#assaulted for just being themselves and expression their culture...

[themyscirah]

I should make a post about how insane Diana being chosen as champion is at one point. Like yes ik in most versions it was an anonymous competition but like the sheer level of trust and hope and desire for reconciliation and peace that comes with that gesture is a so insane to me. Hippolyta the woman that you are...

[edenfenixblogs]

What suffering? You’ve never suffered for a single fucking second, and no, the holohoax doesn’t count. Is being in control of western media, banks and hollywood not enough for you? Is being disproportionately wealthy not enough for you? Does being called out for anything hurt your precious special snowflake jew feefees? Are meanie words on the internet oppressing you?

Date: 2/2/25

Note: ok so this Holocaust denying antisemite is literally just looking for attention and will be blocked by the time this comes out of the queue but in order:

1. First off, I literally have diagnosed ptsd as a result of intense and ongoing trauma suffered in childhood involving murder, manipulation, illness, and neglect. Being from a group (Jews) that you consider (incorrectly) to be free of suffering doesn’t magically erase any other suffering. Also I’m queer and neurodivergent and lived the past few years with chronic medical issues. So…uhhh…yeah. Assuming that this is in reference to a post where I talked about Jewish suffering in general since 10/7 here is and incomplete list of some examples of my suffering and the suffering of other Jews in diaspora.

Total isolation from non-Jewish social circles whether or not we have expressed any opinion on Israel

The inability to attend classes without harassment

The inability to submit work to bigoted teachers and professors who refuse to accept work from or about Jews

Harassment on public transit, restaurants, and other public areas for being visibly Jewish

Living in fear threats being called in to synagogues, Jewish childcare centers, and Jewish schools

Living in fear because local antisemitic groups organize and have carried out Jew hunts

Being told to leave places of business for wearing kippot or Magen David necklaces

Watching my people get slaughtered and ripped out of their homes and kidnapped and assaulted by people who gleefully filmed themselves committing these acts.

Watching people around the world cheer on the actions of the people who committed these atrocities listed above because they think people who share my ethnic identity deserved it because of where they were born.

Watching politicians who are supposed to represent my interests single out my cultural identity for condemnation or violence or ridicule daily.

2. The Holocaust counts as generational trauma and suffering, which is an unarguable fact given that the entire idea of generational trauma was INVENTED to describe the aftermath of-effects of the Holocaust, which was not a hoax you fucking idiot.

3. I work in media and barely make a living wage and have no power to shape any messages at all. I control nothing. In fact, I frequently have to work on content that makes me extremely uncomfortable personally and religiously. If you have the info of anyone I could contact in banking or media or, apparently(??????) the city of Hollywood where all the Jews are laughing over the piles of money they hoard for some reason like medieval storybook dragons, please give me that contact info. I could use some extra cash. Can you also have a word with the Space Laser folks? I want a turn.

4. I earn a living wage, which I fought a bitter multi-year union battle to achieve. And even then, just barely. Jews place a high emphasis on education and serving the community. Which is why many of us pursue higher and post graduate education, which is linked to higher pay. However? Half of all Jews in the US (including me) work in non-profits, because we find great meaning in serving the community. Interesting that nobody seems to have measured what percentage of atheists, Muslims, or Christians work in non-profits. I doubt half of any of those groups works in non-profits, because there are many more of them than there are of Jews. And if half of the Christians, atheists, and Muslims in the USA worked in and for nonprofits, then there wouldn’t be such horrible conditions for people suffering from poverty, homelessness, or inadequate health care.

5. This isn’t a call out of behavior I have practiced or participated in that is bad. This is a mocking of my religious and cultural identity based on stereotypes. Words mean things. You are bullying me. This is what bullying is.

6. “Snowflake” …interesting. So you might not be a leftist antisemite. You might be the old fashioned right-wing kind. Well, at least you lot have always said what you think of us. You don’t hide behind a thin veneer of self righteous savior complex to justify and excuse your hatred. So kudos for that. Shame you used a throwaway account though. Can’t really give you points for having the balls to come off of anon if you use a throwaway account. Then again, you might be a leftie, because the horseshoe has become a circle these days.

7. Yes. Words on the internet are oppressing me, but they are not doing so in isolation. The words on the internet are part of public discourse which has become overwhelmingly antisemitic in the past two years. Being surrounded by language like this online and in real life is severely damaging my quality of life and sense of safety and my belief in the trustworthiness of my fellow human beings. I am afraid to attend publicized Jewish events like local Jewish film festivals, meet ups, or other social events in fear of being attacked. I am afraid to participate in queer groups or social justice events like I used to before 10/7, because I am afraid of being harassed for being Jewish at them—many Jews have. I left my old city after being unable to drive to a cafe without seeing graffiti accusing all Jews of being genocidal and after my mom was harassed publicly by an aggressive man while being visibly Jewish. Are words on the Internet the sole source of my oppression? No. But are words on the Internet part of the oppression I face? Yes. And you have contributed to it here today. And you feel good about yourself for doing so. Because you have the power in this relationship. And you are using your systemic power to torment me. Because that is how oppression works: you have power and feel as though you deserve it and I don’t deserve it and you’re justified in maintaining that status quo, you piece of shit.

8. I may have to deal with bigots like you, but I have dignity and you do not. I say what I feel and think with my actual username and you do not. I am part of a community based on love and acceptance and mutual participation and respect and history and education and you don’t. Because if you did, you’d be engaging with them instead of harassing me. I’m happy to be me and not you. I’m happy to be visibly and vocally Jewish. I’m happy my world is full of love and support, and I’m sorry you have to anonymously send hate to people you’ve never met in order to get enough dopamine to make your life feel meaningful. I’m sorry you have so little joy in your life that you have to find it by doing whatever the fuck this was. I hope things get better for you. But also, as long as you behave this way, you’ll continue to feel this way. You’re a bad person. Because causing other people pain brings you joy. And clearly not even a lot of joy. What a horrible way to waste your precious, limited time on this planet.

9. Fuck you.

[z0mbiel0v3rr]

@itsalpenglow i thought it would be better structured to just respond with a post, this is not only targeted towards you, in this post i will further express my worries concerning cnc and kinks that revolve around aggression or some form of 'simulated' assault. I am also still new to this and learning as i’m admittedly still an inexperienced teen 

I wonder about the motives of cnc and kinks similar to it because these things have overarching effects in the long run, if you associate simulated rap3 or lack of consent with pleasure does that not ultimately change your overall perception of the concept? You (being a generic you) are risking desensitization. Even if someone insists that it won’t affect their real world understanding of boundaries, the mind is malleable, desensitization is a real possibility. Reassurance alone isn't proof that there's no impact.

If kink truly aims to be a safe, consensual, respectful environment and community, then critical discussion and evaluations should not only be allowed but encouraged. Questioning the cultural norms within kink isn’t an attack; it’s a path toward making these spaces more inclusive, safer, and less likely to unintentionally reinforce aspects of rape culture or misogyny. 

The only scenario you proposed was that of "my partner likes this, and I'm happy when they are happy". That framing positions cnc as a kink belonging to the submissive, with the dominant merely accommodating it, even in which case, my question still stands. How does one roleplay the perpetrator of a despicable act without feeling discomfort, guilt, or even revulsion? Shouldn’t they feel some level of unease and unwillingness to continue? Furthermore your response doesn't even consider the scenario where cnc is the dom / person playing the perpetrator's kink, i still wonder what gratification can be derived from that. I think its honestly quite dismissive and unsafe to compare a scenario of simulated rap3 to something as simple as doing a mundane task for someone else, like setting the bath for them. One is a favour or act of affection while the other is a complicated and controversial scenario that has the potential to be damaging or scarring. 

If you can't be bothered reading this, i’ll compile my concerns with the concept of cnc in some brief dot points: 

It may desensitize people to the trauma of real life s3xual violence.

It has the potential to reinforce harmful associations between dominance, violence, and s3xual gratification.

cnc doesn’t exist in a vacuum. We live in a world where rap3 is often minimized, disbelieved, or even eroticized in media.

Oftentimes victims struggle to be heard, and perpetrators often go unpunished. In this context, simulating rap3, even consensually, can be seen as culturally insensitive or potentially complicit in reinforcing norms that trivialize s3xual violence.

Even with consent, cnc can trigger trauma, especially for survivors of s3xual assault (sometimes unknowingly) or even cause further trauma or new trauma in those who haven't experienced sa prior 

In some cases, cnc is used as a cover for abuse, abusers may claim it was “just cnc” to excuse coercive or non-consensual behavior.

