firsthand – because of his past experiences, flesh, and situatedness. But his exclusion on the grounds of his gender identity throw him into a categorization he does not wish to belong to, a category that deems him separate from and unknowing of the woman, a category that refuses to look at his history because of the way he chooses to present and be regarded today. His divergence with the women’s communities is chosen over his convergence in order to maintain an operative mode of homogenization. Instead of inviting the complex but liberating discourse that someone like D’Lo can bring, these communities choose to silence and ostracize him in order to keep the homogenized discourse surrounding gender and race that is within a comfort zone.

The erasure that D’Lo faces at the hands of the Womyn’s communities is both transphobic and racist. To assume that D’Lo can’t know at all what being a woman is like because his experiences are entirely different assumes that “all other women’s experiences are the same, and this is a racist assumption” (Koyama, 702). Since D’Lo may now be seen to experience and possess male privilege, he is isolated. But this doesn’t come fully thought out with the conclusion that “not all women are equally privileged or oppressed” (702). D’Lo contends that if it weren’t for the limitations of language and its demand for him to choose a gender pronoun, or the bifurcation of his transsituated life temporality, his differences with the women’s communities are few. But the cis ignoring of any half of his life makes it easy to produce violence and erasure against him. And his current gender presentation and pronouns now relegate him to the same position that women of color were relegated to in lesbian feminist spheres – homogenized so that a “lowest common denominator” mentality was taken up in regards to oppression. The lowest common oppression was found – that which came with being a woman – and everything else was simply ignored. But the differences among women is inherent and important, and Koyama points this out through a powerful counterdiscourse to the “no phallus” rule set by womyn-born womyn only music festivals: “white skin is just as much a reminder of violence as a penis” (703). D’Lo declares that he “learned what it was to be a woman of color” and learned of “oppression and more importantly, knowledge, power, and divinity” (D’Lo, 116). And while this should be enough to highlight the specific lived experience that D’Lo possesses, it is instead erased. And this comes to be another factor of D’Lo’s narrative erasure. His racialized experiences get erased in favor of a more “comfortable” discourse that ignores race and racism, just as his gendered experiences get erased to upkeep trans respectability, where pre-op life is amputated off the biography in order for the post-op life to live in a cisnormative world.

D’Lo’s “Growing’s Trade Off” highlights the notions and expectations of narrative erasure that trans people have to endure. The poem shows all the ways that D’Lo has had to edit his narrative, leaving parts out in order to fit in and navigate safely during specific times. In looking at D’Lo’s poetry through the lenses set forth by Jason Cromwell, Jay Prosser, and Emi Koyama, readers can begin to see how D’Lo inhabits a cisnormative world of labels and categories that erase his lived experiences, separating his identity from his physically lived reality as a trans person of color. D’Lo asks readers to question how the categories of gender, the cisoptic, and the limitations of language have forced him to face a “trade-off” in his growing process. His narrative turns the attention and spotlight to the different oppressive forces at work that demand he either erase his future or his past, both in order to live as a cisnormative, respectable trans subject, and to further brush off his racialized experiences to be a racially homogenous comfort zone. But in giving the reader a full disclosure, a manifesto of the transsituated life, D’Lo asks how “growing’s trade-off” can become just “growing”, for himself, his narrative, and for larger society as a whole, and how the trans identity, in its full, unadulterated, and un(cis)censored version, can catalyze this conversation.

    Bibliography

Cromwell, J. Queering the Binaries: Transsituated Identities, Bodies, and Sexualities. In Stryker, S. & Aizura, A (Eds.) The Transgender Studies Reader (509-520). New York and London: Routledge, 2006. Print.

D’Lo. “Growing’s Trade-Off”. In Tolbert, T. & Peterson, T. (Eds.) Troubling the Line: Trans and Genderqueer Poetry and Poetics (115-117). New York: Nighboat Books, 2013. Print.

Koyama, E. Whose Feminism Is It Anyway?: The Unspoken Racism of the Trans Inclusion Debate. In Stryker, S. & Aizura, A (Eds.) The Transgender Studies Reader (698-705). New York and London: Routledge, 2006. Print.

Prosser, J. A Skin of One’s Own: Toward a Theory of Transsexual Embodiment. In Prosser J. Second Skins: The Body Narratives of Transsexuality. (61-96). New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Print.