Vulnerable or less experienced partners may feel pressured into participating to “prove” trust, submission or to even compete and prove themselves to fit into the role of being kinky and fun 

The concept still begs the question What does it mean if someone enjoys playing the role of a rap1st? Whether its their idea or not

[pythoria]

astarion is such a great character but one reason that stands out to me is how he turns the vampire stereotype on its head. vampires from their inception have been metaphors for sexuality, back in ye olden times when religious and cultural dogma repressed people's desires and forbade acting on them. they've always represented latent sexuality and people's increasing desperation. they were a fantasy that allowed people to imagine not being bound by societal rules, but by their internal hunger, giving into it and how that might feel, but more than that, how it might feel to be a victim of that. women, especially, were not allowed to express any desires, so the vampire taking whatever they wanted, as well as being desired for something as intrinsic to your being as your blood - that's a powerful fantasy. at its core, vampirism is about loss of control, and people who hold onto control very tightly in their lives will find themselves drawn to vampires as a form of catharsis.

but that's where astarion comes in and flips it around. he's far from the first character to explore the negative sides of vampirism, but as a long-term fan of many fictional vampires, i think he does it best. primarily because his story delves into the sexual aspect and the loss of control much more, while maintaining a lot of realism. his vampirism is very grounded in reality; he has real human feelings about it. the idea that people would find the powerful vampire overpowering them alluring is contrasted by the very obvious (to us, a modern audience) issues with consent involved. if the vampire cannot control their hunger, if they have no control over the desires they act on, that might sound appealing to someone who has never been allowed to act on *any* desire, but the reality of it is horrifying. it's being a victim of assault at your own hands. it's people using you and you being unable to express any discomfort, because what *you* want is always backseating what the vampirism demands. the liberating feeling of being able to act on your desires turns into the claustrophobia of being unable to deny them at all.

vampirism always came with downsides, of course. not being able to walk in the sun (being exiled from the world and polite society), not being able to see your reflection (a loss of self), dying and being reborn, but not coming back quite the same, never being able to return to the person you once were (giving up life itself, but not arriving in a religious heaven, rather staying on earth past your time, defying god, giving up the chance at eternal bliss for the inherently sinful continuation of the flesh), eternal life (losing everyone you love, seeing everything end) akin to eternal damnation in hell. all of these downsides, and yet, with astarion, even the good bits are tainted, or turned into something negative.

on top of that, the choice to damn himself for any supposed benefits of vampirism wasn't even given to him. he was turned against his will, kept against his will, had his freedom - the only thing worth anything to a vampire - taken away. he didn't escape from a life that boxed him in, he was ripped away from a life he dearly misses. but then again, considering his actions as a magistrate, it's also a sort of divine punishment by proxy, one that is entirely disproportionate to his crimes, in a way only something as extreme as vampirism can be.

obviously the proxy for all this is cazador, but he is merely a personification of the dark force vampires are slaves to. cazador exists because it's much easier for an audience to understand how little control a vampire has over his actions when they can point to someone and say "you're at fault, astarion is innocent, you forced him to do all of those awful things". but the truth is, cazador doesn't have to exist. cazador's compulsion could be replaced by an amorphous urge, coming from inside astarion, outside of his control, and his character would make just as much sense, except it would be harder for everyone (including astarion himself) to separate the actions from the person. imagine a dark urge character who wanted to be good, but the urge wasn't something they could resist. imagine an evil dark urge run, killing everyone, but entirely against your will. would you defend that character? would you be able to redeem them if one day the urge ceased? would you even be willing to wait, to give them time to break free? or would you just kill them, as a mercy on the world? there's no surprise that most people would stake astarion on sight. maybe he can be redeemed eventually, but what about the time inbetween?

yes, this all comes from dnd vampire lore, so it applies across the board, not just for astarion. vampire spawn exist as a different entity from a fully-fledged vampire because it allows the spawn to keep a part of their humanity, their soul, and have their morality exist separately from the call of the blood. all of this makes astarion fascinating, and also somewhat easier to analyse.

[dragomfry]

Implications of Doumeki’s Trauma, mainly with the Nurse

I haven’t seen many discuss the significance of the nurse trauma or why they think it was written that way to begin with, so here’s some of my thoughts

TW: CSA, SA, parental neglect

I’m glad that the story treats the moment with the nurse as SA of a male by a female, rather than Doumeki “being lucky” to have done it with a woman (gross). It’s not often that this situation is represented without it being played as a joke or as something… desirable. (I wanted to puke just writing that).

But the moment is brought up once then not again (from what I recall), and its effects are hard to see without reading far into the text, so I’ve always questioned why this instance was written as Doumeki’s first sexual experience. Why was this event discussed in only a single chapter? Why did it have to be rape and not some healthier arrangement? And if others want to add to that too, I’m curious of those thoughts

We know that when Doumeki was younger, his parents stopped treating him like a child because of his inability to express emotions well and how much his body developed (ch.29). I think Yoneda-sensei wanted to point out the harm of treating a child like an adult when they are still growing. I drew a connection to the phenomenon of adultification, primarily affecting Black children but also applying to other ethnic minorities frequently. There are many negative effects, but among the worst is that some children who are deemed as “more mature” are more likely to be sexualized and potentially assaulted. I believe this is what happened to Doumeki.

Now that I think about it, has Doumeki ever himself thought of the experience with the nurse as rape, or those times in prison as SA*? He said in ch.5 that he has never told anyone else about his encounter with the nurse. Maybe he was ashamed of this sexual encounter, or maybe he was scared that others would judge or simply brush off his experience? Maybe he didn’t even realize he was a victim in that moment. We only have so much to work with, but I’m speculating that the blase portrayal and Doumeki’s (seemingly lack of) reaction to these moments could be interpreted as commentary in itself. These moments are so casual in society that even the survivors themselves don’t realize they have been subject to a crime. Normalization of these experiences is a foundation of rape culture.

The implications/effects of the nurse trauma are harder to see but I think it manifests in a few ways.

Doumeki was around 12-13 (first year of junior high in Japan) when he was exploited by an authority figure, so he may not have fully realized he was a victim. His inability to express emotions well when he was younger explains his general lack of expression, but that doesn’t explain his emotional numbness and feelings of emptiness that are very prevalent pre-timeskip. I believe these aspects are attributed to his trauma (concerning parental neglect, the nurse, and his feelings surrounding Aoi’s trauma). This numbness has actually improved seeing as how he’s expressing more emotion and starting to joke around more post-timeskip. His sense of purpose has also improved, and I don’t think it’s just about Yashiro anymore but also his dedication to the Sakura group.

The nurse incident may also show his early sexual curiosity (since he didn’t run away). It may have added to the huge sense of shame that he would develop for having those feelings later.

Actually I just realized that it was when Aoi entered junior high that she started developing feelings for Doumeki, and it’s when he started avoiding her. They are 5 years apart. Doumeki encountered the nurse when he was in junior high. This recontextualizes everything. The confusing and traumatic feelings Doumeki must have experienced from the nurse incident must have scarred him, making him deeply uncomfortable with Aoi’s new feelings. So it’s not just because she was his adopted sister that made him uncomfortable, but also because she may have reminded him of horrible feelings with the nurse. Now I think this is what makes him avoiding his sister for so long more tangible. He wanted to disconnect from that trauma, which unfortunately he affiliated with his sister. This disconnection from his trauma must have also contributed to his feelings of numbness and emptiness I mentioned earlier.

The nurse incident also highlighted his childhood loneliness. His parents didn’t treat him like a child for as long as they should have. He may have just wanted some attention from an adult…

It’s easy to see why Yashiro’s trauma is so heavily discussed (and it’s extremely important that it is): the effects of his trauma are so visceral to us. And it’s true that portrayals/explanations of how his trauma affects him are given significantly more “screentime” than Doumeki’s (Yashiro is the main character so it makes sense but; admittedly it’s still a bit of a critique). However, the effects of Doumeki’s trauma are also very complex and should be discussed as well. They are just harder to notice..

———————————————————————————

I think we will see more of Doumeki’s perspective this arc. And soon. Yoneda-sensei loves hiding stuff from us only to reveal that info at just the right moments, and I think this is what’s happening here. Lots of things about him have changed without any real explanation; so far we can only speculate. E.g. his feelings regarding his father, his situation with his family, his relationship with Izumi (which is being teased heavily), etc

Mysteries all around

*= edit for clarification

[genderqueerdykes]

wrt to the height thing, if you’re from elsewhere please try to extend empathy and do the mental conversion to height wherever you’re from. Like a trans man in America being 5’3 is six inches shorter than the cis man average and an inch shorter than the cis woman average. So if you’re from, say, Japan where cis man average is 5’7 and cis woman average is 5’2 then that’s equivalent to this person being 5’1. It’s the divergence from expected average not the explicit height that’s important and what you can relate to. I know Americans have a reputation for being very america-centric and just ~assuming~ that our norms are universal, but the way to fix that isn’t chastising people expressing pain at the transphobia they face for things they cannot change about themselves that diverge from what’s expected of men in their society.

these are 2 different conversations & you are totally allowed to make your own post. you can make a post about this and have that conversation yourself, because i do not live anywhere else but america and i cannot speak for you or anyone else who does not live here. it is a genuine problem here. me allowing trans men to speak up about this is not saying your experience doesn't exist or doesn't matter. please understand that this is you butting your head into a conversation where you don't belong.

if someone is talking about how height can cause dysphoria, and you don't relate: that post wasn't made for you. please go make your own. it wasn't made for you and trying to make the conversation about something else is derailing.

i totally understand that trans people in different countries have different situations w/ height but this is disturbing behavior please let USAmerican trans men & mascs talk about their dysphoria wrt to height.

genuine question: i'm a trans man living in America. why is it not okay to speak about my perspective as an American? my life doesn't suddenly stop mattering because I live somewhere I didn't choose to. How do you expect me to speak about experiences I don't understand? I don't live anywhere but America. I have never lived anywhere else but America. please stop trying to force me to have a conversation i don't understand. i cannot accurately depict what it's like to be a trans man in afghanistan if i haven't lived there.

i'm not being mean when i point this out but i'm glad to hear that height is not an issue elsewhere, but people NEED to be sympathetic about how height IS a big deal in certain parts of the world. it's not *just* USAmerica where taller people live. please be sympathetic to people in populations with mixed heights. the reason it's an issue here is because we have a lot of diversity in heights, but generally, white people are expected to be taller.

i really do understand that this is relative to culture but you need to understand that you also have to be open to how height affects people from other cultures. it's very narrow minded to bullheadedly insist that because height dysmorphia does not occur in your society which- i honestly doubt, i feel like there are still people with height related insecurities -the fact that height does impact Americans doesn't matter. the trans men talking about height dysphoria are FROM countries that things like this occur in. they are talking about THEIR experience with height and how they truly are profiled for being too short or too tall as a trans person. please stop inferring that USAmericans are talking out of line for speaking about any possible dysphoria with height.

trans women are also persecuted for their height in the USA.

please please take a second to understand how badly this affects trans men. white people expect men to be much, much taller than women. if a trans man is under 5' 6" in a lot of white cultures, they're viewed as too short to be a man. especially trans guys under 4'. trans men really do get assaulted, harmed, raped, threatened, mocked and misgendered over their height and yes, it CAN get them killed, because their height "gave away" the fact that they're a tranny.

i understand it's different elsewhere. i know. but i can't talk about what it's like elsewhere from a personal stance because i don't live there. please understand that american lives MATTER. we are not all our government. we do not all agree with our government. we are not responsible for our government. we are not wholesale rude. we are not wholesale assholes. we are not inherently bad people. we are not all right wing alt right conspiracy nuts.

please be kinder to USAmerican queers. we literally should not have to stop talking about our experiences and be quiet because Americans "Suck" or are too "America-centric' or whatever. this behavior honestly sucks. please let USAmericans talk about what it's like to live here. we're having an awful time. this is not the land of everyone's rich and is an annoying racist tourist. we are real people. please care about that. thank you for your time.

[faytelumos]

I think I completely and utterly failed to understand how monumentally difficult it was for Edward to leave the men who wanted to assault Bella alive.

The first time I read it, I was probably thinking that he was being overprotective. That his repeated comments about how he wanted to go back and kill them were overdramatic expressions of love that he had developed so quickly.

Watching the movie, I probably wasn't reading into the behavior at all. That it was just him being overprotective, being angry or macho or whatever other trait pop culture finds desirable in a man.

Even the second time I read the book, it didn't click.

But I'm reading it again. And I'm realizing how. Badly. He must want to run outside and hunt those men down, even as he's sitting with Bella in the cozy little restaurant.

When Edward was feeding on humans, he was feeding on violent criminals. He specifically predated individuals who were hurting people, probably in the exact ways those men wanted to hurt Bella. So in his head, number one, that would label them subconsciously as "food" for him.

There is also definitely the issue of the fact that he does care for Bella. She's his friend, and she's kind of a fascination, and even if they don't know each other very well at this point, he obviously likes her. She makes him feel all confused and flustered. She likes him, and he's drawn in by her, and whether or not he's developed feelings of love at this point, it's undeniable that he's sucked into her gravity.

The last point is, I think on some level, Edward has decided that Bella is his prey. He saw her first. He smelled her first. He had the chance to eat her first. He could have done it at any time, and she keeps walking up to him, and it's like she's trying to fix the cosmic predator/prey imbalance made by him not eating her when he had the chance the first time. And I think he sees this happening consciously, and it's part of what is tearing him up inside when he's around her.

All that is to say, not only did these guys want to hurt his friend. They wanted to take his kill. And they themselves are more "food" than "person" in his mind. And it creates this perfect storm for him, because he has every single reason to just kill them all right then. And he knows it wouldn't even be hard to do. But he also knows it would hurt Bella and Carlisle. But it's a lifestyle that he's lived before, and been rewarded for. But he knows he shouldn't. But he did at one point, and it was easy, and it was human blood, and he hasn't had human blood in so long, and Bella's right there and already smells delicious, and these guys are food, they're filth, they're not even people—

So yes. Now that I'm experiencing this story a fourth time, I finally understand why half an hour later and several miles away, Edward is still fighting the urge to go kill those guys.

And it's impressive that he doesn't.

[zephirite]

'Complicated' doesn't equal 'Queer'

The analysis of Mizu's gender and identity are wonderful to read. I am a massive fan of queer readings that complicate and enhance the present narrative, and feel like a natural extension of the character.

However. It is a bit saddening that people see a fraught relationship with gender and immediately label it as fraught because it's queer, instead of allowing their idea of womanhood to expand to include fraught relationships with gender expression. It's as if...the demographics Mizu's confirmed to belong to (being a woman and being bi-racial) aren't 'enough', so people have to put her in another demographic (being trans) in order to care about/understand her. It feels like it erases the specificity of her story as being ABOUT womanhood, because they cannot fathom womanhood being this full with pain and confusion without signifying queerness. For a relationship (between people, or between a person and themself) to be queer, one would say it must fall outside of the norms enforced by society. But in reality, EVERYONE is outside the norm in various ways. There is no person who's a paragon of society, strutting about confidently. It's why the 'all white men have it easy' argument fails; if it's not gender or race complicating your life, it's religion, ability, mental illness, wealth, language, or a million other things. In reality, everyone has a complicated relationship with all facets of their identity. People are forced into roles now as much as during the Edo period, just in different ways. So anyone expressing difficulty within their roles does not immediately equate to them being queer. Is Akimi queer because she wants to control her life? By modern standards, we'd say "No", because modern conceptions of womanhood include independence. But during the Edo period, womanhood equaled ownership. Seki tells this to Amiki, and she flees, determined to prove him wrong. By their standards, her attempting independence is inherently non-womanly. Another cultural/historical difference is the characters in this show don't have the luxury of their presentation being self-expression. To claim that Mizu wears pants, a hat, and cloak because she IS a man ignores that being revealed as a woman will get her kicked out of cities, killed, assaulted, or ignored. She is not living in a neutral environment and choosing to dress 'masc'; she's trying to survive. She wants to be seen as a man so she can be let into the city, and not freeze--which we see happen to a woman and her child, whom the guard refused to let in without her dead husband. If Mizu didn't have to fight and lived with people who all knew she was female--and she still dressed in men's apparel--that would signify her comfort in far queerer ways than pure survival. (Notice she wore a kimono around Mikio for years without seeming any less comfortable in it than her 'male' clothing. She dresses for her role, not personal expression.) Other characters allowed to fret over their appearance without the fans questioning their gender.

Akimi is haunted by having to blacken her teeth, since it signifies how she'll have to modify her body to appeal to the husband she doesn't want. And Taigen is distraught over Mizu slicing his topknot--not for the bald spot, as Akimi teases--but because even cutting hair was seen as defiling the body your family gave you. Additionally, it was done without his consent--therefore ruining his honor as a warrior, which was how Akimi's father justified ending their engagement. Both these reasons could lend themselves to queer narratives, but because Aikmi and Taigen dress consistently in their gendered clothing, the fans let them maintain their cultural significance and don't question their genders. Whereas Mizu looking at her boobs supposedly signifies dysphoria--and therefore being trans--as opposed to the growth of something that could get her discovered, and ruin her life. Bit inconsistent, no? I can see where people relate to the androgyny/trans/nonbinary reading of Mizu--but that should be an expansion of themes, not an exclusion. Let womanhood stay part of that analysis. Please.

I've been longing for a show to critically dissect womanhood in a historical and cultural context, and was so excited to see if other people felt as seen as I did. So watching some Queer headcanons ignore the established cultural, character-specific, and plot of the story...kinda stings. It's similar to the Encanto fiasco, where fans were quick to prioritize their assumption of a character's gender/sexuality/neurodivergence over their established motives. Like Isabella not wanting to marry a man because she was a lesbian, instead of her feeling pressured to do it because it was what her family expected of someone as 'perfect' and 'pretty' as her. Being a lesbian could've enhanced that, but claiming that was the ONLY reason rubbed people the wrong way. Particularly, people who were excited to see cultural norms and familial expectations mold the characters. Now, headcanons harm no one. Characters are not fragile; they can be stretched to fit many interpretations. But when entering a fandom, we do not leave our biased baggage at the door. And it might be nice to question why we feel the need to take a situation we may not understand and reshape it to fit our modern lens, instead of growing our understanding. It's cute to imagine the characters in a less-fraught world, but...are we losing the very essence of the characters when we do?