[calumaai]

Unit 3 Planning

How can shared Digital realities be reframed to become locations for fugitive worldbuilding 

Process:

-Define + co-locate the communal and individual digital

-Define fugitivity/worldbuilding/queerness

-Interpret pedagogical practises and apply 

-Reflections, AI Promothetus 

-Action - Contract 

Theory:

Use pedagogical practises to cocreate liberation through Dialogues, reflection/action on the current hidden power structures and divides 

Must look to queer identities, who do not fit into the usual groves and spokes of the internet as to how to navigate 

We are both oppressors and oppressed within our networks. 

● How can we create reflective and expansive relationships with our digital selves

● How can queer people exist on a binary internet?

● How can users escape the cooption/monetisation of online social cooperation?

● How can users become aware of the the limitations put on them by current platforms interfaces

● How can we acknowledge queer creatives as pedagogues

● How can we harness the queer power of Artificial intelligence to use digital networks for queer pedagogical knowledge sharing?

Intervention: Mapping the digital: 

Ask digital users (stakeholders, experts, influencers and fans) to define the roles/people they are online (the shopper, the influencer, the child)

Ask them to then draw their journeys as those users as map or a diagram to understand the experience of digital networks on the user 

Workshop: 

1: 

-Present the ideas of doing vs being in relation to journeys and destinations 

-Brainstorm user roles 

-Map out the journey digitally + in reality 

-Who do you see on those journeys ?

-Ask people to take note of their digital roles and journeys for next session 

2

-Discuss experiences throughout the week

-Draw diagrams again 

-Review assertions 

-Brainstorm how to make the digital communal 

Intervention: Contract Review

Taking social Platforms terms and conditions and enacting them as a ceremony 

Discussion around what clauses and protections could be put in place 

Speak to experts to create clauses 

[kcostanz]

a city divided

It’s a brisk December day in Berlin. The sky is grey, mirroring the group’s sentiment as we walk along what’s left of the city’s infamous wall. What once stood as an impossible barrier separating a bleak, controlled existence from one of vibrancy and freedom now serves as an outdoor exhibit. 

Expansive murals cover the entirety of the concrete remains. I watch as tourists from all corners of the world photograph nearly every inch of the wall. Slowly walking alongside the repurposed barrier, I’m stopped by the sight of a small hole within it. No one dwells by this spot, but I’m transfixed by the empty space. How did it come to be? Did someone spend hours chipping away to create a porthole into another life? Perhaps they stood right here, in awe of the unfamiliar world that laid less than a foot ahead. 

--

I make my way onwards until I approach a sudden buildup of bodies crowding a small section of the gallery. As my angle improves, I recognize a vaguely familiar image of two seemingly important men locking lips, eyes closed, heads tilted at just the right angle to express a kind of unwavering love. I attempt to take in the view over the bobbing heads, hands, and cameras of travelers and tourists alike.

 The iconic mural replicates a photograph of German Erich Honecker and Russian Leonid Brezhnev, two prominent socialist politicians connecting at the 30th anniversary of Communist East Germany in 1979. This intimate embrace is one of the most popularized images of the socialist fraternal kiss, a formal protocol that bridges European culture with Communist party conduct. The image itself conveys the strength of the connection between East Germany and the Soviet Union, while exposing an intimate alliance between leaders who represent the people of the oppressed and the oppressor. The underlying force behind the art however lies within its symbolic location. This steadfast union placed upon the physical division of two worlds makes what the mural’s artist Dimitri Vrubel calls, “a perfect fit.” That impact continues to be felt by millions of gawking visitors each year, grounded in the mural’s title below: 

“My God Help Me to Survive This Deadly Love.” 

--

We board the coach bus once more, this time driving beyond the city center towards the Northern neighborhoods of Berlin. As we navigate through the quiet streets, my thoughts wander to a different time. I stare out the shaky bus window, immersed in the torrent of ideas derived from infusing the city’s divided history with my 21st century perspective. I descend the bus in a daze, approaching a memorial that tributes each East-Berliner who died seeking freedom in the city’s Western half.  My group of fellow American students amble past the memorial at a respectful pace, but I find myself cemented in front of the long, portrait-ridden structure.

I submit myself to the monument’s somber allure as the group fades away, losing sight of the present, falling into the past. I read and reread the names of the 140 individuals who lost their lives in an attempt to reach West Berlin, some just a few feet away. I study the black and white faces of each lost soul with deep intensity. The eyes of teenagers, professors, mothers, and babies stare back at me, frozen in time. I wonder what motivated each individual to take action. I think about the many unique and intricate plans to maneuver past the militant border. I consider the fortitude required to pursue this unknown territory. 

--

As I contemplate the people behind the bold pursuit for freedom, my thoughts drift to Bobi, my Czech grandmother who came impossibly close to the same bleak existence.