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Jonathan Haidt

Published: Dec 22, 2023

[Note: this is post #1 of a pair of posts. The second post gives the text of chapter 3 of The Coddling of the American Mind.]

In the days after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, university campuses immediately distinguished themselves as places set apart from the rest of American society—zones where different moral rules applied. Even before Israel began its military response, the loudest voices on campus were not university leaders condemning the attacks and vowing solidarity with their Jewish and Israeli students. Instead, the world saw faculty members and student organizations celebrating the attacks. 

Political commentator and Atlantic author David Frum summed up the moral uniqueness of the academy in this tweet, four days after the attack: 

Since then, there have been hundreds of antisemitic incidents on campuses including vandalism of Jewish sites, physical intimidation, physical assault, and death threats against Jewish students, often from other students. The response from university administrators has often been slow, weak, or entirely absent. 

[ Image. The scene on the exterior wall of my office building at NYU on the morning of October 17, 2023. NYU students had posted fliers about Israelis kidnapped by Hamas. Other NYU students tore them down. Other NYU students posted more of them. ]

Why is the culture of elite higher education so fertile for antisemitism, and why are our defenses against it so weak? Don’t we have the world's most advanced academic concepts and bureaucratic innovations for identifying hatred of all kinds, even expressions of hatred so small, veiled, and unconscious that we call them “micro-aggressions” and “implicit biases”? 

Yes, we do, but it turns out that they don’t apply when Jews are the targets,1 and this was the shocking hypocrisy on display in that Congressional hearing room on December 5. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asked the President of the University of Pennsylvania “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct, yes or no?” President Magill was unable to say yes. When the question was asked in various ways to all three presidents, none could say yes. All said variations of “it depends on the context.”

Now, as a social psychologist who studies moral judgment, I’m all for context. Technically, those presidents were correct that students chanting “from the river to the sea” may or may not be advocating killing all the Jews in Israel. Those chanting “globalize the intifada” may or may not be calling for terrorist attacks on Jewish sites around the world. And even if they were, such political speech is protected by the First Amendment unless the speech is made in a context that is likely to incite actual violence, constitutes a “true threat,” or rises to the level of discriminatory harassment. Those three presidents could have said that their universities are bastions of free speech where everyone lives and dies by the First Amendment.

In fact, they tried to say that, and this is why they were so widely pilloried for hypocrisy. Like most elite schools, Harvard, Penn, and MIT have spent the last ten years punishing professors for their research findings and disinviting speakers who questioned the value of DEI. (See The Canceling of the American Mind for dozens of other examples.) As has been widely reported, Harvard and Penn are the top two schools in America for creating terrible speech climates, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. 

What on earth happened to the academy? As Fareed Zakaria recently asked: How did America’s elite universities go from being “the kinds of assets the world looks at with admiration and envy” just eight years ago, to becoming objects of ridicule today? How did we bungle things so badly?

Greg Lukianoff and I wrote a book that tried to answer that question in 2018, as it was happening. 

The Coddling of the American Mind tells the story of how American universities lost their collective minds, beginning around 2014 when student demands for protections from speech seemed to appear out of nowhere, including calls for trigger warnings, safe spaces, bias response teams, and mandatory trainings around language use. The students were supported by some faculty members and some administrators, and their combined force pressured many university leaders to accede to their demands even though, privately, many had misgivings.2

The new morality driving these reforms was antithetical to the traditional virtues of academic life: truthfulness, free inquiry, persuasion via reasoned argument, equal opportunity, judgment by merit, and the pursuit of excellence.  A subset of students had learned this new morality in some of their courses, which trained them to view everyone as either an oppressor or a victim. Students were taught to use identity as the primary lens through which everything is to be understood, not just in their coursework but in their personal and political lives. When students are taught to use a single lens for everything, we noted, their education is harming them, rather than improving their ability to think critically.

This new morality, we argued, is what drove universities off a cliff. For a while, the descent was gradual, but at Halloween, 2015, in a courtyard at Yale, the free fall began. Students and administrators espousing the new morality demanded reforms at Yale and, over the next few months, at dozens of other schools. With a few exceptions, university leaders did not stand up to the new morality, critique its intellectual shortcomings, or say no to demands and ultimatums. 

You can see the fall of higher ed in data from Gallup. The figure below shows that as recently as 2015, most Democrats and even most Republicans had high confidence in higher education as an institution. (Independents were evenly split). A mere eight years later, higher ed had alienated not just Republicans, but also independents. The trend for Democrats was down as well. The survey was fielded in June of 2023, well before the current mess. 

[ Figure 1. Percent of U.S. adults with "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in higher education. Source: Gallup (2023). ]

The good news is that the academy’s free fall is now over. American higher ed hit rock bottom on December 5, 2023 in that Congressional hearing room. Anyone who wants universities to bounce back and regain the trust of the American people must understand this new morality and ensure that it never holds sway on campus again.

The key chapter for understanding the new morality is chapter 3. I recently re-read that chapter and thought it would be of help to those who are struggling to comprehend the enormity of the culture change on so many campuses since 2015. Greg and I explained the transformation as the triumph of a cognitive distortion—binary thinking—such that students learn to slot everyone into one of two boxes: oppressor or victim.3 This mindset is the psychological basis of one of the three “Great Untruths” that we found flourishing on college campuses in the 2010s: Life is a battle between good people and evil people.4 We said that this was a terrible thing to teach students, and we explained why we expected that students who embraced this untruth would damage their mental health. (Subsequent research has confirmed this prediction.)

The central portion of the chapter describes two different kinds of identity politics, one of which is good because it actually achieves what it says it is trying to achieve, and because it brings both justice and, eventually, better relationships within the group.  We called this “common humanity identity politics.” It’s what Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela did by humanizing their opponents and drawing larger circles that appealed to shared histories and identities. The other form we called “common enemy identity politics.” It teaches students to develop the oppressor/victim mindset and then change their societies by uniting disparate constituencies against a specific group of oppressors. This mindset spreads easily and rapidly because human minds evolved for tribalism. The mindset is hyper-activated on social media platforms that reward simple, moralistic, and sensational content with rapid sharing and high visibility.5 This mindset has long been evident in antisemitism emanating from the far right. In recent years it is increasingly driving antisemitism on the left, too.

Common enemy identity politics is arguably the worst way of thinking one could possibly teach to young people in a multi-ethnic democracy such as the United States. It is, of course, the ideological drive behind most genocides. On a more mundane level, it can in theory be used to create group cohesion on teams and in organizations, and yet the current academic version of it plunges organizations into eternal conflict and dysfunction. As long as this way of thinking is taught anywhere on campus, identity-based hatred will find fertile ground.

With permission from Penguin Press, Greg and I present a condensed version of chapter 3 in a linked post, here:

What is the victim-oppressor mindset and how did it conquer the academy?

Please do go read that post, and then come back here. 

OK, if you don’t want to do that right now, here is the ending of the excerpt, which offers a partial summary. After describing the social psychology of tribalism and ideas about power (from Marx, Marcuse, Foucault, and Crenshaw), we analyze an intersectionalist text in which the author (Kathryn Pauly Morgan) asserted that because men created educational systems, girls and women in those systems today are essentially a “colonized population.” Here is our response:

Morgan is certainly right that it was mostly white males who set up the educational system and founded nearly all the universities in the United States. Most of those schools once excluded women and people of color. But does that mean that women and people of color should think of themselves as “colonized populations” today? Would doing so empower them, or would it encourage an external locus of control? Would it make them more or less likely to engage with their teachers and readings, work hard, and benefit from their time in school? More generally, what will happen to the thinking of students who are trained to see everything in terms of intersecting bipolar axes where one end of each axis is marked “privilege” and the other is “oppression”? Since “privilege” is defined as the “power to dominate” and cause “oppression,” these axes are inherently moral dimensions. The people on top are bad, and the people down below are good. This sort of teaching seems likely to encode the Untruth of Us Versus Them directly into students’ cognitive schemas: Life is a battle between good people and evil people. Furthermore, there is no escaping the conclusion as to who the evil people are. The main axes of oppression usually point to one intersectional address: straight white males. [...] In short, as a result of our long evolution for tribal competition, the human mind readily does binary, us-versus-them thinking. If we want to create welcoming, inclusive communities, we should be doing everything we can to turn down the tribalism and turn up the sense of common humanity. Instead, some theoretical approaches used in universities today may be hyper-activating our ancient tribal tendencies, even if that was not the intention of the professor. Of course, some individuals truly are racist, sexist, and homophobic, and some institutions are too, even when the people who run them mean well, if they end up being less welcoming to members of some groups. We favor teaching students to recognize a variety of kinds of bigotry and bias as an essential step toward reducing them. Intersectionality can be taught skillfully, as Crenshaw does in her TED Talk. It can be used to promote compassion and reveal injustices not previously seen. Yet somehow, many college students today seem to be adopting a different version of intersectional thinking and are embracing the Untruth of Us Versus Them.

So, how well does our analysis from 2018 hold up in 2023? Does chapter 3 help us to understand the recent explosion of antisemitism on campus?

Unfortunately, the analysis works perfectly. Many students today talk about Israel as a “settler-colonialist” nation.6 That is straight oppressor/victim terminology, from post-colonialist thinker Frantz Fanon. It treats Israel as if diaspora Jews were 19th century England or France sending colonists to take over an existing society, motivated by monetary greed. Once that frame is applied, students’ minds are closed to any other understanding of a complicated situation, such as the view that Jews are the original (or indigenous) inhabitants of the land, who had a continual presence there for 3,000 years, and whose exiled populations (many in Arab lands) had nowhere else to go after being decimated by Hitler’s version of common enemy identity politics.7 The French in Algeria could return to France, but if these students get their wish and Hamas gains control of all the territory “from the river to the sea,” it’s not clear where seven million Jews would go, other than into the sea.8

[ Image. Pro-Palestinian supporters march after a rally in New York City, October 9, 2023. Photo by Lev Radin, Shutterstock. ]

Direct evidence of the link between the oppressor/victim mindset and antisemitism was published last week in a poll from Harvard’s Center for American Political Studies and the Harris Poll. The survey was fielded on December 13-14.9 The survey asks about Americans’ beliefs not just about Israel but about Jews in America and on campus as well. I’ll summarize a few of the items, which you can check out in the report, and I'll expand on three in particular, which document the wide reach of the oppressor/victim mindset and its role in causing young people to embrace antisemitism.10 

The Harvard-Harris survey found that Americans side strongly with Israel against Hamas in the current conflict––except for Gen Z (here operationalized as the 18-24-year-old age bracket)11, which is evenly divided between support for Israel and Hamas. (See p. 47 of the report.) 

I should note that some have rightly criticized the Harvard-Harris poll on methodological grounds, especially for forcing respondents into binary choices, rather than offering a “don’t know” or “undecided” option. When such options are offered many people choose them, sometimes more than half, so the numbers you’ll see below probably overstate the prevalence of antisemitism, in absolute terms. Zach Rausch and I have been collecting all the recent surveys we can find on attitudes toward the Gaza conflict in this Google doc. Many other surveys have confirmed that there is substantially more support for Hamas among Gen Z than among older generations, although some studies find that Gen Z still tilts slightly toward Israel. It is the pattern of responses across questions and generations that I am drawing on, rather than the absolute numbers.

The survey found that Gen Z is not much different than older generations in agreeing that 1. Antisemitism is prevalent on campus (p. 50), 2. Jewish students are facing harassment on campus (p. 50), 3. Calls for “the genocide of Jews” are hate speech (p. 51), and 4. Calls for “the genocide of Jews” are harassment (p. 52).

Yet, despite agreeing with other generations that antisemitism is prevalent on campus, that Jews are being harassed on campus, and that calls for genocide are both hate speech and harassment, Gen Z is evenly divided as to whether campus protesters have a right to call for genocide against Jews. You can see the exact question below the table in Figure 2. As you can see below, all older generations favor disciplinary action as the proper response to students who publicly call for the mass killing of Jews. Only Gen Z does not.

[ Figure 2. “If a student calls for the genocide of Jews should that student be told that they are free to call for genocide or should such students face actions for violating university rules?” Harvard-Harris Poll, December 2023, screenshot from p. 51, with additional annotations by Haidt. ]

Why is Gen Z so tolerant of hate speech and verbal harassment of Jews, when it shows the lowest tolerance for such speech against other groups? The next three items show that the oppressor/victim mindset and common enemy identity politics are at work, but only for Gen Z. One item asked “Do you think that identity politics based on race has come to dominate at our elite universities, or do they operate primarily on the basis of merit and accomplishments without regard to race?” (p. 55). All generations agree that identity politics based on race is now dominant, but Gen Z, which has the most experience with current campus culture, agrees more strongly (69%, tied with those over 65).

The big difference between generations is that only Gen Z endorses this kind of identity politics. One survey item asks: “There is an ideology that white people are oppressors and nonwhite people and people of certain groups have been oppressed and as a result should be favored today at universities and for employment. Do you support or oppose this ideology?” [p. 56] 

[ Figure 3. “There is an ideology that white people are oppressors and nonwhite people and people of certain groups have been oppressed and as a result should be favored today at universities and for employment. Do you support or oppose this ideology?” Harvard-Harris Poll, December 2023. ]

Gen Z, and only Gen Z, agrees with the “ideology that white people are oppressors.” The direct line linking this explicit form of common enemy identity politics to antisemitism is found in the responses to the next item: “Do you think that Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors or is that a false ideology?”

[ Figure 4. “Do you think that Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors or is that a false ideology?” Harvard-Harris Poll, December 2023. ]

Gen Z, and only Gen Z, agrees. As I said earlier, the absolute numbers would be lower if a neutral or “don’t know” option were presented, so I do not believe that two out of every three Americans in that age range truly believes that Jews are oppressors. But even if half of the respondents chose a third option, the balance of those who believe it to those who reject it would still tilt toward “oppressors,” and more strongly than for any older generation.

In other words: While all generations agree that race-based identity politics now dominates on campus, only Gen Z leans toward (rather than away from ) endorsing such politics, applying it to Jews, and agreeing that we should treat Jews as oppressors—that is, treat them badly and not protect them from hate and harassment because they deserve what’s coming to them. 

I should offer a few clarifications. 

First, it is understandable that there is an age gradient, with older generations strongly pro-Israel and younger generations becoming increasingly supportive of the Palestinian cause. Older generations were raised by parents who remembered the Holocaust and understood the context within which the state of Israel was created. Older generations remember the frequent attacks on a vulnerable Israel in its early years. Younger generations, in contrast, have only known a strong Israel that occupied Palestinian territory (at least in the West Bank). There are two sides on this issue. I’m on one side, but I understand that there are good reasons for taking the other side. Opposing Israel or hating the Israeli government is not automatically anti-semitism. What concerns me is that anti-Israel sentiment seems to be increasingly closely linked to hatred of Jews and physical attacks on Jews and Jewish sites. Such attacks may seem morally justified, even virtuous, to those who believe that Jews are “oppressors.” 

Second, the Israeli military response has not been “surgical”; its bombing campaign has killed thousands of Palestinians who are not members of Hamas. Young people, most of whom are on TikTok, are probably more exposed than older people to videos of horrific suffering among Gazans. So again, I don’t criticize anyone for protesting Israel or the war, and I hope that universities respect pro-Palestinian students’ First Amendment rights to speak and protest. But the displays of support for Hamas began even before Israel had responded, and part of what was so shocking in the first week after the October 7 attack was the relatively muted and delayed expressions of concern by university leaders and campus organizations. Whatever has caused today’s campus antisemitism, it was already baked in before Israel’s military response began.

Third, I cannot say how much of today’s antisemitism comes from college classrooms (and K-12 classrooms as well), and how much is driven by social media, particularly TikTok. The rapid transition to the “phone-based childhood” that happened around 2012 is a crucial part of the story, which Greg and I discussed in The Coddling. As I have argued elsewhere, social media has introduced dangerous new dynamics into society, including explosive virality and the fragmentation of shared understandings (i.e., the collapse of the Tower of Babel). But given that today’s campus antisemitism is so closely linked with the oppressor/victim mindset, and given that Greg and I (and many others) have been warning about the dangers of teaching this mindset since before TikTok was created, I am confident that American higher education bears a substantial portion of the blame.

I do not believe that those three presidents, testifying before Congress, were antisemitic in their hearts. But in their heartless and gutless responses to a question about when it violates their campus’s rules for students to call for genocide against Jews, all three presidents validated the now-prevalent campus antisemitism. All three presidents essentially said: Jews don’t count, it’s OK to call for their deaths, as long as it does not “turn into action.”

According to those who embrace common enemy identity politics and its oppressor/victim mindset, all members of victim groups are justified in “punching up,” pulling oppressors down, vandalizing their buildings and symbols, and perhaps even raping their women and killing their children. At least, that is the implication of tweets from various professors who praised the Hamas attack, saying versions of “this is what decolonization looks like.”

Conclusion

In the tweet I quoted at the top of this essay, David Frum pointed out that elite college campuses have diverged from the rest of the country. Frum urged those of us in the academy to reflect upon why college campuses are so rife with antisemitism, in a country that is, according to public opinion data, very positive toward its Jewish citizens. I have tried to do that in this essay, concluding that it is our own fault for embracing and institutionalizing bad ideas, rather than challenging them. I have shown a direct connection between the oppressor/victim mindset and the willingness of many in the current generation of students to espouse overtly antisemitic beliefs (even if it is not truly a majority of them).