The woman who woke up every day with a radiant smile to express her thanks for life, proclaiming, “I can see, I can dance, I can sing!” The woman who infallibly brought boxes of linzer cookies with every visit, marking my youth, decidedly becoming bobi cookies. The woman whose extensive language repository, vibrant warmth, and unyielding empathy served to guide dozens of refugees towards peace and belonging in their newfound New York homes.  

Witnessing her home country fall to insidious power twice, she knew that this desolate existence was not her own, and was not her only choice. At 20 years old, she left her life in Czechoslovakia behind in pursuit for one she deemed worth living for. 

---

The lives and deaths of 140 strangers connected me further to a world I’ll never know. A world without color, where enduring constraints forbid thoughts of future, of possibility for more. A world of disquieted surveillance that controls every move. Of lives that cannot be considered one's own.

Freedom had previously existed as a vague notion, one  I mindlessly repeated in oaths of allegiance to my country. It wasn’t until I experienced a city split by this very ideal that I came to understand its presence in my own life, and its variable existence in the lives of other Americans. 

The freedoms that I possess- to travel and move freely, to express myself with carefree gratification, to learn and think without constraint, just to name a few- are not universally experienced. These freedoms are founded upon privilege. Those who possess them must be compelled to ask what prerequisites accompany the American promise for “liberty and justice for all.”

 --

The Berlin Wall fell on November 9th, 1989- a direct result of shifting government authority, awakened foreign allyship, and civic protest. Over time, these forces brought an end to both the physical barrier and the oppressive government that restricted the lives and freedoms of millions. 

Though restrictions upon 21st century freedom may appear differently, the fight for them certainly isn’t new. Rather than combatting explicitly oppressive governing regimes within marked geographic boundaries, America faces the challenge of unveiling and dismantling institutional racism embedded within our nation’s structures. We educate each other about the insidious and often covert manifestations of modern racism. We challenge the systems that oppress millions of citizens to preserve the power and privilege of others. We debate the existence of monuments that hold historical and symbolic power of these oppressive forces. We demand that our governing officials combat these evils with collaborative and comprehensive legislation. 

Without action, we choose to uphold the very oppressive barriers that our nation notoriously fights elsewhere. We choose to accept the contradictory foundations within “the land of the free.”  Without action, we choose ignorance.

[radicaled]

i think the idea is to hold these thoughts in your heart and mind and do your best to live well. not “every teacher is an oppressor” but that if you choose to be a teacher you must be aware that in some way you are upholding normalcy and power structures and figure out how you are going to deal with that and make peace with your decisions.

this was something i struggled with when i was teaching, especially as a TA. i tried my hardest to teach people individually and work to their needs to help them achieve their goals, but we were still extremely confined by the edicts of the professors and the university.

and i saw horrible injustices. one time a student was trying so hard, he came to office hours, did work with a friend to work on homework and studying, and he was still getting a D in calculus. it just wasn’t working for him. and he lost his AFROTC scholarship because of it. i felt so helpless because it all felt so arbitrary and pointless.

navigating power structures is hard work. we don’t succeed all of the time. no one can escape being complicit in some way.

Cops, teachers and all the other prison guards.

When we think about who upholds the state, we usually think about the obvious dogs of the state, who chose to make harming people in the name of state power their main job: cops, soldiers, prison guards.

And maybe we think of the bosses and the managers, who hold little allegiance to the state but build little dictatorships of their own. They are no better at all. 

Then there are those who work closely with power, the little politicians, the bureaucrats, the unemployment agencies, who may not carry weapons but are quite aware that their job is to uphold the rules, and they can easily do as much harm as the cops.

But then finally there are the many many unknowing guards of our prison. The parents who teach their children obedience and respect for authority. The teachers who think they’re passing on the beauty of books and science, but are mainly teaching children how to do dull work for 8 hours a day in an environment where you need permission to pee. The psychologists who think their priority is human well being, but they mainly end up upholding normality. And the many other authorities in our life who think of themselves as benign.

These do not see themselves as extensions of the state, but to stop serving the state would require rethinking everything they’re proud of in their life so far, and that might make them the most effective servants of the state.

As revolutionaries, we need to grapple with this. We need to figure out what a person needs in order to be able to reject everything they see as their achievements and to rebuild their identity doing the opposite of their life’s work. This is difficult, and we can expect the state’s unacknowledged guards to lash out at us as we nibble at their power and question their role in society.

But we need to grapple with it because we can not ignore how parents, teachers, psychologists etc uphold the state but to declare them all cops-by-another-name and have no hope for their recovery would leave us badly outnumbered.