American higher education is now in a code-red situation. It’s not just Jewish donors and alumni who are withdrawing their support. As you saw in Figure 1, a majority of Americans had low confidence in higher ed before October 7. In the wake of the December 5 congressional hearings, it is now surely a supermajority, including perhaps most Democrats as well. Efforts in red-state legislatures to constrain, control, or defund higher ed will now find a great deal more public support than anyone could have imagined before 2015. 

If they are to regain public trust, university leaders will need to understand the victim/oppressor mindset and how their own institutions are encouraging it. Then they will need to take bold action and make deep changes. You can’t just plant a new center for the study of antisemitism in soil that is ideal for the growth of antisemitism. You have to change the soil, change the culture and policies of the institution.

Greg and I have an entire chapter (13) on how to do that, how to create “wiser universities” by enshrining free inquiry, changing the standards used to hire faculty and admit students, and then orienting students for productive disagreement. A wiser university would make students less susceptible to the oppressor/victim mindset even if they are exposed to it in a few of their classes. I will offer many more ideas in future posts. For now, I list organizations that specialize in improving the culture of universities, and I list essays that offer what I think are good ideas. I’ll keep the list updated for a while, so if you find good essays, please post links to them in the comments.

I close this essay with the quotation that opens Chapter 3 of The Coddling, from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, one of the wisest people I’ve ever had the good fortune to meet:

There is the moral dualism that sees good and evil as instincts within us between which we must choose. But there is also what I will call pathological dualism that sees humanity itself as radically... divided into the unimpeachably good and the irredeemably bad. You are either one or the other.

Universities can and must free students from pathological dualism.

[azuremallone]

Democrat Kamala Harris doing what she does best:

Socialism

Rules for thee and not for me, as the saying goes, as Kamala undoubtedly has the Secret Service hide her and her staff from being on camera, committing felony breaking and entering, trespassing on private property, and unlawfully occupying private property. Why else the tape on the cameras?

This is a burglary charge for everyone else, but not if it's a Democrat Vice President who is operating above the law.

This is the real Kamala Harris. She's been connected to George Soros for decades. She does not work for the citizens of the United States. She works for him.

From George Soros himself:

“Operating under Communist regimes, I never felt the need to explain what ‘open society’ meant; those who supported the objectives of the foundations understood it better than I did, even if they were not familiar with the expression.”

What he's saying here is that he's supporting and spreading Communism because communists understand him.

“An open society is not merely the absence of government intervention and oppression. It is a complicated, sophisticated structure, and deliberate effort is required to bring it into existence.”

He means by force. Let's not mince words. He's talking about implementing his view of society by forcing it upon everyone. What he means by "Open Society" is one in which the intervention and oppression is performed by the mob as directed and rewarded by the government. This is the same government intervention and oppression one witnesses in Communism, which was implemented in Nazi Germany, but decentralized. It trains and teaches the people to effectively turn in others for violations against the State in exchange for a collective pat on the head.

Sound familiar? It should, it's called "cancel culture". It requires everyone and everything to be categorized. But rather than some agency of the governed do it, the people are told it's a good thing and to label themselves. Then, they allow them to establish their own rules and definitions. Finally, they are told to defend their ideals against outsiders and traitors to their cause as if it's life and death. They are told they're on the side of righteousness and grouped with others similar, and together they then force others to do as they say or be violently attacked and destroyed for the greater good of putting on an "anti-" pin.

You don't need a government to violently murder those who disagree; you just need a government that approves of mob vigilantes to do the work. Why else have Soros-backed prosecutors like Kamala Harris in states like California frequently refused to enforce laws to take violent criminal offenders off the streets? Why did they let mobs of terrorists call themselves ACAB assault, murder, torch, and thieve without any of them going to prison? It's to indoctrinate people to accept that if they don't agree with the mob, and the mob suspects them of not, their life and property are forfeit, and the government agrees because it looks the other way.

This doesn't mean the government isn't pulling the strings. It is. It's controlling the media and controlling the narrative in this "Open Society." It's controlling the education of the children to tell them it's right and good to do these viscous, heinous, and violent acts in the name of the global society's greater good. It's the elder elite who prosper while the rest of the young are destroying each other as useful idiots, lowering the wealth in their communities, murdering dissenting individuals and groups, all for only the price of Social Currency.

That's right, girls and boys, for the simple reward of getting a pat on the head and a belly rub by strangers on the internet, you too can be the best collaborator! Who's a good little collaborator? You are! Yes! You're such a good little collaborator!

Mein Fall ist abgeschlossen.

[maleswillbemale]

What were gender roles like historically for Lakota people and how have they changed over time?

For historical gender roles, most commonly Lakota women were in charge of raising children, cooking, tending to crops, making clothing/tools, and offering guidance for larger decisions being made. There were some warriors and medicine women, but not nearly as many as there were males in those roles. They were exceptionally rare.

We are matrilineal, meaning that our descent in regards to what band we're from is determined by where our mother's family line came from, which is pretty common for plains tribes to my knowledge. It's kind of like how your last name is determined by your father in modern-day culture. That's one of the few positive things we have over men in our society.

Men married into families, not the other way around. With that being said though, husbands still had a lot of power over their wives, and they could marry multiple if they had the status for it. They would just have to be able to provide for them all. Women didn't always get a say in who they married, and it was extremely difficult to leave marriages if they didn't approve of their husbands.

I will say that sexual violence wasn't encouraged culturally. One of our most well-known stories, the White Buffalo Woman, involves punishing a man who attempts to steal the White Buffalo Woman to have as his wife. That didn't mean that assaults didn't happen (especially to women caught during raids/wars with other tribes) but it wasn't as common as white people pushed.

That can't be said for modern Lakota women. One out of five I believe is the statistic right now for us to experience sexual abuse at least once in our lives. While this often comes from outside influences besides our family and tribe, I have experienced and also known many women who have suffered sexual abuse from their own family members on the reservation.

In the Lakota language, there are two different ways to speak - one for men, and one for women. There weren't no pronouns, you will know the gender based on how someone is speaking Lakota.

You will likely hear about "Two-Spirit" history that we have and you'll probably see the word "winkte". Winkte roughly means 'He wants to be like a woman'. Being called winkte is not generally seen as a good thing on the rez - and it's not for women. The only acceptance my tribe really had for gender-nonconformity historically was for males who were often (but not always) homosexual and expressed themselves by speaking in the female Lakota dialect and performing specific cultural roles in the tribe.

After colonization, being winkte wasn't encouraged and most of that cultural role is gone...and even the bits that remain are for feminine men only. Women weren't encouraged to step outside of their roles much even before white men introduced more misogyny into our culture.

That hasn't changed, and if anything it has gotten more rigid over time. Women are not allowed to play the drum or sing a lot of the songs. Women are not allowed to dance men's dances. If you as a woman wore men's regalia and/or danced a man's dance, you would be immediately shut down by elders.

It is undeniable that colonization has impacted how we treat our women, but we can't push all the blame on it either. And being Winkte actually meant something. You had a specific role in the tribe, you had expectations and a job to do. It was a lifestyle, a way to express being a feminine/homosexual male. And it's great that this existed, but females got none of that treatment, and we still don't.

Being a lesbian native woman means you get judged by elders, you don't get access to a cultural role in your tribe, you're seen as failing because you won't be giving birth to native babies. Being a native woman at all makes native men feel like you are obligated to have children to "keep the bloodline going". You're harassed and shamed for being with other women or with someone who isn't native.

Native men with a white woman = getting back at the colonizers, saving the tribe, generally good, his children are welcomed in whole-heartedly, etc.

Native women with a white man = colonized, a traitor, stupid, her children are often scrutinized for only being so and so percentage especially if they're lighter skinned, etc.

It's seriously twisted in Indian country.

I guess basically what I want non-natives to understand is that we weren't a magical haven before colonization. We didn't worship women and protect them from all harm and we didn't have a magical spiritual gender that celebrated all gender-nonconformity. We were typically more understanding towards homosexual men, yes, but not homosexual women. We weren't evil savages who raped every woman in sight, but we also didn't give women all the power over themselves. We were complicated individuals just like any other society.

[labbaik-ya-hussain-as]

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝐀𝐫𝐞 - 𝙗𝙮 𝘾𝙖𝙞𝙩𝙡𝙞𝙣 𝙅𝙤𝙝𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙣𝙚

When Israeli president Isaac Herzog described the assault on Gaza as a war “to save Western civilization, to save the values of Western civilization,” he wasn’t really lying. He was telling the truth — just maybe not quite in the way that he meant it.

The demolition of Gaza is indeed being perpetrated in defense of western values, and is itself a perfect embodiment of western values. Not the western values they teach you about in school, but the hidden ones they don’t want you to look at. Not the attractive packaging with the advertising slogans on the label, but the product that’s actually inside the box.

For centuries western civilization has depended heavily on war, genocide, theft, colonialism and imperialism, which it has justified using narratives premised on religion, racism and ethnic supremacy — all of which we are seeing play out in the incineration of Gaza today.

What we are seeing in Gaza is a much better representation of what western civilization is really about than all the gibberish about freedom and democracy we learned about in school. A much better representation of western civilization than all the art and literature we’ve been proudly congratulating ourselves on over the centuries. A much better representation of western civilization than the love and compassion we like to pretend our Judeo-Christian values revolve around.

It’s been so surreal watching western rightists babbling about how savage and barbaric Muslim culture is amid the 2023 zombie resurrection of Bush-era Islamophobia, even while western civilization amasses a mountain of ten thousand child corpses.

That mountain of child corpses is a much better representation of western culture than anything Mozart, da Vinci or Shakespeare ever produced.

This is western civilization. This is what it looks like.

Western civilization, where Julian Assange awaits his final appeal in February against US extradition for journalism which exposed US war crimes.

Where we are fed a nonstop deluge of mass media propaganda to manufacture our consent for wars and aggression which have killed millions and displaced tens of millions in the 21st century alone.

Where we are kept distracted by vapid entertainment and artificial culture wars so we don’t think too hard about what this civilization is and who it is killing and maiming and starving and exploiting.

Where news cycles are dominated more by celebrity gossip and Donald Trump’s latest mouth farts than by the mass atrocities that are being actively facilitated by western governments.

Where liberals congratulate themselves for having progressive views on race and gender while the officials they elect help rip apart children’s bodies with military explosives.

Part 2 of 2 below:

Where Zionist Jews center themselves and their emotions because opposition to an active genocide makes them feel like they are being persecuted, and where Israel supporters who are not Jewish still kind of feel like they are being persecuted also.

Where a giant globe-spanning empire powered by militarism, imperialism, capitalism and authoritarianism devours human flesh with an insatiable appetite while we congratulate ourselves on how much better we are than nations like Iran or China.

These are western values. This is western civilization.

Ask somebody to tell you what their values are and they’ll give you a bunch of pleasant-sounding words about family and love and caring or whatever. Watch their actions to see what their actual values are and you’ll often get a very different story.

That’s us. That’s western civilization. We say we value freedom, justice, truth, peace and free expression, but our actions paint a very different picture. The real western values, the actual product inside the box underneath the attractive label, are the ones you see acted out in Gaza today.

[littlemisshaleybug]

I have no desire to engage with the toxic assholes on the original post, but I follow and like your blog and never usually see hateful stuff on it, so I'll just explain in case you're inclined to listen: that "man in a dress is a state of mind" post *is* really hatefully transmisogynistic, not least because its a bunch of guys bullying a girl, but more specifically because OP is deliberately being taken out of context and agressively misunderstood. What she's refering to is the way in which afab people often admire and even try to co-opt the look of more butch or partially passing transfemmes, without considering that pointing out how someone fails to pass is not only rude and hurtful, but also making light of something that is very dangerous for her, and then adopting it as a costume which they are able to enjoy because it's not as dangerous for them. There is a well documented difference in the rates of assault for trans women vs everyone else, and this is much worse for people who are visibly trans, ie the exact type of person usually subjected to this sort of backhanded compliment in the queer community. It's like white people stealing Black hairstyles -- it's not the hairstyle itself that's offensive so much as the total lack of consideration for how it might feel to watch something that makes you a target generate clout for someone else who was already more privileged than you, all while they call themselves your friend and tone police you if you act mad or hurt about any of this. *That* is what the screen capped post was about, and that's why the notes say, essentially, "of course this person was white and afab", because that is the type of person who usually commits this sort of microaggression. This is an *extremely common* talking point among transfemmes, because it happens a lot. It does not make a lot of sense for a bunch of trans guys to not know this, especially on tumblr, if they listen to or care about literally any trans girls. So the fact that they are all piling on, framing it as if OP is mad about trans men wearing dresses, rather than trans men *calling her* a man in a dress, feels very jeering and sinister to me.

I'm gonna be real with you dawg, I had to go to my sister for help on this one because I feel like I got slapped in the face repeatedly by one of those boxing clown dolls. Ultimately we have come to the conclusion that you've twisted yourself so hard into this whole identity policing shit that you can't see someone's most common logical conclusions when it's right in front of you. I think you've taken my own intentions from the reblog and twisted them entirely. Your comments erase trans people who don't pass (and especially those who don't make it a priority to/cannot pass for whatever reason) as well as cis women who posses masculine traits whether they want them or not. There may well be some radfem TERF idiots who dress masculine and claim that it is some kind of coop of male identity without being trans, but that isn't true, they may *think* it is, but that's just an idiot with a bad buzzcut who thinks they're doing something special. Masculinity in women is not something that has been historically or even present day celebrated or accepted as a whole in western culture, and there are in fact many women who are attacked or ridiculed or simply ostracized because of traits out of their control, and some of them happen to fall under the queer umbrella. Hell, I've got bigger hands and a better beard than many men in my life! As a genderqueer person who lives and thrives with PCOS I am no stranger to this, as I am also no stranger to the fear and shame shoved onto trans women with traits that may make passing difficult.

I understand that no one should have to pass, it is no one's responsibility to make their gender expression more palatable for anyone at all whatsoever.

Also, to clarify, most of the reason this post exists is because my sister, who is a brave beautiful trans woman who I have been lucky enough to be following through her journey, was particularly infuriated by comparing being trans or cooping the trans identity like someone trying to claim race or culturally appropriate another group of people. You can't just choose to be trans, you're either trans or you're not.

I don't know what you've concluded I got from that post, but you can't coop being trans as an identity if you're not. Once again, to make myself perfectly clear, either you're trans, or you're not, and I don't care if there are people who will ague otherwise, as a true ally I will never NEVER discredit someone's gender just because I don't agree with their physical gender expression. I don't care who is wearing what, how someone's body is shaped or how they chose to groom it. I'm not entertaining running through loops of gendercritical fourth dimension radfem entertainment. Women are women when they say that are women, and the only opinion that matters on a woman's identity is their own, because at the end of the day there will always be someone trying to change you. Gender is fake, and as an avid dress wearer I think everyone deserves the right to take en edible and watch a bad movie in a moomoo.

[bukatra]

I'm going to ask a question and hope you believe me when I say I am not trolling but honestly want to know.

I read your "welcome at pride" list. People in revealing clothing are welcome. People who are there to perv on others are not. But... are revealing clothes not designed to attract loaded looks? Why else dress like that?

I haven't been to any pride but I've seen pictures and some participants wear in-your-face sexually revealing clothes. It's one of the reason I don't want to go tbh. Cause it makes me feel uncomfortable, like I would be perving on them just be being there while at the same time making me see things I would rather not.

Reasons to wear revealing clothing that are not to an attempt to sexually attract others:

Its hot and they will be at a parade and they dont want to suffer heat stroke or become sweaty and gross.

in their conservative household they were not allowed to wear revealing clothing, therefore, wearing revealing clothing is a rejection of the opressive culture/family/religion they grew up in.

they spent their whole life hating their body due to gender dysphoria but due to transitionaing, they now love the changes in their body and want to celebrate that new found self-love.

they spent years being told their body is a commodity owned by others and 'what they wear' is proof that they deserve to be used and abused and assaulted. surrounded by safe people, they want to prove that their body is their own.

They love their body and are proud of how it looks. Like any other pretty thing they love and are proud of, they want to show it off to other people. If I put abeautiful glass blown vase on my mantel, Im not asking my guests to take it or pick it up and break it, Im just showing off that I own a beautiful vase.

They are with a person they love and want to show their love. They want to revel in the public affection that they arent allowed to show or admit any other time of the year.

Pride is about personal freedom, expression, and rejection of the norm. It is almost never about what other people think of them. that happens every other day of the year. So many people bottle up their feelings, hide who they are, and lie about basic facts of their life to keep themselves safe from abuse. On Pride, that all bubbles over and they try to cram a whole years worth of self expression into one parade. Its messy. Its crude, sometimes. Its everything it cant be every other day. But one things its definitely not is about anyone else. Not about sex. Not about attracting other people. Its about doing what they cant do and being who theycant be and celebrating all of themselves, even their body.

[snowflakesoliloquy]

Detailed (minor spoilers) review

The Name Drop by Susan Lee

5 ⭐

While I don't believe I reveal any major spoilers, this is not a spoiler free review. You've been warned.

There is also a spoiler for White Trash Warlock, that will be bookended by large pink text so you can skip by that part if you'd like (another great book btw).

Without further ado I present my experience reading The Name Drop by Susan Lee

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

I had just finished listening to the audiobook Moon Called by Patricia Briggs. The first in the Mercy series and the first Patricia Briggs novel I have read.

I wanted a light audiobook to add to my currently reading rotation. I had deeper ebook reads waiting for me and needed something to have a break from them but still allow me to read in some capacity.

I had some idea of what I might be open to listening to, like continuing my relisten of Dead Beat by Jim Butcher but it wasn't available.

So I scrolled through the available romance audiobooks on Libby and eventually landed on The Name Drop.

The Name Drop follows two Korean characters who both share the same Korean name, Yoo-Jin Lee. They are both attending an internship in New York for the summer to solidify their paths towards college.

This leads into a prince and the pauper retelling. With Elijah being the prince and Jessica being the pauper.

Even with such a fun premise, I wasn't in the right headspace when I first listened to this book. At chapter 5, about an hour in, I found myself being a bit overly critical of this book.

That's when I put it down for a few days, reread She's Not Sorry by Mary Kubica. Something about a dark and gritty thriller helped me reset and buy into this very cute rom com of a book.

I'm so glad I came back to it. This book challenged me in ways I didn't expect and I don't even think the author meant to challenge the reader in the aspect I was challenged in. I had to confront some ingrained racism of mine while reading this book.

While also challenging me on ingrained racism, this book also wins points with me for passing the Bechdel test.

Jessica and Ella (Jessica's best friend) are discussing what's happened before she formally meets Elijah and Jessica gives Ella a tour on FaceTime of the brownstone she has ended up in by mistake. This scene leads to a cute nod in the epilogue as well. A Bechdel test moment that also wasn't just an unimportant throwaway scene.

Spoilers ahead

Elijah's parents still live in Korea while Jessica's parents are in the states. Elijah and Jessica grew up where their parents currently live. Elijah's father owns the company that Elijah and Jessica are interning at.

Elijah does share that Korean culture has an emphasis on respecting your elders and he expresses resentment towards his father to his fellow interns (and the interns don't know Elijah's father owns the company at this time).

It is implied that Elijah's father has physically assaulted his wife though to the readers knowledge it never happened in front of Elijah.

Jessica also expresses frustration with the misogyny in the company that seems to be excused by it being a Korean company (even though the office in question is in New York).

I never want to assume a whole race of people are inherently bigoted in some way. I also spent a year teaching English online to Korean adults and I got to see first hand how varied humans are, no matter their nationality or race or background.

I had to have a discussion with myself about these themes in the book.

I eventually came to the conclusion that I don't believe the author or the story here are stating that all Korean people are like this, or that only Koreans who emigrated from Korea are able to distance themselves from problematic behavior.

It is a story of two Korean people with two different Korean families.

White Trash Warlock spoilers ahead

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

When I was reading about Adam's dad being a piece of shit I didn't then assume all poor white people were like that. Especially as I've grown up "white trash" as well.

If I can make that same distinction about my own race, why couldn't I make that distinction when reading a book featuring a different race as well?

I was really glad to be challenged in this way by this book and I had to confront some things about myself. I'll never be perfect but hopefully I can find little ways to grow like this for the rest of my life.

White supremacy is a beast that must be constantly fought, no matter how small the battle.

End White Trash Warlock Spoilers

On a lighter note, the interactions between Elijah and Jessica are adorable. I really like how Jessica speaks her mind even though she feels it's a flaw as she feels she often says too much. I prefer characters who wear their hearts on their sleeves.

The book also has one of my favorite tropes of all time with a woman in a pretty dress coming down the stairs with the man drooling at the bottom of the stairs over her. ❤️ When I tell you I SQUEALED!

Given how many things I love about this book, this book is still a five star for me. I have given it quite a bit of grace for it being in the young adult genre and that what I want out of this book may have pushed it into a different genre.

I wish we could see more of Elijah and Jason's budding friendship, that seems to mainly happen off page.

There are so many characters and I really enjoy all of the ones who get page time. I'd argue this book is also partially about finding your own community and I would have loved to see more of that in depth through the book. Give me scenes like the all day brunch party in One Last Stop by Casey Mcquiston.

I really wish we spent more time at the hackathon and describing the New York Public Library. Jessica gives us these amazing and intricate details about the brownstone but I feel we got crumbs for the New York Public Library.

I do wish there were more descriptions of New York in general. I've been to the city a few times and love it and always want to see it in my mind's eye again whenever I can.

I go back and forth on if I'd rather the last hour of the book be longer. While I personally would have liked to see more interactions, more time to breathe between the highly emotional scenes, I'm not sure it would be the same book anymore.

The last hour of the book had my heart doing flips. Everything happens so fast but if it didn't, I don't think the end would have been the same and the ending is an important part of this book.

The events have to happen as quickly as they did so the characters were forced into certain circumstances so they could then make choices fully of their own autonomy, not motivated only by the romance.

These missing scenes may be due to the genre this book was published under. This book is listed as young adult. I don't recall if the characters mentioned their ages, but I imagine it's in the 17-19 range. And the 17 year old characters could make this qualify as young adult.

Because of the young adult genre label, it's possible the publisher wouldn't allow for a longer book as from my understanding young adult books tend to stick to 600 pages or less (see Divergent and Hunger Games for example). I feel the pace of this book was pretty fast and there was a lot of ground to cover and you can only do so much with so many characters in such a limited page count.

Overall a great read and just what I needed to read when I needed to read it.

I've had a really good track record with random library books this year and I'm so glad I'm always willing to step outside of recommendations or trends or my own TBR. If you can step into your local library, I encourage you to do so, you never know what adventures you'll end up on.

I'm so glad I read this book and if you like prince and the pauper retellings with romance and young adults figuring out how to navigate the real world then you might want to read this book.

[bllsbailey]

Comedian Whitney Cummings' Viral CNN NYE Roast Of Biden, Harris, Big Pharma And More Prompts Democrat Backlash

(L) Whitney Cummings visits the SiriusXM Studios on December 17, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Cindy Ord/Getty Images) / (R-Top) Anderson Cooper attends the 16th annual CNN Heroes. (Photo by Mike Coppola/Getty Images for CNN) / (R-Bottom) Andy Cohen takes part in SiriusXM’s 10th Annual Radio Andy Holiday Hangout at SiriusXM Studios on December 19, 2024 in New York City.

CNN’s annual New Year’s Eve program included a brief comedy roast by Whitney Cummings, who took shots at President Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, pharmaceutical companies, celebrities, and more, unraveling a can of worms for the comedian as left-wing Americans expressed outrage over uncomfortable truths.

Democrats swiftly rushed to social media platforms after the 42-year-old comedian, who appeared on CNN’s NYE Live special with hosts Anderson Cooper, the son of Gloria Vanderbilt, and Andy Cohen, executive producer of “The Real Housewives” franchise, made scathing remarks directed at the network, the U.S. government, and other well-known figures, industries, and organizations.

Since CNN is among the many mainstream media outlets that have been accused of partisan bias in favor of the Democrat Party, as well as President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over the years, it made the roast even more comical and culturally significant.

At one point during the roast, Cummings remarked that “the Democrats couldn’t hold a primary … [as] they were too busy holding a body upright.”

This bit alludes to 82-year-old President Biden, critiquing his extremely poor performance in the 2024 presidential debate against Trump and his ongoing gaffes, senility, and overall mental decline throughout his presidential term.

“I’m now playing like 3,000 seat theaters, which is about the viewership of CNN these days,” she added.

From under his umbrella, it was difficult to see Cooper’s reaction, who didn’t seem to have much of a sense of humor as it was at the expense of his network and politics, but his more light-hearted co-host, Cohen, made an apparent “mock shocked” look before Cummings asks, “are we still rolling, am I off?”

With a faint smile, Cohen responds, “Go for it!”

“It was amazing that the ‘pro-choice party’ didn’t give their voters one when it came to the presidential candidate,” Cummings added at one point, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party. She then adds, “Kamala was forced on us so hard you’d think she was patented by Pfizer.”

The clip went viral almost immediately, with media figures, conservative commentators, and incoming Trump administration colleagues sharing it on X, seemingly relishing the chance to attack a network that has condemned the GOP for as long as one can remember.

Cummings also noted that there were a number of happenings in 2024 that “brought everyone together,” joking, “We all agreed we’d rather see J-Lo in a toxic relationship than in concert.” “We all agreed that the government totally knows what the drones are and aren’t telling us. They’re still up, and we have no idea what’s behind them? I mean, they’re still up in the sky, so I guess we can rule out that they were made by Boeing.” “Are we still rolling? This is wild,” Cummings continued. “Boy Scouts of America, they renamed themselves Scouting America. You know who else changed their name? Sean Combs. Just saying… let’s learn something in 2025.”

This particular bit was referencing how in 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a temporary halt placed on the Boy Scouts of America’s $2.46 billion settlement with its slew of purported sexual assault victims. This joke piggybacks the “Sean Combs” reference, as that was the original name that P. Diddy went by prior to being accused of underage grooming and sexual assault in 2024.

After liberals and leftists began to attack and condemn Cummings online, she shared a number of explanatory posts that strived to explain her position.

“For the dorks who are grumpy that I didn’t roast Trump in the CNN set, I roasted trump so long ago (I think 2011?) on Comedy Central – and to do that on CNN would be fish in a barrel, a home court advantage cheap shot. There’s no risk in that.,” she said on X, referencing her 2011 Comedy Central roast of Donald Trump, which the president-elect agreed to attend in good fun. Trump also roasted Cummings back later in the program. “I mean please list the lies I told?” Whitney added on X, continuing to receive liberal backlash.

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) January 1, 2025

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts