#& like the gods are not ‘absolute power’ in the sense of being an oppressive regime they are absolute power in the sense of being ->

[iphigeniacomplex]

obligatory note that i know very little about ancient greek culture, stories, & beliefs beyond my greek mythology phase from ages 8 to 11 but i get sooo pissed off abt arachne bc she literally WAS better than athena. like sorry a bad bitch said she was a bad bitch and then was able to actually prove it?? WHAT happened to sisterhood. & then when arachnes like guess i’ll kill myself after literally being humiliated by a goddess in front of everyone — for being better than her — it’s STILL not enough so athena decides to i have no mouth and i must scream this woman for literally committing the crime of 1) understanding her own skill and refusing to undermine her art 2) factually challenging authority even to the face of a god and 3) being better than she is. athena was up on olympus hating from a cracked screen on an empty stomach literally disgusting.

[jamlavender]

Gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss: Mrs Coulter, misogyny and the His Dark Materials TV show

The show went hard on misogyny as a vital part of Mrs Coulter’s backstory, and I want to talk about how they did it, and why, and how it might have been done better. This is quite long (when is anything I write not, let’s be real) so it’s under the cut. Read on for thoughts on women, power and fictional villainy.

As a quick disclaimer, though: I’ve enjoyed the show a lot! I’m so glad they made it! Ruth Wilson is mesmerising as Mrs Coulter! There’s so much to appreciate about the show overall, including many aspects of Mrs Coulter’s portrayal. But the HDM team have also made gender politics and misogyny very explicit themes of the show – particularly season two, particularly season two, episode five – and I think it’s fair to critique that.

Let’s be clear: Mrs Coulter is a villain. She murders kids by tearing out their souls. She kills and tortures friends and foes alike without a second thought. She abuses her daughter. She upholds and advances a totalitarian regime. She’s a Bad Person, as confirmed by God himself with the unforgettable line: “You are a cesspit of moral filth.” She’s fucking terrible, but, in life as in art, many of us are fascinated by how such awful people are made. What drives someone to commit atrocities? I am keen to see such questions examined in fiction, because I don’t think exploring a character necessarily means excusing their actions, and because it’s interesting (I mean, of course I find her fascinating, I’ve written a novel’s worth of fic about her). However, after a few snarky comments (“What sort of woman raised Father Graves, do you think?”) and some subtler commentary on sexuality, gender and power (her unsettling MacPhail with the key in the bra in S1E2), S2E5 drew a weird line between sexism in Mrs Coulter’s professional and academic life and her vast and senseless institutionalised child murder, and the longer I’ve sat with that the more I’m like: what the fuck?

Look, Mrs Coulter doesn’t tear apart children to search for sin inside them and poison Boreal and break a witch’s fingers because she’s experienced sexism in the workplace and in her education. That’s… a very odd thing to imply. We have to remember that there are lots of women in Lyra’s world, all of whom will also have experienced sexism, misogyny and other forms of marginalisation (many in more expansive and pernicious ways than Mrs Coulter, who’s a woman, yes, but also white, wealthy, highly educated and very thin and beautiful), and none of them are running arctic torture stations. She will have experienced misogyny, absolutely, and that will have affected her in various ways that inform how she approaches her work, but to imply that being denied a doctorate is the reason she became a sadistic killer is frankly bizarre. Here are a few of the lines from that episode with my commentary:

“Do you know who I could have been in this world?” What does this mean? If she’d been roughly the same person in our world, the answer is: Margaret Thatcher, which is probably a step down for Marisa, all things considered, because the Magisterium is far more autocratic than any recent Tory government and would be a much easier institutional environment in which to enact her cruelty. What we’re supposed to think, clearly, is that she’d have been a different person: a scientist and a mother, and she’s had this realisation because she saw a woman with a baby and a laptop and had a three-minute conversation with Mary. This doesn’t make sense. We live in our world! It’s less repressive than Lyra’s world but it’s hardly a gender utopia. If Mrs Coulter had chosen the scientist-and-mother life (which, as I’ll revisit later, she could have done in her world but chose not to because of her megalomaniac tendencies), she’d still have been affected by misogyny here too. Our world is not kind to young mothers, nor young women embroiled in scandals, nor is the world teeming with female physicists. It might be a little better, sure, but it’s hardly as if those gendered challenges would have been solved.  

“What do you mean she runs a department?” This is just the show forgetting its own canon. Marisa, you ran a massive government organisation (the GOB), including a huge murder science research initiative in the Arctic. That’s a much bigger undertaking and much more impressive than running a university department in our world. Pull yourself together.

“But because I was a woman, I was denied a doctorate by the Magisterium.” This is the show flagrantly ignoring the source material to make a clumsy political point. In the books, there are women with doctorates (notably Hannah Relf, also a major player in the new Book of Dust trilogy) and at least one women’s college full of female scholars. Now, would that women’s college likely be underfunded and disrespected compared to the men’s colleges? Almost certainly. But saying that is different than saying “I couldn’t get my doctorate!” when women in Lyra’s world can. The show knew what point they wanted to make, and were willing to ignore canon to do so, which is frustrating. Also, given that there are female academics and scientists in Lyra’s world, and that Mrs Coulter is a member of St Sophia’s college, it’s clear that she could have lived that life if she so desired. But she didn’t want that, because being a scientist and academic at St Sophia’s imbues her with no real power, and that’s what she craves.

I’m not opposed, in theory, to exploring Mrs Coulter and misogyny in more depth, but I think doing so through an examination of the sexual politics of her life would have made a lot more narrative sense and been much more powerful. It’s better evidenced in the text – her using her sexuality to manipulate people and taking lovers for political sway is entirely canon, as is her backstory where genuine love and lust blew up her life – and it links much more closely with the most shocking of her villainy, which involves cutting out children’s dæmons to stop them developing “troublesome thoughts and feelings,” referencing sexual and romantic desire (and what Lyra and Will do to save Dust is clearly a big ‘fuck you’ to those aims). She even says this to MacPhail in TAS, “If you thought for one moment that I would release my daughter into the care - the care! - of a body of men with a feverish obsession with sexuality, men with dirty fingernails, reeking of ancient sweat, men whose furtive imaginations would crawl over her body like cockroaches - if you thought I would expose my child to that, my Lord President, you are more stupid than you take me for.” Don’t get me wrong, she’d have been a villain regardless, but I do believe that there’s a much stronger link between her sexual and romantic experiences and her murder work than between professional and academic stifling and child murder. It would have been a lot more interesting and a lot less tenuous.

However, the show is trying to be family-friendly, and digging into why this terrible, cruel woman might want to cut the ability for desire and love (and other non-sexual adult feelings, I’m sure) out of people could get dark. We know that the show doesn’t want to go there, because they’ve actively toned down her weaponising her sexuality: in the books, she has an established sexual relationship with Boreal, whereas the show made it seem like she’s been stringing him along all this time, and made it about potentially ‘sharing a life’ together rather than fucking, which was clearly the arrangement in the books. Also, I think Ruth Wilson said she and Ariyon Bakare filmed a “steamy scene” together, and given that only a single chaste kiss between them aired it must have been cut. I think they deliberately minimised the sexual elements of the text, particularly regarding Mrs Coulter (the mountain scene with Asriel, which I did still love, was also a lot less horny than in the book) and replaced that with another gender issue, that of professional sexism, as if the two are interchangeable, which they are not. This is a shame, both for Mrs Coulter’s character and also for the story as a whole, because the characters’ relationships with sex and desire are an important part of the books! (If this minimised sexuality approach means that they don’t use the TAS scene where Asriel threatens to gag her and she tries to goad him into doing it, I’ll scream). Overall, I think they missed the mark here, which is a shame because I also think it could have been done well, if they’d been bolder and darker and more thoughtful.

Why might this happen? Why might the show take this approach? Why might it be latched onto by viewers? Personally, I think the conversations we have about women and power are very simplistic, which leaves us in a tight spot when we see women seizing power for themselves (even in fiction) and weaponising that against others, not just other women but people of all genders, because we struggle to move past ‘women have overall been denied power, so them taking it ‘back’ is good,’ even if that immediately becomes a hot mess of white, corporate feminism and results in the ongoing oppression of many people. I think we are so hungry for representations of powerful women that we – producers and viewers alike – struggle to see them as bad, because it’s uncomfortable to be so intoxicated by Mrs Coulter effortlessly dominating the men around her, subverting systems designed to marginalise her for her own benefit, and generally being aggressive and intelligent and ruthless, and then realise that you are entranced by someone who is, objectively, a terrible, terrible person. It can be hard to realise that if you channelled the energy of someone who mesmerises you, you’d be the villain. So instead of sitting with that (more on this below), a lot of legwork goes into reworking her villainy into, somehow, a just act, a result of oppression, as her taking back power that has been denied to her, rather than grappling with the fact that for anyone to desire power in such a merciless way, even if they have to overcome marginalisation to get it, is really, really dangerous.

The joy, of course, is that Mrs Coulter is not real! She’s not real! Adoring fictional characters does not mean condoning their (imaginary) decisions, nor do stories exist for each person in them to fit neatly into a good or bad box so you know who you’re allowed to love. Furthermore, fiction can be a fabulous tool for exploring and interrogating the parts of yourself that, if left to bloom unexamined, might perpetuate beliefs or behaviour that cause harm to others. Mrs Coulter doesn’t need to be a feminist or taking down the patriarchy or a righteous powerful woman to illuminate things about gender, power and feminism for those reading and watching. In fact, it’s important that we explore what happens when women (most commonly white, wealthy women, as she is) continue to perpetuate brutal systems under the guise of sticking it to ‘men,’ because it happens all the time in the real world, and it’s a serious issue. Finding characters like Mrs Coulter so cool and compelling doesn’t make you a bad person, but it might tell you something about yourself – not that you want to be a villain or kill kids or whatever, but something about how you relate to your gender or women or men or power – and that knowledge can be useful! We all have better and worse impulses, and finding art that helps us make sense of ourselves, both the good and bad parts, is a gift that we should relish.

Anyway, tl;dr, Mrs Coulter doesn’t need to be sympathetic or understandable or redeemable to be brilliant – but you wouldn’t know that from how she’s been portrayed in the new adaptation.

[lochnessies]

ok here’s a dissection of a post an anon sent me the link to and bc i have the worst time management possible and i completely forgot i had it lol so sorry anon here you go ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜

I am constantly thinking about how Edelgard just doesn’t seem designed to appeal to cishet men.

i hate to be the one to break this news to you op but just because a character doesn’t show skin like charlotte fire emblem doesn’t mean she isn’t designed to pander to men. she’s very much designed to pander to the (majority straight male) player base with her ‘uwu i only trust you professor omg did u see that rat? pls don’t look at my painting of you uwu’.

then there’s the whole edelgard c support in japanese where byleth makes reference to having come to her room for ‘yobi’ which is

there’s also the scene where byleth can make an unsolicited comment about edelgard’s breast size. which is… uhh… gross.

edelgard also has cipher cards that go from slightly fanserviceie to full on suggestive

and also her breast armor that my sister relentlessly mocked lol

and here’s a chart from the 3h subreddit about gender/sexually in regards to edelgard and edeleth. it’s extremely straight male. op might have just overlooked this since they probably don’t go on reddit and stay on tumblr (which unlike reddit is mostly female and has a high lgbt demographic).

Like the joke is that Bleagles is the Gay House, but everything about her feels deliberately non-hetero.

i don’t like where this is going…

She’s dressed in sharp outfits covering her upper body, with proportions that don’t seem exaggerated.

so women who cover up must be lgbt because straight women are naturally more revealing? oh y i k e s

Her poise and the way she effortlessly flourishes her axe exhibits an air of coolness. While titties out =/= character of no substance, Edelgard being dressed more modestly suggests that she wasn’t designed with male-centred fanservice in mind.

“titties don’t equal no substance but here’s my post on how she has more substance because she doesn’t show titties” ok

And she still looks absolutely stunning in her more modest attire (like seriously, I haven’t felt the need to return to cosplay in years but I want to do her academy look so bad). 

yes she does. amazing design 10/10. i have a feeling this is the only part i’m going to agree with

Edelgard is intense. She does not mince her words and she is constantly evaluating you. Though she tries, she has a difficult time understanding her peers initially. Early on, she talks about how she would sacrifice herself and others in the name of some greater good. She is terrible at communicating with her peers. She has to be seen as infallible. Her heart has been hardened for years and she assumes she has to stay that way. She also assumes everyone mourns the same way she does - which is why she (kind of insensitively) insists you move on when Jeralt dies. Because to her, grief has to be channeled towards action, or else you’ll get lost in it. This attitude is demonstrated time and time again as she presses on. It can make her come off as cold and unfeeling - but look closer, and she’s anything but.

don’t really have anything to say at this part. it is pretty on the nose though i would slightly disagree with that last sentence a bit. i wouldn’t say she’s as i feeling as hubert is but all of her talks of the war boil down to how she feels and never her victims.

Her story is ultimately about her realizing that to achieve her goals, she needs to let people in and allow herself to want things like cakes and tea parties and lazy days in peace. 

????? what ????? her goals include imperialism, ethnic and religious targeting. her story is about having a set of beliefs and mowing down anybody who stands in her way. that has nothing to do with tea, friends, and lazy days. also am i supposed to be sad that she has to get up everyday and work? i do that and i didn’t start a war and only throw a pity party for myself

The game leaves the player guessing as to how involved the Flame Emperor was in each Part I event, makes you feel hurt by her betrayal, and leaves you with a choice: do you follow the orders of the woman who tried to make you a god without your consent, or a young girl with questionable morals about to throw the world into upheaval?

this isn’t an ideal situation but i think i’m going to stick with the woman who tried to make me a god since i’m not selfish and i know it’s not only my desires and life at stake here. plus the green hair slaps ngl

Choosing her of your own volition (not for completionist reasons) requires the basic ability to sympathize with a woman’s pain. It also requires the player to read beyond her unwavering will and dubious methods to get a sense of how deep that pain goes and how the theme of humanity relates to her differently in each route.

i’m not going to touch this since @nilsh13 made a post on it that i’ll link here. i agree with everything he said so to repeat it would be redundant.

The player must be able to see a young woman’s desperate resolve to change the world so it stops exploiting people and ruining lives. They must be able to accept the fact that women can make the same morally wrong and ambivalent decisions that complicated male characters get to make all the time and still be the one to root for.

literally the same reason i love rhea lol her goddess experiments are dubious at best but her reasons are the same you mentioned. i would say that i like this quality in edelgard too if her ending, while bloody, actually ended in a good outcome for fodlan.

This is not unique to LGBT+ people, but this population is likely to understand why Edelgard feels so strongly about why she has to change the system. 

i understand wanting to change a system, i really do. like edelgard, i’m an opinionated bisexual woman (who’s also physically disabled) so yeah i get it. and change can be good but it can also be terrible. even if the church was the boogeyman edelgard treats it as she still replaces it with her own shit regime. so it’s the same circus just with a new conductor.

I don’t think “Edelgard gets undue criticism because she’s a woman” captures the full picture. An important aspect of her treatment by certain parts of the fandom is that she’s a radical woman.

or maybe she does some pretty fucked up shit and it goes unacknowledged in her own route. and yeah she’s radical but in all the worst ways.

Her hatred of the Church and the Crest system resonates way harder with people who have been hurt by institutions that are deeply engrained in our society. 

and what about people who have been hurt by systems where their ‘merit’ didn’t measure up and they were left behind? what about people from nations that experienced imperialism?

Siding with her means siding against the Church - which, while different from real world religious institutions, still invokes language about “sin” and “punishment.

yeah the ‘sins’ and ‘punishments’ are used in relation to attempted murders which i think everybody can agree is a bad thing that needs to be condemned.

Choosing Edelgard will likely hit different if homophobic and transphobic Christians used that rhetoric against you.

it has literally nothing to do with ‘sins’ and ‘punishments’ in regards to being gay or trans. that’s you projecting. especially since the church has 2 canon gay characters and two coded ones.

like i can understand why having a church condemn you can be uncomfortable but i’m begging you to please look at the context of what’s happening.

I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that the reason F/F Edeleth is the more popular iteration of that ship because most people who would choose to S-support Edelgard are LGBT+ themselves. This is not a revelation. To anyone in the community, it’s fairly obvious. 

i was talking to nilish and he said

so yeah… while there is definitely sapphic femleth shippers out there, there’s still a whole lot of weird fetishizing going on from straight men about edelgard.

Crimson Flower was my first route. I went into the game knowing absolutely nothing. I played it during the last week of 2020 and hoo boy was it cathartic. 

i can tell. this wasn’t supposed to be a dig but it came out that way and i’m not taking it out.

I felt like I was living out a gay revolution power fantasy, where I could truly change systems of oppression while fighting alongside a group of troubled students I’d shaped the lives of.

so a gay revolution power fantasy (cringe) goes hand in hand with imperialism and installing a dictatorship? also the war had nothing to do with sexuality.

Through your unwavering support, Edelgard learns that she needs to be human, that she must listen to her friends, and that she’s allowed to enjoy the world she’s creating.

edelgard gets to learn how to be human all while hunting those who don’t. and she doesn’t listen fo her friends. she doesn’t even trust them. she’s willing to talk to byleth but keep the people who’s been by her side for five years in the dark about everything. and yeah she gets to enjoy her new words since she’s on top. hate to be a commoner under her rule after she burned down my village in her war.

I love this character so much.

clearly. and i honestly don’t care if somebody likes her. i do as well even if my sometimes scathing words can make it seem otherwise.

It has been six months since I first played and I am still analyzing her,

me too. please help me escape i’m losing my mind

because there’s so much depth. Yet so many people fail to see that depth and dismiss her as evil,

i mean, she does some fucked up shit that goes beyond any of the less than desirable actions of the other main characters and does an extremely poor job in trying to make herself seem innocent. i personally don’t think she’s pure evil but i completely understand where the people who say she is are coming from.

because they never had the will to understand complicated women in the first place. 

that’s big talk from somebody who implies that a gay pope is comparable to homophobic and transphobic irl religions and that leads an oppressive regime all because she uses the vague terms of sin and punishments that you have to gay power fantasy your way out of

[ocelysium]

Underestimated

Summary: In an alternate universe, the world is ruled by VOID, a crime syndicate with three leaders. The Justice League are rebels fighting against their regime, and they just caught one of the leading figures of VOID.

Type: Evil AU

Warnings: None

Word Count: 2101

Emma Teague / Black Sapphire belongs to @call-me-emma / @chi-townbatgirl

Avery Yu / Phantom belongs to @audreyandherocs / @audreythetealovingcat

MASTERLIST

The world was scared.

The world feared their great rulers, the ones that oppressed and dominated with an iron fist. They were merciless, they were tyrannical and they would never hesitate to kill. In fact, they take pleasure in doing so.

Stories of their diabolical ways were whispered from one ear to another in an attempt to stop any rebellion, to stop anyone from even thinking against them. To the citizens of the universe they weren’t merely leaders, they were gods and should be treated as a higher being. They were fearless, they were untouchable and most of all, they were unstoppable.

Yes, the world was terrified of them, as they should be.

“My lady,” a messenger scurried over to the foot of the grand throne where a masked figure was seated and kneeled to the floor, “the rebels have captured one of the bases on the east coast,” he informed in one shaky breath, “they have… captured our troops.”

The woman stirred on her throne, her movements slow yet minimal. No one in the room dared to take a breath for they did not know if she was angered or not. The haunting mask concealed all expression and not one part of her face was visible except for the sides of her head.

“Is that so?” she finally spoke, her voice even, “pity.” The lack of empathy in her voice caused the messenger’s eyes to widened.

“A-Are we not going to do anything about it, Lady Phantom?” he inquired hesitantly, “they are our troops, valuable ones and we should… launch a counterattack, s-show them our power!” He tried to reason with her. The guards in the room collectively sighed.

“No, we are not,” Avery responded, “we have the entire universe under our control. A show of power is not necessary, wouldn’t you agree?” Her tone was mocking as she stated the rhetorical question.

The messenger shook his head but the stubborn fool wouldn’t let it go. “B-But My Lady, the base is vital for control of the region.”

“Say something we don’t already know will you?” said another voice. Footsteps were heard and everyone caught the flash of black and blue. They tensed at the arrival of one of their generals.

Emerging from the shadows was Emma, her mahogany hair tied neatly back and her hand on her sword. She approached the messenger and stopped right in front of him. “Enlighten us,” she ordered.

He stared at her with wide eyes, at a loss of what to say. He had never been in the presence of two generals before and he didn’t know whether to be honored or horribly frightened. With a gulp, he found his voice, “the base contains information on our other bases, secret traveling routes, power grid, plans, everything. I-If they get access to those files--”

“Do you take us for fools?!” Emma exclaimed, causing the messenger to flinch back, “we know. We already have our best technicians on the case.”

“But what if the Justice League--”

“Justice League?” Avery laughed, “is that what those traitors are calling themselves now? Oh they do amuse me.”

The messenger was in shock. It was all just some game to them, he couldn’t believe it. Lives were at stake here yet they were… laughing.

“O-Our troops,” he finally mumbled, “our troops are still there. T-They will be killed.”

Emma rolled her eyes at his concerns. “Those cowards will never possess the power to end a life. Besides…” her eyes grew dark, “troops are disposable,” with a strike of her sword that no one saw coming, blood spurted out of the messenger’s mouth and he fell head first to the floor, “like you.”

She sheathed her sword after getting rid of the blood of her latest victim. Behind her, Avery released a tired sigh. “You will stain our floor.”

Emma turned to her friend with a slight look of annoyance. “Then put our workers to use,” she said with no remorse of the poor soul she took the life of.

As the guards were put to use in removing the body and cleaning the blood, Avery asked, “that simple minded creature knows nothing, does he?”

Emma shrugged. “Even if he knew Lillian was in that base, would he have cared? He seemed more concerned about the troops… and remind me to punish them for their worthless set of skills once we recapture the base.”

Avery’s sinister smile made an appearance. “Who would I be if I didn't?”

“Why do we need to bother with such an elaborate plan when we can simply annihilate the rebels?” Emma sighed, leaning against the pillars, “it is not as if they are an actual threat.”

“No, they're not,” Avery agreed, “but we must get as much information out of them as we can. Besides, you know how much Lillian enjoys playing with her meals.”

A smirk made its way to Emma’s face. “She ought to eat it soon, or else I may take it from her.”

“Careful now, we don't want her upset,” Avery warned, “she’ll have her way with them. She’s better than any of us at getting it out of them. All we have to do… is wait.”

“My favorite pastime,” Emma commented, her voice dripping with sarcasm.

Meanwhile, on the east coast of what used to be the symbol of freedom, the rebels who called themselves the Justice League were discussing their next plan of action. Seemingly, they had the upper hand now, at least in the area. They took the most vital base of operations, gained access to all files and the database, held in custody the troops and workers and most importantly of all, they had one of the three generals behind bars.

The General known as Nightshadow didn’t show her face often on the battlefield, therefore much of her powers remained a mystery. Their intel suggested that she was their chief strategist and it made sense for she reacted to the attack like a diplomat, not a fighter. They caught her before she made her escape and her shocked face gave them a sense of pride. She didn’t expect to be outsmarted.

Now, she was locked in a holding facility underneath the base and while many celebrated this victory, others questioned it.

“It’s too easy,” Batman muttered, “they’re smarter than this. They wouldn’t let us take it so easily.”

“They’re also prideful, and arrogant,” Superman stated, “maybe they were too overconfident, let their guard down?”

“I find that highly unlikely.”

“Boys, focus on the task here,” Wonder Woman scolded, “we’re not here to debate on the credibility of our success, we’re here to talk about Nightshadow. Batman?”

Batman nodded and pulled up all the information he had on the general, which was not much, “her real name is Keo Lillian--Keo being her family name--born in Paris, France and lived on the streets most her life. Her mother was murdered when she was four. At one point, joined the French mafia and rose to power… became their leader and was recruited.”

“That’s not much,” Martian Manhunter commented, displeased.

Batman shrugged. “That’s all we have,” he turned to the alien, “think you can get more?”

“I can certainly try,” Martian Manhunter responded. He made his way down the facility into the restricted area, where they kept their prisoners.

The most secure cell held the general.

Once he was in front of the cell, Martian Manhunter took time to observe her. She didn’t seem of her nationality but she was absolutely breathtaking. It was easy to fall in love with her.

“General Nightshadow,” he began, “what an honor.” She acknowledged his presence but in no way did she made any response. “You do understand you are in a tight position here. You’re captured, lock in a holding cell and your facility has been compromised,” as he explained her position, he tried to pry into her mind, “why not you help us, and we’ll help you?”

She tilted her head to the side, her eyes seemingly staring into his soul. “You don’t believe that, do you? Why would you help me, your enemy?” a small laugh left her red lips, “no, you wouldn’t help me.”

“VOID wouldn’t help their enemy,” he continued, mentioning the name of the crime syndicate that seized the world, “but we will. We stand for peace, for hope, for--”

“Justice?” she finished, a tiny smirk dancing on her lips, “quite the name you have come up with. Whose idea was it?”

Martian Manhunter winced slightly as he finally entered her mind, seemingly crashing into it like he would a plane into the sea. However, she didn’t seem to notice the intrusion so he played it off. “It was a collective vote.”

“The fact that you all agreed to something so…” she struggled to find the word, “dull-witted irks me more than anything else to date. Perhaps you can come up with a better name? One that doesn’t sound like you were barfed out of some comical children’s book.”

The insult didn’t faze the alien as he was more focused on her mind. She had an excessive amount of information and it was overwhelming, perhaps too overwhelming. Everything came to him at once--something that never happened before… and why wasn’t she fazed by this? Why was it only him?

The blaring of the alarms brought him out of her mind and back into reality. His eyes widened as he heard explosions and gunfire.

“You should join your friends up there,” the general suggested in an eerily calm voice, “they’ll need your help.”

Martian Manhunter gritted his teeth and quickly left the underground prison, but he stopped in his tracks when he heard her ask, “did you enjoy prying through my mind?”

When he glanced at her, she was smiling. It wasn’t a kind smile, it was one that promised death upon them all.

No one saw VOID coming.

One minute, not even a leaf rustled in the wind. The next, chaos rained upon them. They appeared out of thin air and showed no mercy to whoever stood in their way. Leading them were their brilliant generals.

They were a force to be reckoned with, the two generals who were much more well known. General Black Sapphire could never be seen in battle. She was a whirlwind of blades that brought death to anyone near her. She spared no one, even those who begged for their life. Phantom wasn’t any more merciful. If faced against her, she would tear anyone and anything apart within a blink of an eye.

To think that the rebels had a chance was idiotic. They never stood a chance.

Superman clicked his tongue and went to strike Emma but with one swift hand, she intercepted his attack and sent him flying across the compound. Green Lantern made his constructs to counter Avery but it was no use. She destroyed them all and in a moment of pure malevolence, she ripped his arm right off, deeming that simply taking the Lantern ring wasn’t enough to teach him a lesson.

It had only been ten minutes, but in that ten minutes the two generals had single-handedly destroyed the rebellion’s greatest warriors. Loyal VOID troops, raised personally by their generals, took care of the rest of the rebels.

“How--how are they so strong?” the Flash demanded, wiping blood off his forehead. Even his speed was no match for Emma.

Black Canary and Green Arrow were about to answer but Phantom silenced them quickly, shocking everyone by her unexpected attack, literally. The Justice League knew it was hopeless, but they were not one to back down or give up. They had a plan, they always did.

And if they didn't, they weren't going down without a fight.

Suddenly, everyone stopped. The VOID troops finished off the last of the lowly rebels, leaving only their strongest.

“This is when the fun begins,” Emma said delightfully. She grinned as she began to circle the fallen League.

“Wait,” stated Avery, looking at the facility, “Nightshadow?”

“I got everything we need,” said Lillian, walking towards the League as if she had never been captured. That's when they realized she wanted to be captured.

Once she reached her friends, the League saw all three together and realized the sheer terror that they were about to witness. Never had the three generals of VOID assembled together in a battle. They were always assessed individually, but no one knew what kind of power they had as a team.

“Now,” said Emma with a spin of her sword, “shall we teach them what happens to enemies of VOID?”

[qqueenofhades]

I was (?) a Lyatt shipper who loved Flynn since S1 bc I love a good bad boy. I've been sympathetic to him since the 70s (ha!) when we found out about his wife and kid being murdered. So I found your blog and was loving all the Flynn stuff but I wasn't into Garcy. Thought "ew"--isn't he more like cool young uncle material for her? Fast forward to today and I have read every Garcy ff you have written and have fallen completely into the trash can. I know you prob hear this a lot lately...(1)

(2) but I wanted to thank you so much for writing The Tangled Web of Fate. What a masterpiece! You make the storyline in the same tone as canon somehow. You really have Flynn’s emotions and voice down pat. So good. Makes me believe in Garcy. In fact, makes me want Jessica and Logan to figure out their crap and that way everyone can be happy bc at this point I don’t want Jessica to be unhappy or go away either. Anyway, I went from Garcy sounds gross to GIVE ME MORE. So thanks?

(3) sorry. I feel panicked that we are running out of time (unoriginal pun) and might only get 5 more episodes and Flynn won’t get the full character development and happy ending he deserves. If it were up to you, would you give him a redemption arc and a happy ending or would you keep him as garbage boss? Also, dude is a full head taller than the industrial fridge in the bunker and they need to find a couch he can be comfy in. He looks like a giant living in a tiny house. My poor baby.

Ahaha. This delights me to no end, ngl. My powers are groooowing. And you have given me a lot to talk about here, so thanks. :)

Honestly, the people insisting on reading Garcy as familial/platonic/theorizing that Flynn is somehow Lucy’s son/they’re otherwise related are… very confusing to me? To say the least. Though to be totally frank, it’s often clearly by people who have an agenda in discrediting Garcy as a viable alternative to Lyatt (which they… probably don’t need to do, I mean for better or worse, the writers have made their preference/narrative direction clear. Alas). I obviously have no problem with people shipping whatever they want in whatever way they do, but… yeah, Garcy’s vibe ain’t platonic or familial (and if for some wild reason they DID end up Magically Related, like Flynn was somehow Lucy’s long-lost brother from an alternate universe or whatever, I wouldn’t stop shipping it, or even writing smut for it. I’d be like, “well writers, you got yourself into this with this far-fetched and illogical forced plot twist that does not fit with anything that has been written or acted beforehand, so I’m going to just go for Time Traveling Flowers in the Attic. Ooops?”) I’ve had plenty of posts with the way Flynn looks at/acts around Lucy (just saying, if my uncle looked at me like that, I would make sure never to be alone with him at family events) and the way she’s started to look back at him. And Goran Visnjic has straight up said that Flynn is “infatuated” with Lucy and we’ve had a lot of teasing about “does Flynn have a thing for Lucy” re: 2x06 that makes me wonder if we’re going to get some kind of more explicit confirmation of the way he feels about her. Goran has also encouraged us to read between the lines, so people can want it to be just a friendship (because they prefer another romantic partner for Lucy, and again, that’s fine, whatever) but he’s consciously acting it as a pretty romantic fascination. So yes. We aren’t just making that up.

Also, just saying, we KNOW who Flynn’s mom is, she’s a named and identified character, she appeared in an episode, Rittenhouse was originally sending Rufus, Lucy, and Assassin Goon to kill her in 1x15 with the aim of erasing Flynn from history. So “Flynn is Lucy’s son” is just… did you guys not notice Maria Thompkins? Who was awesome and I love her? Besides, if Flynn was Lucy’s son, she wouldn’t NEED time travel to meet him, and we know the journal is connected to new time tech (traveling on your own timeline). He couldn’t be anything less than her grandson and that would still be ludicrously complicated, as it would require Lucy to have Maria at some point while traveling in the past, then… straight up abandon her, then go back to her own timeline, then wait for Flynn to grow up, then travel back to meet him…. etc. It’s a mess. We know Flynn’s parents’ names (Asher Flynn and Maria Thompkins); hell, we know more about his family than we do about Wyatt’s. Why is no one theorizing that Wyatt is secretly Flynn and Lucy’s son? (I kid, I kid. But still. It makes about as much sense, if not more, which is to say it doesn’t.)

Anyway yes, I always felt like that was a pretty transparent attempt to make Garcy a non-romantic option in order to remove it as a shipper threat, but that doesn’t mean people can’t ship it as a friendship/brotp. I’m just saying, however, that it has been (at least certainly on Flynn/Goran’s end) played as a romantic thing, even if latent and unspoken and complicated. (Also, he went really quickly for the “honey…” and “what my wife failed to mention” lines in 1x11 and 2x04, so even if Flynn won’t admit it, he instinctively sees Lucy in some way as his wife.) So yes. Making them related would be a COMPLETELY illogical stretch, but… if they did that, yeah, I’d probably still ship it. (Shrug emoji.) Because I would recognize that the council had made a decision, but given as it was a stupid-ass decision, would elect to ignore it. (Insert Nick Fury gif here.)

Next, I am obviously glad that you are enjoying my fic and it has converted you to one of us. I started writing the Wyatt/Jessica stuff before she arrived back on the show and am rather pleased with how nicely it fits. Wyatt in canon needs a serious reality check, which I am hoping he gets. I obviously forgave Flynn for being a total fuckup and hurting everyone, I am absolutely willing to do the same for Wyatt, but he needs to have the “well shit I’ve been a selfish ass and am going to substantively make up for it” moment first. I hope the big finale moment is him finally owning up to his dickish behavior and putting everyone else first and otherwise reversing course. Because yeah. I’m judging.

Lastly, I WORRY ALL THE TIME ABOUT US GETTING CANCELLED AFTER THIS SEASON BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY. A TRAVESTY. The short season has always hurt us narratively, though of course it’s great to get it, but then to cut it off there with no more space at all… god. It gives me the shudders just to think about. And one of the reasons is yes, give me my full redeemed-antihero Garcia Flynn redemption arc. Goran has talked a lot about how we’re seeing more of his real nature this season, and just yes. We saw throughout season 1 that Flynn hated to do a lot of what he was doing, but he did it anyway in the larger purpose of bringing down Rittenhouse (and nobody has yet acknowledged that he was right all along about them…we need more conversations/authentic character moments, guys, NOT SOAPY RELATIONSHIP DRAMA. JUST SAYING). He never really WANTED to be a garbage disaster, but he loved his wife and daughter more, and he was dedicated to taking Rittenhouse down to the point that he thought he couldn’t return to them even if he did save them. So no, he was not a character who was just out there burning shit down for the fun of it (though he does enjoy it in some ways, because… he’s a disaster). But Flynn’s character file in canon has him fighting in a lot of small-scale liberation wars (Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc) against occupying/oppressive regimes, and that’s basically what he’s doing with Rittenhouse. He is a good man with a very strong moral code, but also a very grey one. He has correctly identified the overall enemy and is dedicated to destroying them, but he won’t be the hero wringing his hands over it because “it’s not right” to use violence. Which the Time Team is leaning on themselves (they basically left Flynn in 1934 to be a hitman, so… no more judgey remarks about “he’s a killer” would be nice, guys. You know he is and you’re using that because you need it.)

So yes. Flynn doesn’t WANT to be a garbage disaster, so it would be cruel to keep him as one. He is sassy as hell, but he also seems happier working with the team than he ever really did alone (as Goran has also discussed). Again: MORE CONVERSATIONS!!! Did Flynn just see it as business in trying to take out the team before, since they were trying to stop him from taking down Rittenhouse, and now that they agree on who the threat is, he’s happy to work with them? Is Garcia “why do I even delegate” Flynn really trusting them (at least aside from Lucy, who he clearly does) to do what’s needed, or does he essentially think he still has to do it himself? DEVELOPMENT PLEASE!

I wanted Flynn to permanently join the team ever since 1x10 (as that episode threw me down the dumpster in SO many ways) so obviously, I want that to keep up. The 2x07 pic of him and Rufus clasping hands made me hella emotional (also: we still haven’t had a Flogan scene since Flynn arrived in 2x03 and Wyatt stormed out in a hissy fit…still judging for skipping the Messy Boys Trip in 2x05). I want him to be developed and integrated more into the team and made a part of them, because I’m a hopeless sucker for villain becomes weird family member and redeemed antihero and found family and enemies-to-lovers/enemies-to-friends. So yes. Please don’t screw it up, guys.

(Also yes. Yes, I noticed him being taller than the god damn fridge at the end of 2x05. He’s HUGE and it’s ridiculous.)

[defiestars]

some quick verse + tlj thoughts related info  * *  very uhHHH likely to change as i go / as i remember things more clearly if / when i subject myself to tlj again

i.  recovery   //    in the empire strikes back novelisation luke was in his bacta tank for 12 hours and then slept for another 16 hours for fatal hypothermia.  assuming bacta technology has advanced and become more sophisticated,  particularly because it’s now been synthesised into a suit,  i’d estimate finn’s recovery to have been in the 30-36 hour mark.  (   also, he’s force-sensitive but that’s A Whole Other Topic  !  )   

if we assume:  day 1 post-tfa:  rey staying long enough to get her hot new Grey Jedi Look together  +  organise the gps bracelet plan with leia.  the resistance receiving alerts that the first order fleet is approaching and beginning evacuation plans.  day 2 post-tfa:  finn wakes up,  half a day earlier than he did in tlj,  just in time to offer information on the weak points of the star destroyers and the dreadnought, including helping devise the plan to eliminate the dreadnought’s surface cannons and clear the way for the resistance bombers. 

ii.  allegiance   //   FINN OWES !! THE RESISTANCE !! NOTHING !!!!!!  HE DOESN’T OWE ANYBODY SHIT !!!!!!!  this boy has risked his life and livelihood time and again from the moment he chose not to kill for the first order for complete strangers,  for a movement he had no prior connections with.  even if leaving and becoming a  ‘’’’’’’ traitor ‘’’’’’ to the resistance had been right for his character and a valid development in his character arc,  he does not deserve to be called a deserter for wanting nothing to do with the first order ever again.  like........... does anybody fucking realise that alongside the very possible defeat of the resistance, finn being captured by the first order again probably means he wouldn’t be killed, but  reconditioned  ???????  the first order has had deserters, too !!   they also get tasered !  in the Head, specifically their Brain, where they’re basically restored to factory settings.  not to mention the sheer amount of bravery and courage and heroism it takes for him to turn around and face the organization that destroyed his childhood, enslaved him, and has systematically abused him every day of his life.

with all of that said,,,,,  it makes 0 sense for finn to decide, in the middle of the resistance evacuation, to suddenly up and leave with a shitty ass excuse about needing to be far away for when rey comes back.  like ??????  rey's path is already so deeply and inexorably tied to the rube goldberg machine that is the jedi, the resistance, and the skywalkers,  and finn knows this.  even if he wasn’t fundamentally a person with a moral compass that couldn’t be broken even by two decades of indoctrination into a fascist space nazi regime,  finn does The Things He Does because they’re the right thing to do.  his character arc is not and has never been defined by rey.  i don’t know what dinosaur sloth titty juice rian johnson’s been drinking but repeating parts of finn’s earlier character development to the point of regression is not !!! good !!!! writing !!!!!!!

given that he’s spent 36ish hours in a recovery coma,  finn hasn’t had so much as a Second to process,  or decide,  where he stands in the resistance.  like rey,  he too is looking for someone to show him his place in all this.  unlike rey,  he has no mentor figure, no introspective screentime alone,  no inner dialogue or space to explore who he is now in the post-first order part of his life.  but,  for the time being and given the time-sensitivity of the resistance evacuation,  he is absolutely on the side of the rebels.  these are the people who saved him and protected him,  who gave him the jacket off their backs and something to fight for.  not only does deserting make 0 logical or tactical sense in the middle of an evacuation,  it’s just outright selfish ??  and self-serving ???  none of which finn is, thank you @ryan johnson.

iii.  rebellion   //   so there’s been a lot of differing opinions on finn and rose’s storyline and after agonizing a lot of this i’ve come to the almost final decision that it’s Not As Bad as ppl want it to be.  like a lot of mischaracterisation fuck-ups in tlj,  it mainly comes down to  how this storyline was treated in the grand scheme of tlj and how significant it was to the overarching plot.  canto bight only seems irrelevant because ryan johnson is a terrible fucking writer who thrives off sidelining his characters of color.  thematically, it served it as a damning critique of the powerful ruling class and political economic elites that are actively profitting from the injustice and oppression of war.  rose showing those kids the resistance emblem in her ring is one of the most iconic moments in the film;  inspiring a whole generation of children to rise up against their oppressors is  everything the resistance symbolizes and fights for.  

throwing in an unnecessary oc spitting some half-assed  ‘ everything isn’t always good or bad, sometimes there’s just grey areas ’  message in a parallel of the jedi story and ultimately having the undercover mission serve No Purpose Whatsoever was a shitty move.  in keeping with the fandom interpretation that tlj is a story about failure,  this would’ve been okay  only  if  the detour onto the star destroyer hadn’t been for absolutely nothing.  because there Needed to be fucking somETHINg,  instead of just benicio del toro rihanna.gif winking with the parting words that  ‘ hey sometimes people are just assholes ’.  star wars isn’t a story... about... people being fundamentally shitty..... it’s a story about good vs. bad and the enduring struggle for Balance between them;  People Are Both.  it doesn’t matter what you are but what you  do  and the choice you have to do good or bad.  to counteract the shittiness of dj fucking off,  leaving two poc to be forced onto their knees by a white fascist villain,  and a black character to be slapped upside the face by said white fascist villain we needed Something.  WHERE WAS OUR STORMTROOPER UPRISING, hMMMmm MMm MMMM mMM MM ????????????

bb-8 showing up as deus ex sight gag was funny for 2.5 seconds but now i'm just.... like crait.... a whole Salt Planet.  we could have had, it All ?  i don’t even specifically know where this part of my tlj-divergent verse goes because it actually requires other non-canon characters to exist but.... hey if any ex-stormtrooper oc’s wanna hmu.... u kno where i’m at.  basically,  i picture a handful of stormtroopers defecting,  escaping with rose and finn,  becoming part of  the rebellion that is reborn. 

iv.  battle of crait   //   this... fuc king scene..... god.  let’s just get the wampa out of the way.  rose’s  ‘ that’s how we’re gonna win.  not fighting what we hate, saving what we love ’  was totally narratively undeserved.  this is not a criticism of the character but of ryan, again, the man who was paid millions of dollars to write this garbage.  in under 18 hours,,,, rose has decided that she has gotten over her lifelong hatred for the first order,  her very recent and fresh grief over losing her sister who died Fighting The First Order,  and oH,  she LOVES FINN ?  WHAT.  cool.  coolcoolcool.

in my canon, i’m going to go with the idea that rose did not kiss finn.  but they have a fantastic dynamic,  and rose crashing into him, saving him and saying something similar to what she said but more along the lines of not wanting to lose another person she cares about to the first order would have been much... better....  i view this ship as primarily platonic, at least far as tlj goes.  finnrey and finnpoe barely had any screentime / development so ryan johnson is flat-out playing no-homo games if he thinks he’s going to sail a ship based on 18 hours of knowing each other.  but i’m totally open to seeing where it goes with proper development, etc. in rp,  so if there are any rose’s that would like to plot with me and discuss finnrose stuff please !!!  i’m begging you !!!!  

if ya made it to the end,  thank you,  ur the real mvp,  u are now obligated to message me to plot or yell at me abt ur own tlj salt / headcanons / character analysis. 

[yungagora-blog]

My script for my video “Libertarian Socialism IS NOT an oxymoron, critiquing Esoteric Entity”

First point I should make: that libertarian socialism is an umbrella term for a lot of positions that all believe in the voluntarily stateless society based on worker ownership (socialism) but disagree with the means to achieve and maintain it. So, the whole point of making this video is to have the viewer aware of this, and so not to conflate all libsoc thought as one as Esoteric Entity has.  

0:41 First point that esoteric makes: that socialism is not voluntarily.  

My argument: I can agree that certain strains of socialism are not voluntarily and very hierarchical (Marxism, i.e. state socialism) and tho I question certain libsoc thought (ancoms, ancols) this is something you have to present when debating saying “libertarian socialism in an oxymoron”, which thought do you mean?  Because as I said in my other video a lot of your arguments are against anarcho-communism but lump the whole of libsoc thought with it, not rebutting the ideas that are contrary to anarcho-communism.  

My first quote is Benjamin R Tucker can be found in his “Instead of a Book” and as the name implies, is actually a collection of essays from his newspaper “Liberty”, this quote can be found ‘A puppet for god’ but the debate Tucker is in this article begins in “Mr. Levy’s Maximum” where he attempts to argue that “the state is precisely the thing which the anarchist say it’s not – namely a voluntarily association of contracting individuals.”,

his argument being “When I said in my previous replies to mr perrine, that voluntarily assoications necessarily involves the right of secession, I did not deny the right of any individuals to go through the form of constituting themselves an association in which each member waives the right of secession.  My assertion was simply meant to carry the idea that such a constitution, if any should be so idle to adopt it, would be a mere FORM, which every decent man who was a party to it would hasten to violate and tread under foot as soon as he appreciated the enormity of his folly.”  Contract is a very serviceable and most important tool, but its usefulness has its limits; no man can employ it for the abdication of his manhood.  To indefinitely waive ones right of secession is to make one’s self a slave.  Now no man can make himself so much a slave as to forfeit the right to issue his own emancipation proclamation.  Individuality and its right of assertion are indestructible except by death.”  

In another quote in page 44-45 of instead of a book BRT extends this too with third parties, that third parties who did not agree to the terms and conditions of two agreeing parties are not bound to that same agreement made, so I don’t see your argument for “socialism, a system where people aren’t free to associate with others on a voluntarily basis, don’t have a right to the production of their own autonomy, or don’t have the right to exist free of free” if anything everything I have just stated agrees with your latter statement of “libertarianism a system that seeks to maximize the individual liberty of indidivuals allowing for the self ownership, autominity, and voluntairty association. “

 1: 24 – 3:17 Esoteric point “You can’t redefine arbitrarily redefine socialism”

Camreon does a poor job in defining socialism in this bit especially where it lies in common with libertarian socialism.  Socialism can be defined as “worker ownership of the means of production”, now what differs with libertarian socialism and state socialism is their goals with this definition, which Tuckers sums as AUTHOIRTY and LIBERTY.  Tucker describes state socialism as “The Doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice.”   And then describing anarchism (libertarian socialism) as : “The doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntarily associations, and that the state should be abolished”

 So yes, Cameron and libertarian socialist can do this as this is what happens with all philosophy, people create thoughts and disagree with those thoughts or parts of it and make up their own terms to show where they lie, especially in the realm of political philosophy, I am not saying I agree with it but that in a manner it is useful, for example, you can’t go about telling everyone you are a “classical liberal” hoping they’ll actually know you are an anarcho-capitalist, you have to explain how you are both but that the latter differs from the primary (statelessness).  And still you don’t address any of Cameron’s claims on how and why libertarian socialism differs from state socialism.

 Esoteric entitiy in 4:00-4:50: Is it really hard for you to understand that state socialism and libertarian socialism are two different things?  I can agree with your point on “why these regimes call themselves socialist” but you’re still not attacking Cameron’s argument on how libertarian socialism & state socialism are two different socialisms.  And my problem with relying on dictionary.com to define socialism is best worded by a comrade I made through my first video who said “ I know you (ME, Agora) were like 'wtf your using the definition of socialism from a dictionary'. But to explain why you said that, that's how we feel a lot of the time because dictionaries give the simplest of definitions where-as a better understanding can be gained from encyclopedias. Maybe if you explain that, it would be better. There is a long historical tradition of libertarian socialism whether or not it "sounds right" to him. So he's literally arguing against history. When he looks up the definition of libertarianism he doesn't understand that the free will definition refers to free will vs determinism in philosophy. As in, are your decisions predetermined? He doesn't understand libertarian free will has nothing to do with politics. That shows how uninformed he is.”  

 5:38: in your point here you attack anarcho-communism and its forced collectivization and so assume that libsocs are not in favor of individual ownership which these next quotes will disproves: Paul Eltzbacher writes about Proudhon

“Proudhon calls that portion of goods which is assigned to the individual by contract, “property”. In 1840 he had demanded that INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION be substituted for property; with this one change evil would disappear from the earth. “ and continues to tumble around by his belief in INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION & PROPERTY till in 1850 he announces “What I sought for as far back as 1840, in defining property, what I am wanting now, is not a destruction; I have said it till I am tired.  That would have been to fall with Rousseau, Plato, Lousic Blanc himself, and all the adversaries of property, into COMMUNISM, against which I protest with all my might; what I ask for property is a BALANCE – that is, “justice.”

Eltzbacher explains: “In all these pronouncements property means nothing else than that portion of goods which falls to the individual on the basis of contracts, on which society is to be built up.  The property which Proudhon sanctions cannot be special legal relation, but only a possible part of the substance of the one legal relation which he approves, the relation of contract.  It can afford no protection against a group of men whose extent is determined by legal norms, but only against who have mutually secured a certain portion of goods to each other by contract.  Proudhon, therefore, is here using the word “property” in an inexact sense; in the strict sense it can denote only a portion of goods set apart in an involuntary legal relation by particular legal norms.  Accordingly, when in the name of Justice Proudhon demands a certain distribution of property, this means nothing more than that the contracts on which society is to be built should make a certain sort of provision with respect to the distribution of goods.  And the way in which they should determine it is this: that every man is to have the product of his labor.

Now for this quote on property can be found in Tucker’s “Liberty and Property”: “Man has little to gain from liberty unless that liberty to control what he produces. One of the chief purposes of equal liberty is to secure this fundamental necessity of property, and, if property is not thereby secured, the temptation is to abandon the regime of contract and return to the reign of the strongest.”

6:55 Now Cameron, being an ancom believes in “direct democracy” but this isn’t to say, all libertarian socialist believe in democracy.  Some quotes:

“Royalty is never legitimate.  Neither heredity, election, universal suffrage, the excellence of the sovereign, nor the consecration of religion and time makes royalty legitimate.  In whatever form it may appear, monarchical, oligarchic, democratic, - royalty, or government of man by man is illegal and absurd. “  

“Democracy in particular is nothing but a constitutional arbitrary power succeeding another constitutional arbitrary power; it has no scientific value, and we must see in it only a preparation for the REPUBLIC, one and indivisible.”

“Authority was no sooner begun on earth than it became the object of universal competition.  Authority, government , power, state, - these words all denote the same thing, - each man sees in it the means of oppressing and exploiting his fellows.”

“All parties without exception, in so far as they seek for power, are varieties of absolutism; and there will be no liberty for citizens, no order for societies, no union among workingmen, till in the political catechism the renunciation of authority shall have replaced faith in authority.  No more parties, no more authority, absolute liberty of man and citizen, - there, in three words, is my political and social confession.”  - Proudhon

 And then I don’t think direct democracy is necessarily  “unlibertarian” , just the fetishism with majority rule over individual, this fetishism being “because the majority agreed to it therefore it must be right”  , an example I can think of is the death sentence, just because a majority voted to enact it doesn’t change it from murder, therefore right, but direct democracy in this case would solve the problem for a society “what are we to do with violent criminals” (serial killers, serial rapist, serial pedophiles) , that ALL participators of said society would ALL have an equal vote in the matter to enact or keep inactive the death sentence.  

7:14 You don’t know what the big fuss is about

I agree, libsocs and libcaps can stand by each other more and less but what prevents this is the conflating of each other’s philosophy.  Do you believe a libertarian socialist is interested in associating with you when you bring up the Economic calculation Problem, something only applicable to centralized (statist) economies?  

8:19 social hierarchy

I can agree with your statements on “income inequality” as Benjamin R Tucker even says “There will remain the slight disparity of products due to superiority of soil and skill.” But as Voltaire de Cleyre wrote in her dialogue “The individualist & the communist” : ““Certainly I do believe there are such differences in ability, but that they will lead to the iniquity you fear I deny. Suppose A does produce more than B, does he in anyway injure the latter so long as he does not prevent B from applying his own labor to exploit nature, with equal facilities as himself, either by self-employment or by contract with others?”‘”

But now where social hierarchy comes in is the artificial enforcement of the ability for an individual “from applying his own labor to exploit nature with equal facilities as himself, either by self-employment or contract by others”.  So, people who have made their power through the state or similar institutions of absolutism, have a social hierarchy over those who can’t achieve similar power by those same institutions.  Some people being , aristocrats, bureaucrats, , aristocrats having to rely on  a total monopoly of land to keep their subjects as peasants or whatever caste they were born into, bureaucrats often showing political and economic favoritism mimicking the aristocrats of the past with the same effects.  

 So yes, people making different life choices is not a hierarchy, but you don’t seem to realize that a system that PREVENTS individuals from making or choosing those different life choices through artificial enforcement is a social hierarchy.  That, power relations between two parties THAT are not equal, that is legitimate, voluntarily, where one party through some means has acquired a good deal of COERCIVE power, is a social hierarchy.  A good video about this is Punkonarant’s “What is power and how does it work?” I will post a link in the description, and tho a video against capitalism, I feel is good video on coercive power (statism).

 9:56 “That libsocs want to abolish the state and voluntarily association through a coup d’état”

 I don’t know where you got your “wanting to abolish voluntarily association” which I would like a source from as all libsocs, from mutualist to ancoms believe in voluntary association. I am not sure why Cameron doesn’t explain but I will. Again because libertarian socialism is an umbrella term for various thoughts that all disagree with another, they also disagree with what they call the “Social revolution” not a “coup d’état”, and yes, anarcho-communist, anarcho-collectivist, theorticans Peter Kropotkin & Mikhail Bakunin did argue for a violent revolution against the state and its cronies

But, the social revolution is not just against men, but against relations and things with it.  Bakunin wrote: “Bloody revolutions are often necessary, thanks to human stupidity; yet they are always an evil (line added by me) a monstrous evil and a great disaster, not only with regard to the victims, but also for the sake of the purity and perfection of the purpose in whose name they take place.” Bakunin, Volkssache

“The first act of the social revolution will be a destruction , which is so natural and justifiable because it is at the same time an impulse to renovation, will find its full satisfaction.  How much old trash there is to clear away!  Does not everything have to be transformed?  “ Peter Kropotkin

Now I chose to quote Bakunin first to explain his view on the Bakunin dialectic in contrast to the Hegelian, Marxist,which explains the views of Bakunin & Kropotkin on violent usurpation.  

 In ch 1 of the introduction of the book “The Basic Bakunin” , Robert M. Cutler writes : “ For Bakunin , the resolution of the dialectical contradiction signifies the victory of the negative.  In this victory  , both parties are vanquished ; neither is superposed on the other in the outcome. The negative and positive disappear , together and totally, in the final conflagration to which their struggles lead. “  and also “In Bakunin’s vision of the contradiction, however, the Positive and the Negative mutually destroy one another leading to the transcendence of both but preserving nothing of either.  Thus Bakunin, in his revolutionary exhortation, foresees no aspects of existing society based on the institution of the state, to survive the universal insurrection. “  And so if Bakunin believed that the violence of the state (the Positive) was to not survive this violent revolution, along with the Negative (violent usurpation) , therefore the Bakunin synthesis proposes a New World free from muddle of the Old.  

Kropotkin wrote “The work of destruction will be followed by a work of re-shaping”

But, as I can tell you are not one for violent revolution, neither am I, which is why I agree more with the “reformatory theachings” (as Eltzbacher puts it) of Godwin, Proudhon, Tucker & Tolstoi.  

 “The sole requirement is to convince men that the general welfare demands the change.”

“The point is to convince men as generally as possible.  Only when this is accomplished can acts of violence be avoided.”

“The means to convince men as generally as possible of the nessecity of a change consist in “proof and persuasion. The best warrant of a happy outcome lies in free, unrestricted discussion.  In this arena truth must always be victor.  If therefore we are would improve the social insitituions of mankind, we must seek to convince by spoken and written words.” William Godwin, An Enquiry concerning political justice and is influence on general virtue and happiness

These next quotes are from Proudhon.

“Accomplish the revolution, they say, and after this everything will be cleared up.  As if the revolution could be accomplished without a leading idea!”  Apparently this had been mistranslated and Steven T Byrinton, the translator, writes “Eltzbacher finds sens “all wil be enlightended” where I translate “everything will be cleared up”.  Eltzbacher’s view of the sense – that to those who say “enlightenment must come by revolution.” Proudhon replies, “No, the revolution must come by enlightenment” – correctly gives the thought brought out in the context.”

But now don’t be spooked by the word “revolution” as Proudon said “I want the peaceable revolution.  I want you to abolish the very institutions which I charge you to abolish, and the principals of law which you will have to complete, serve toward the realization of my wishes, so that the new society shall appear as the spontaneous , natural, and necessary development of the old, and the the revolution, while abrogating the old order of things shall nevertheless be the progress of that order. “When the people, one enlightened regarding its true interests, declares its will, not to reform government but to revolutionize society, then the dissolution of government in the economic organism will follow in a way about which one at present only make guesses.”

“Nothing is requisite but to convince men that justice commands the change.” To Proudhon (Along with Tucker & Tolstoi) the Social Revolution would only be possible through education of anarchist philosophy and the development of counter institutions to show to people what is anarchism, without violating the law.  And through the establishment of these anarchist counter institutions based on non-violence, non-coercion, voluntarily order, anarchism will replace the old world of coercion, violence, and involuntarily order.

Tucker says it best : “The idea that Anarchy can be inaugurated by force is as fallacious as the idea that it can be sustained by force.  Force cannot preserve Anarchy; neither can it bring it. In fact, one of the inevitable influences of the use of force is to postpone Anarchy.” Instead of a book, A Principal of Social Therapeutics

And to play God’s advocate with the Devil, the idea of a “peaceful” transition from a stateful society to a stateless society is a bit utopic.  A historic example of this would be the early Christians and several North American Indian tribes stance to, “turn the other cheek”, and often these people would be persecuted, aggressed upon, and killed when taking this extreme nonviolent route which is the stance of Leo Tolstoi.

Again looking to North American Indians we see how repeatedly they made contracts with the U.S. government which the government did not keep, stealing land and resources from the Natives, often leaving them to resettle in the rot of dissolute lands, resulting in the Indians to fight back.

 My point being, that just because you are peaceful, non-coercive, voluntary society not breaking the law, won’t stop the state from initiating force upon you, and tho we should glorify violence, we must understand that revolution as the anarchist saw it came out of a necessity to oppose statism, hierarchy, coercion, and create the New World from the shell of the Old.  

  10:23 Not to be rude but you’re confusing Lao Tzu with Zhuang Zhou, Lao Tzu in his “Tao ti ching” makes repeated remarks about how monarchy is part of “the way” (tao).  I am not sure if you said Talmud, that is the written law of the Jews, but I wouldn’t associate any religion with anarchism as some of these arguments of comparison are usually based around “themes of anarchism”, not that they were actually anarchist.  And on Lysander Spooner, Spoon was born 4 years after Proudhon and died about 10 years later, so yes they were contemporaries but what you don’t say is that Spooner’s anarchism is based of Josiah Warren anarchism based on Proudhon that is mutualism, aka anarchist socialism.  But you are right, Cameron makes a shit argument for an appeal to tradition which I won’t make, reading Paul Eltzbacher’s “anarchism” has shown me that anarchist philosophy doesn’t necessarily have to agree with each other 100% , but that it must be voluntarily as I have shown.       11:49 As I have demonstrated that yes, libertarian socialism does fit the definition of libertarianism I hope you can actually address Cameron’s point here, that being, why should we as libertarian socialist not identify as libertarians?       12:04: already explained in my first point   12:36 Cameron makes a good point here that you just dismiss without giving an actual argument.  When you look into the history of libertarian movements from the past a repeated theme is that they’re often betrayed for authortianism and suppressed by their opposition, usually marxist , now don’t tell me that doesn’t even ring true with some ancaps are making an appeal out to the alt-right (ancap chase, Christopher Cantwell, molyneaoux)     13:00 Camerons examples are of ancom regimes that I’m not interested in defending so I will give my own examples of anarchism at work.  Josiah Warren’s “Cincinnati Time Store” The entrepreneurship of Benjamin R Tucker, a man who started his own newspaper (Liberty) , translated the works of several anarchist having them republished.   Lysander Spooner, my favorite example as he challenged the U.S. governments monopoly on mailing, out-competing the U.S. until they made his buisness illegal, preserving its monopoly.     Henry David Thoreau, believed in self-reliance and abhorred slavery so much he refused to pay the tax   So here is some anarchism in action.   14:11 not an argument �Z5'\Z�

[turtle-paced]

GoT Re-Watch: Fine-Toothed Comb Edition

Got my notes here back under 4000 words, hooray! I won’t be posting the 5.05 recap until next weekend, so please be patient. There is plenty of season five to go around.

5.04 - Sons of the Harpy

(2:26) I certainly hope that Jorah moves the guy he just punched out further away from the shoreline. That’s not even past the tide mark. The coins will be very helpful to him in avoiding drowning.

(2:43) That is what we call a not-so-special effect. The only way it could be clearer that that was a mannequin Jorah just chucked into the boat is if they used a close-up.

(3:21) Jaime is staring longingly at Tarth. This is all the development his side of his relationship with Brienne that’s going to happen until the middle of season six when they’re reunited.

(3:48) Whee! Racism against the Dornish! Only, as I said last season, all we see from the Dornish is fucking and fighting, fighting and fucking. Bronn’s overt racism is proven to be correct by the script.

(3:59) “Fuck-mad Dornish girl.” Fuck-mad Dornish girl. Again, it’s not that this isn’t supposed to be in-verse racism, because it is, but the script wants us to think Bronn is clever and likeable. It’s chummy bro-racism. So I guess it’s not as bad as racism racism, and the bro-racism shouldn’t change our opinion of Bronn.

(4:37) Bronn just reminding us that the Lannisters do still have an army! Remember that for over in the Northern storylines.

(5:07) So in the space of this short conversation Bronn has already hinted that he knows for sure the twincest is a thing, and now he’s mentioned that he knows Jaime set Tyrion free. Bronn knows exactly enough to make him a useful sounding board for Jaime, and the whole class difference thing is ignored to make him a useful sounding board for Jaime.

(5:37) Jaime’s declaration that if he sees Tyrion again he’ll kill him might be his dramatic high point for the season. Logical reaction to preceding events, sets up tension for a next meeting…yeah, it probably is.

(6:34) Cersei here is supposed to be mishandling the Iron Bank, I believe, primarily in not asking the Tyrells for a loan. Was it a mistake for Ned to be alarmed at finding that Robert was deep in debt to the Lannisters? No. Cersei’s mishandling of the Iron Bank in AFFC was in flatly refusing repayments. Here the writers have had her take a more reasonable step - sending the Master of Coin to negotiate, complete with a Kingsguard for impressive entourage - primarily for the purposes of someone else’s storyline - Arya’s - and declared it a mistake.

(6:57) I love how Cersei’s only tactic for controlling a conversation is speaking over people. This was actually done very well.

(7:43) Ah, the highs and the lows of the High Sparrow. High - he won’t even accept a drink from Cersei. Low - his anti-alcohol stance is “hey, look at that steam engine over there” levels of anachronistic. (You know who made a lot of wine, beer, and hard liquor in Europe before the industrial revolution? Monks.) Avoiding excessive drinking is a thing throughout this period, but no booze? That’s 19th and 20th century concern with strong ties to early feminist movements.

(7:59) Such concern Cersei is showing for the destruction of septs in the countryside, including widespread sexual crimes against septas! Is it just me or has the burden of concern been inverted from AFFC?

(8:47) The politics here are weird again. In AFFC, Cersei at least got the Faith to forgive the Crown its debt in return for the Faith Militant. Here she’s just said “sure, get the Faith Militant started again!” then dropped a hint about maybe prosecuting some wealthy sinners perhaps.

(9:02) The High Sparrow just said, “All sinners are equal before the gods.” He has barely said anything about those widespread crimes against the common folk Cersei’s mentioned. If the writers want me to assume that what this man is after is the power to persecute sexual sinners, they’ve certainly succeeded in their task.

(9:29) See? We hear about “an army defending the common people” and we see thugs smashing up casks of alcohol and stalls selling…things that are presumably not theologically correct, causing obvious fear in the common folk the High Sparrow is supposed to be aiding. Therefore, I cannot actually believe that the High Sparrow is genuine when he says that he wants most to aid the common people from abuses by nobles. (I can believe he’s a ruthless politician, though.) Claims of the High Sparrow’s absolute sincerity in wanting to aid the common folk just do not hold water. I am also forced to believe that the writers possess negative amounts of knowledge about Christianity through the ages.

Anachronism isn’t just something like Howland Reed whipping out a revolver to shoot Arthur Dayne in the back at the Tower of Joy. There’s such a thing as an intellectual anachronism, where an idea has no place in its setting. Ideas have to be worked up to and built on something. Increasing religious radicalism and anti-regime thinking in response to war crimes and systemic oppression by nobles? Sure! There are definitely war crimes in this setting! The current regime was responsible for a bunch! Makes sense! What the hell does beer have to do with anything? The thought process seems to be “many conservative Protestants today don’t like alcohol = analogues for modern conservative Protestants in this setting smash all the alcohol.” Meanwhile, I go and hit my head on the nearest hard surface because not all conservative Protestants are alike, they are definitely not all alike throughout all of history, and these people are even more out of place than the architecture of Horn Hill!

Yes, I know, this series does not give a damn about anachronism and criticising a fantasy series for anachronism is a futile endeavour. However, this is anachronism to the point of bad worldbuilding. It is possible for fantasy series to integrate anachronism stew into the story with good grace and careful thought. This has not happened here.

(9:51) This entire montage is meant to emphasise that the Sparrows are scary! They are instituting a reign of religious terror in King’s Landing. People are screaming in fear. The music is saying these people are scary, too. Yet we are still supposed to believe that the High Sparrow genuinely wants to be in his soup kitchen more than anything else, aiding the poor of the city with their material needs.

This does not fit.

(10:05) Boobs: 1. Sex workers: 1. Paid sex acts: 1.

(10:17) Boobs: 2. Sex workers: 3. Paid sex acts: 2.

(10:19) Abs & pecs: 1. Sex workers: 4, 5.

(10:21) Female butts: 1.

(10:27) Boobs: 3. Sex workers: 6, 7, Olyvar again. The cameras are being very careful to capture the sexy parts of the women being beaten up. The naked men are run out of the room only giving the audience a view of their backs.

(10:34) Sex workers: 8.

(10:53) Abs & pecs: 3. Male full frontal: 1.

(10:57) Male full frontal: 2. Sex workers: 9. Note that this scene was here to show gay people victimised (well, one of them’s attracted to men, the other is a male sex worker, and unlike Olyvar, he has not stated who he’s attracted to), much as the women were shown naked to be victimised. Note also that this is only the second male sex worker we’ve seen all series, he doesn’t get a line, and he’s included to be victimised.

(12:14) Margaery says Cersei is jealous Tommen isn’t “hers” anymore. Implication: Tommen is Margaery’s.

(12:19) Tommen cannot comprehend that Cersei and Margaery don’t like each other, after hearing that Cersei had Margaery’s brother arrested, yet he’s competent to consent to sex with an adult?

(12:33) Faced with the fact of Tommen’s naivete, Margaery calms herself with effort, and says, “My sweet, sweet king, do you have any affection for me at all?” She is using sex to manipulate Tommen into doing things for her. Getting Loras out of jail is a good thing! Sexually manipulating a child, blatantly taking advantage of the fact he doesn’t understand the extent of what’s being asked of him, is not. They do not cancel each other out, either.

(13:37) Not sure how good a parent Cersei’s supposed to be. It changes from time to time. This, however, sending Tommen into a situation she knows he can’t negotiate, is so incompetent politically I have a hard time believing even Cersei would do it. She’s just goaded Tommen into a standoff with the High Sparrow, knowing he’ll lose. That undermines him just a little.

(14:10) Even the High Sparrow’s mooks feel confident in sending the king himself away. That is how much power the High Sparrow already has.

(14:32) From the crowd comes a cry of “bastard” and another “you’re an abomination.” So there are people in King’s Landing who believe that Tommen is the product of incest between Cersei and Jaime, and this fact is relevant to them. Remember that for later.

(14:50) Compassionate yes, helpful to his political position, no.

(15:17) Margaery once again reminds Tommen that men, especially kings, don’t refrain from violence. She has a good political point, but she also constructs a specific image of masculinity in order to make him more vulnerable to her. She is using gendered notions of behaviour to reinforce blind spots in Tommen’s social perception and to get him to overlook how she’s manipulating him.

(15:58) Woman called “slut”: 1.

(16:01) It wasn’t Ned Stark’s way to sleep with random barmaids, and this is actually some of the better seeding for the ultimate R+L=J reveal the show will do.

(16:15) “I gave you nothing but weakness.” Everything the show has done demonstrates to the viewer that Selyse hates Shireen. Holds her in contempt. It’s consistent. And yet it will turn on a dime later in the season.

(16:56) Melisandre does nothing on the trip south but convince Stannis to burn Shireen, then returns to where ADWD’s plot had her all along. It’s another one of these detours. Really, when you think about it, Stannis and Shireen are also plot detours, only they don’t get a return trip to reset them on something closer to an arc.

(17:17) “And what do you need, my lady?” “To serve my lord.” Cut to Jon Snow. This is on the level of “I ask for a glimpse of Azor Ahai, and R’hllor shows me only Snow.”

(18:22) Once again, Jon has to have very basic political concepts explained to him. While he does talk the issue of signing this letter to the Boltons requesting men and supplies over with Sam in the books, Jon’s trying to justify not signing with the likelihood of a Stannis success - he already knew perfectly well why he should sign it. Oh, and let’s add Jon to the list of people who somehow knows that Roose Bolton personally murdered Robb.

(19:20) I wonder if this offer from Mel, about chasing the rats from Winterfell, might have worked better before Jon signed the letter to the Boltons.

(19:51) Oh dear. Was there any real need for Melisandre to strip down, again? Boobs: 4.

(20:09) Not to mention this is sexual harassment.

(20:20) This line about there being “power” in Jon would make more sense if we knew he was a warg, but warging is still restricted to Bran because fuck it, magic’s too hard to adapt for more than two characters in this fantasy series.

(21:06) I can’t help but notice Jon just said no to further sexual contact with Melisandre yet she’s making no move to get off his lap (where she sat herself down quite uninvited in the first place). As the scene progresses he’ll grab her hands to stop her touching him further. This is clearly inappropriate sexual behaviour, but it’s mostly depicted as inappropriate because it’s Melisandre who’s behaving inappropriately. We’ve had similar behaviour from Margaery, flashing and kissing Renly without his permission and indeed physical and verbal attempts to resist, but that was fine! Funny even! Because he’s gay and Margaery’s hot!

(21:38) “You know nothing, Jon Snow.” Out of nowhere. Ugh, that was bad. In the book, Jon had just said “I know so,” to Melisandre, who came back with the line, in a context clearly meant to help prove to him that she has some real supernatural power. Here he’s said “I still love her,” and Melisandre’s replied, “You know nothing, Jon Snow.” How does that follow?

(22:42) More consistent depiction of Selyse’s opinions of Shireen. “She told me ‘I don’t want to bring you.’”

(23:37) And here we go. Stannis’ feelings about Shireen have also been consistently depicted. He’s always been awkward around her, but the viewer has always been reminded that he loves her more than anyone else - much more overtly than in the books, even. This is the height of that.

(24:38) “You are the Princess Shireen of House Baratheon, and you are my daughter.” I so loved this moment when I first saw it, but in hindsight we see that the writers were planning to punish us for caring. It’s not just that bad things happened to these two, it’s that Stannis’ characterisation changes in order to make bad things happen to this relationship. What Stannis just described was him telling the best medical advice he could get to get stuffed in order to preserve Shireen’s life, risking the lives of everyone who resided in the same castle. What this moment leads up to is a feeling of acute betrayal as Stannis burns his daughter alive for a fleeting tactical advantage and a resounding strategic defeat. While I fully expect Stannis to order Shireen’s burning for no effect at some point in TWoW or ADoS, I also expect that he won’t do it for a fleeting tactical advantage. That burning will be the tragic culmination of Stannis’ ongoing thread of ends justifying the means, the life of one child, his child, against the welfare of the kingdom - a greater dramatic purpose than simply ending Stannis’ storyline so the viewers can see nope guys he was totally pure evil and ambition. No real soul there.

(25:00-25:40) These forty seconds of Sansa alone in Winterfell’s crypts, lighting the candles on the statues of her ancestors, are my absolute favourite forty seconds of Sansa all season. It shows care, concern, and respect for her home and her family. It is also a nice touch that she finds the feather Robert left on Lyanna’s statue.

(25:54) Now, finally, we learn that Ned never talked about Lyanna with his children.

(26:09) Way to deliver one of the fandom’s most beloved pieces of backstory, told to Bran by the Reed children in the form of a children’s story in such a way that makes it clear that the events had a lot of emotional impact on both Howland Reed and Ned Stark, as flat exposition via Littlefinger, who wasn’t even at the events in question in the books.

(27:21) I rather like this line from Sansa, though, reminding everyone that the end of this story is that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna and that is most definitely not romantic.

(27:54) Cersei sent for Littlefinger mostly to get him out of the way of the plot the writers wanted to put here oh so very badly. It could not be more apparent when he arrives in King’s Landing that Cersei did not actually need to see him.

(28:12) Littlefinger here says that Stannis will want to march south to King’s Landing before the winter snows block his path. This is a perfectly reasonable thing for Littlefinger to assume. It is not true to book!Stannis, who intends to take Winterfell as a base from which to defend the kingdom from the White Walkers. Save the kingdom to win the throne and all that. We’re not hearing about Stannis’ knowledge that the real war is in the North; we’re hearing “he’s going to march to King’s Landing after taking Winterfell.”

(28:35) Littlefinger expects Stannis to defeat the Boltons, and yet allied with the Boltons, using Sansa to do so, going so far as to send her to a castle he expects to be under siege soon. This is ridiculous on its face. There is no good plot reason for Sansa to be here, and many, many good plot reasons for her not to be here. There is just the one reason: the showrunners wanted to write Ramsay raping and tormenting a major female character, and they believed Sansa’s plot was otherwise unoccupied with activities of substance and could improve with a bit of rape-and-revenge.

(28:56) If Littlefinger is right, and Stannis wins, he rescues Sansa from the most hated family in the North…and the man who sold her to them. A Stannis-backed Sansa regime is a bad outcome for Littlefinger, and not an outcome worth sacrificing all the paths to a Littlefinger-backed Sansa regime.

(29:18) And the problem with the theory that Sansa could take Ramsay and make him hers, aside from the fact that Littlefinger still hasn’t done his research, is that Sansa’s issue with the Boltons is that they killed her family and usurped their place! No matter how “hers” Ramsay is in private, it’s still his name with her family’s titles attached, and her name being used to legitimise his family’s murder and usurpation of her family!

This is such a terrible, nonsensical plan.

(30:30) Ah, Jaime can’t row because of his hand. Played for laughs.

(31:03) Jaime wakes up to Bronn getting ready to throw a knife at him - lol, Bronn was really aiming at a colourful snake that slithered up next to Jaime as he slept! The wacky foreign adventure begins!

(32:03) Jaime’s desire to die in the arms of the woman he loves doesn’t sound like foreshadowing at all, does it?

(34:19) So, this is not coming across as soldiers bullying randoms because they’re armed and they like using their power, but as guardsmen who have pegged Bronn and Jaime as suspicious. What are Bronn and Jaime so close to, to warrant suspicion? They haven’t been recognised. There’s no war on Dorne’s south coast. We don’t know what house these men serve, they’re dressed as “generic Dornishmen.” They’ve already ruled out the possibility that Bronn and Jaime are Ironborn. What, exactly, has made these men think that Bronn and Jaime are anything but ignorant men from King’s Landing who capsized in the night? I’ll tell you what - the writers’ desire for a fight scene. Incredibly contrived, no lasting impact on the plot. Should not have been included in the final cut of the show.

(34:31) Deaths: 1. Bronn’s killing hiatus is over.

(34:34) Deaths: 2. Bronn’s kill again.

(35:29) Ah, Jaime blocked the sword because of his hand. Played for laughs.

(35:34) Deaths: 3. Jaime’s kill, also his first for a while.

(36:33) Ah, Jaime can’t dig because of his hand. Played for laughs.

(37:46) So, the ship’s captain sold Obara all the information he possessed…and she kidnapped him and buried him in the sand in order to…

Also, count that as another “of all the gin joints” moment.

(38:51) Deaths: 4. Obara’s kill. Why? Why did she need to kill the man who was perfectly willing to sell her everything she needed to know? *shrug*

(39:02) In more not-so-special effects, this boat is completely stationary.

(41:12) You’re Jorah Mormont…and Tyrion is Sherlock Holmes today.

(42:40) Oh no. Barristan’s reminiscing. He’s doomed. Also, it’s like the show forgot that Sansa not so long ago called Rhaegar, the guy who Barristan is reminiscing about, a rapist. Either the show is cleverly using different characters to express the different narratives of Robert’s Rebellion, they forgot about Sansa’s scene earlier, or they are trying to hint that Rhaegar “wasn’t the sort of man who’d rape someone” or some bullshit like that. I know which possibilities I think are more likely.

(43:46) It’s funny because Dany, a woman untrained in any martial activity of any sort, can protect herself from a man! Wow, Hizdahr mustn’t be much of a man at all! And women mustn’t be able to defend themselves to a high standard!

(44:52) Abs & pecs: 4.

(45:01) Deaths: 5.

(45:03) Deaths: 6.

(45:05) Deaths: 7.

(45:56) Deaths: 8. The Unsullied forget everything they ever knew about fighting and become mooks to be mown down.

(46:00) Deaths: 9.

(46:02-3) Deaths: 10, 11, 12.

(46:13) Deaths: 13. Gray Worm’s kill.

(46:19) Deaths: 14. Also Gray Worm’s kill.

(46:22) Deaths: 15. A third for Gray Worm.

(46:31-32) Abs & pecs: 6, deaths: 16.

(46:36) Deaths: 17.

(47:06) Deaths: 18. Gray Worm’s fourth kill.

(47:08) Deaths: 19.

(47:10) Deaths: 20.

(47:16) Deaths: 21. Five kills for Gray Worm.

(47:27) Deaths: 22.

(47:30) Deaths: 23.

(47:35) Deaths: 24.

(47:39-40) Deaths: 25, 26, so make that seven for Gray Worm.

(47:47) Deaths: 27. Ser Barristan’s kill.

(48:03) Deaths: 28. Another for Barry.

(48:06-11) Deaths: 29, 30, 31, 32. All Barry’s. It’s hard to tell, the camera is working hard to hide a certain lack of athleticism here.

(48:13-14) Deaths: 33, 34. One apiece for Gray Worm and Barry.

(48:18) Deaths: 35. Another for Barry.

(48:23) Deaths: 36. Yet another for Barry.

(48:31) Deaths: 37. Barry keeps the kills counting.

(48:33) Deaths: 38. Yep, another kill for Ser Barristan.

(48:38) Deaths: 39. And a final kill for Gray Worm.

(48:45) Deaths: 40. Calling Ser Barristan’s death here. He mowed down eleven extras in that short space of time, while Gray Worm killed nine. How many Harpies did all the other Unsullied put together manage to kill? I think it was two. Realism is the name of the game here folks.

Game of Numbers S05E04

Deaths: 40. Most of those were in the final minutes, where as I just said, Ser Barristan Selmy killed eleven extras and Gray Worm nine. Bronn killed two extras, and Jaime and Obara killed one extra apiece. Ser Barristan also died.

Boobs: 4.

Abs & pecs: 6.

Female butts: 1.

Male butts: 0.

Female full frontal: 0.

Male full frontal: 2.

Sex workers: 9, including a male sex worker who isn’t Olyvar. That makes two for the series thus far.

Paid sex acts:

Woman called “slut/whore/harlot”: 1.

Man called “slut/whore/harlot”: 0.

[almajonesnjna]

{#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women?

I recently opened up a discussion (on Instagram of course) about lesbians, the male gaze, and the male gaze’s subsequent female objectification and beauty standards.

I figured maybe women who aren’t attracted to men might worry less about looking “hot,” since the whole women-as-beautiful-sex-objects thing was made by and for men, right?

That’s how it used to be back when I read women’s magazines in high school, at least. Literally every story was about how to trick a man into wanting/choosing you (UGH) by behaving or looking a certain way.

I figured the whole thing looked like this:

Women were taught that our whole purpose in life was to be desirable enough that we “snagged” a good partner. Beauty standards got invented to help women be more competitive in the man-snagging market, and the whole thing just escalated endlessly until we all have to look like airbrushed versions of surgically altered celebrities or models in order to be “good enough”.

Intuitively, it all seemed to come back to men. When I asked a client why she so badly wanted to look a certain way, the answer was invariably some derivative of wanting to feel desirable:

“Because I want men to notice me.” “Because I want to be attractive to my spouse.” “Because I want to feel hot/sexy.“

But after I posed this question on Instagram the feedback (from women of various sexual preferences) came flooding in to prove that this shit really has nothing to do with men at all.

Apparently, no. Being gay does not offer a woman a single damn bit of freedom from the pressures of the male gaze, beauty standards, or insecurities.

Which, while I was a bit surprised, this feedback struck a chord with something I already knew deep down.

After all, my fingernails are currently dark green, my favorite lipstick is navy blue, and I constantly put together outfits (think: rompers) that absolutely befuddle most men.

I even recently told a man who wanted to jump on the phone with me to “clear up some misconceptions I seemed to have, about what men want a woman to look like,” that I didn’t see how that was relevant to the work I do.

Men certainly want to think that we women do all this work (dressing up, wearing makeup, etc) for them, but frankly if it was all about them we wouldn’t rock purple glitter eyeliner, ya know? If it was really for men, we wouldn’t have cool short hairdos, or wear platform work boots, or high waisted jeans.

It’s not for men. So then what are we doing all this for?

Note: I know some women will tell me they do all this “for themselves!” and “because it’s fun!” and I get how in some ways that’s true. But there is a constant, endless stream of ways in which women are taught they must do/look a certain way in order to be good enough; to be worthy of love; to be visible, and valuable. We can’t ignore that fact discussing why we do what we do, or how it makes us feel.

All the women who provided feedback on Instagram convinced me that we are doing all this work for social currency: looking a certain way in our society earns us special rights and privileges.

A dolled up woman is treated better than a barefaced one.

A thin woman is treated better than a fat woman.

A hot woman is treated better than a plain woman.

It’s important to mention here the role that privilege plays. Because while some things are changeable (like hair, makeup, products, procedures, exercise, diet, or even plastic surgery) some stuff just isn’t.

Even on my worst day, I’m still treated fine, thanks to the fact that no matter what I look like day to day I always have white, thin, pretty privilege.

That said, there is a huge difference when I’m dressed up, and super lean. Everyone is so nice to me, so warm, so smiley and friendly when I’m dolled up and wearing makeup, and back when I was 13% body fat, people were constantly gushing over me. When I combined the two, I felt like like I may as well have ruled the world.

Truth be told, I don’t miss how my body looked when I was super lean like that, but I do miss how people treated me. Even just 10 or 15lbs heavier now (and still relatively thin and healthy) I experience a totally different world of how people treat me.

But back to the topic at hand.

While we can’t change everything, most women know that with some daily time and effort put toward their appearance, they can dramatically improve the friendliness, attention, and available opportunities of the world they live in.

Going back to the messages women hear about how we should look and act, I can see now that despite the way it was presented, it’s less about “how to get a man,” and more about “how to be a woman.”

Looking hot isn’t about snagging a mate, it’s about obtaining social currency.

So, if men aren’t the beneficiary of women’s insecurity and disempowerment when it comes to needing to look a certain way, then who is benefiting? If our sex appeal isn’t a matter of being sexually desirable, that what is it a matter of?

This is when I remembered that rape is not a crime of lust, but rather a crime of control, hate, anger, and power.

Rape is about making the other person submissive, shaming them, and having power over them. Rape is shaming someone, making them submissive to you, and establishing a position of dominance over them. That’s why rape is used as a weapon of war all over the world, and that’s why conversations about “what she was wearing” are completely irrelevant.

Perhaps our modern female beauty standards are the same: acts of submission to dominance, unrelated to lust or love.

But if so, then who is dominating us?

The answer, my dear friends, is advertisers.

It is advertisers (and the big companies who hire them) who are dominating us. Not because they hate us, but because they want us to give them money. Nonetheless, this is an act of power and control.

Advertisers dominate us with shaming, creating new standards as soon as we reach the old ones, coming up with new fashions, new products, new places to remove hair, and new ways to hide flaws they just made up.

Is it advertisers to whom we submit, without even realizing we are submitting. We are so bowed down buying the cellulite cream and reading the articles on how to look “ageless” that we never look up and see them standing over us.

They create the looks, they create the demand, they create the flaws.

Advertisers intentionally create shame because people who feel shame are obedient. They intentionally create self-doubt, because when we can’t trust ourselves, we look outward to find out what we should do.

When that happens, there they are: whispering promises of love, success, attention, and belonging.

Hush hush my love, I know it hurts that you’re broken and disgusting, but I love you and I will help you.

They break us down, and then sell us back the promise of our our wholeness, all the while manipulating us into thinking they have our back, they just want what’s best for us, they love us like nobody else will ever love us.

Shhh, you’ll feel better after this pair of jeans (or this color of nail polish, this pore-cleansing mask, this fat-sculpting workout). Trust me.

What does this dynamic sound like to you?

Because to me, it reeks of emotional abuse.

Abusers seek to purposefully disempower their abused, through guilt, shame, manipulation, gas-lighting, and fear. They keep their abused dependent on them, by breaking their self-trust and isolating them away from any resources that might make them feel whole, or empowered.

Every day we are battered with advertisements trying to tell us that we are worthless but that with their help we can be redeemed.

Every day we are assaulted with brands and companies whose very livelihood depends on the fact that we never find out we are worthy of love, attention, approval, acceptance, and belonging exactly as we are.

Yes, many of these major culture-creating companies are run by men. But this might be far less of a gender war than I have previously thought.

Don’t get me wrong, the patriarchy is real and has devastating effects on women, but when it comes to us all trying to live up to the standard of beauty, hotness, and sex appeal, I don’t think it’s MEN to whom we are submitting.

And the big manipulation that keeps us quiet *even if part of us logically knows this is bullshit* is that deep down in our hearts of hearts, we believe we are alone.

I recently read the Handmaid’s Tale for the first time since high school, and I was struck by how little they fought back against the devastatingly oppressive regime in power. Each person was terrified to speaking a rebellious word, for fear of retaliation if they spoke to a true believer.

And that’s how it is.

We aren’t just taught “you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.” Oh no, that wouldn’t be effective. That would never work, we’re much smarter than that.

We’re taught “everyone else thinks you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.”

And my god, is that one effective.

The psychology is cut and dry: we humans are wired for connection. We need and want acceptance, approval, and belonging.

We live in a supposedly “free market” where advertisers can say and push nearly anything, and they have teams of researchers dedicated to manipulating us into buying more stuff, and feeling like everyone else thinks we need this stuff in order to be accepted and belong.

This is our economy.

Our economy is an emotional abuser invested in all of us feeling broken, and specifically preying on women, who basically just arrived to the game of land-owning, voting, and money-making in the last century.

Think about it. After centuries of being controlled and dominated, unable to develop our own sense of purpose and self, we had internalized messages that we weren’t as valuable, smart, strong, capable, or interesting as men. When we started  being allowed to spend money, we were devastatingly susceptible to manipulation, and the advertisers figured that shit out fast.

Frankly, the whole thing makes me lean toward socialism in a way I never would have thought possible.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that when it comes to negative body image and insecurity in women, this is the result of a purposeful domination. It’s the predictable and understand result of an abusive and manipulative relationship.

And it sucks.

My apologies if you were looking for something uplifting today, this is all I got.

So much love,

Jessi

The post {#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women? appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

http://ift.tt/2hsfpsF

[neilmillerne]

{#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women?

I recently opened up a discussion (on Instagram of course) about lesbians, the male gaze, and the male gaze’s subsequent female objectification and beauty standards.

I figured maybe women who aren’t attracted to men might worry less about looking “hot,” since the whole women-as-beautiful-sex-objects thing was made by and for men, right?

That’s how it used to be back when I read women’s magazines in high school, at least. Literally every story was about how to trick a man into wanting/choosing you (UGH) by behaving or looking a certain way.

I figured the whole thing looked like this:

Women were taught that our whole purpose in life was to be desirable enough that we “snagged” a good partner. Beauty standards got invented to help women be more competitive in the man-snagging market, and the whole thing just escalated endlessly until we all have to look like airbrushed versions of surgically altered celebrities or models in order to be “good enough”.

Intuitively, it all seemed to come back to men. When I asked a client why she so badly wanted to look a certain way, the answer was invariably some derivative of wanting to feel desirable:

“Because I want men to notice me.” “Because I want to be attractive to my spouse.” “Because I want to feel hot/sexy.“

But after I posed this question on Instagram the feedback (from women of various sexual preferences) came flooding in to prove that this shit really has nothing to do with men at all.

Apparently, no. Being gay does not offer a woman a single damn bit of freedom from the pressures of the male gaze, beauty standards, or insecurities.

Which, while I was a bit surprised, this feedback struck a chord with something I already knew deep down.

After all, my fingernails are currently dark green, my favorite lipstick is navy blue, and I constantly put together outfits (think: rompers) that absolutely befuddle most men.

I even recently told a man who wanted to jump on the phone with me to “clear up some misconceptions I seemed to have, about what men want a woman to look like,” that I didn’t see how that was relevant to the work I do.

Men certainly want to think that we women do all this work (dressing up, wearing makeup, etc) for them, but frankly if it was all about them we wouldn’t rock purple glitter eyeliner, ya know? If it was really for men, we wouldn’t have cool short hairdos, or wear platform work boots, or high waisted jeans.

It’s not for men. So then what are we doing all this for?

Note: I know some women will tell me they do all this “for themselves!” and “because it’s fun!” and I get how in some ways that’s true. But there is a constant, endless stream of ways in which women are taught they must do/look a certain way in order to be good enough; to be worthy of love; to be visible, and valuable. We can’t ignore that fact discussing why we do what we do, or how it makes us feel.

All the women who provided feedback on Instagram convinced me that we are doing all this work for social currency: looking a certain way in our society earns us special rights and privileges.

A dolled up woman is treated better than a barefaced one.

A thin woman is treated better than a fat woman.

A hot woman is treated better than a plain woman.

It’s important to mention here the role that privilege plays. Because while some things are changeable (like hair, makeup, products, procedures, exercise, diet, or even plastic surgery) some stuff just isn’t.

Even on my worst day, I’m still treated fine, thanks to the fact that no matter what I look like day to day I always have white, thin, pretty privilege.

That said, there is a huge difference when I’m dressed up, and super lean. Everyone is so nice to me, so warm, so smiley and friendly when I’m dolled up and wearing makeup, and back when I was 13% body fat, people were constantly gushing over me. When I combined the two, I felt like like I may as well have ruled the world.

Truth be told, I don’t miss how my body looked when I was super lean like that, but I do miss how people treated me. Even just 10 or 15lbs heavier now (and still relatively thin and healthy) I experience a totally different world of how people treat me.

But back to the topic at hand.

While we can’t change everything, most women know that with some daily time and effort put toward their appearance, they can dramatically improve the friendliness, attention, and available opportunities of the world they live in.

Going back to the messages women hear about how we should look and act, I can see now that despite the way it was presented, it’s less about “how to get a man,” and more about “how to be a woman.”

Looking hot isn’t about snagging a mate, it’s about obtaining social currency.

So, if men aren’t the beneficiary of women’s insecurity and disempowerment when it comes to needing to look a certain way, then who is benefiting? If our sex appeal isn’t a matter of being sexually desirable, that what is it a matter of?

This is when I remembered that rape is not a crime of lust, but rather a crime of control, hate, anger, and power.

Rape is about making the other person submissive, shaming them, and having power over them. Rape is shaming someone, making them submissive to you, and establishing a position of dominance over them. That’s why rape is used as a weapon of war all over the world, and that’s why conversations about “what she was wearing” are completely irrelevant.

Perhaps our modern female beauty standards are the same: acts of submission to dominance, unrelated to lust or love.

But if so, then who is dominating us?

The answer, my dear friends, is advertisers.

It is advertisers (and the big companies who hire them) who are dominating us. Not because they hate us, but because they want us to give them money. Nonetheless, this is an act of power and control.

Advertisers dominate us with shaming, creating new standards as soon as we reach the old ones, coming up with new fashions, new products, new places to remove hair, and new ways to hide flaws they just made up.

Is it advertisers to whom we submit, without even realizing we are submitting. We are so bowed down buying the cellulite cream and reading the articles on how to look “ageless” that we never look up and see them standing over us.

They create the looks, they create the demand, they create the flaws.

Advertisers intentionally create shame because people who feel shame are obedient. They intentionally create self-doubt, because when we can’t trust ourselves, we look outward to find out what we should do.

When that happens, there they are: whispering promises of love, success, attention, and belonging.

Hush hush my love, I know it hurts that you’re broken and disgusting, but I love you and I will help you.

They break us down, and then sell us back the promise of our our wholeness, all the while manipulating us into thinking they have our back, they just want what’s best for us, they love us like nobody else will ever love us.

Shhh, you’ll feel better after this pair of jeans (or this color of nail polish, this pore-cleansing mask, this fat-sculpting workout). Trust me.

What does this dynamic sound like to you?

Because to me, it reeks of emotional abuse.

Abusers seek to purposefully disempower their abused, through guilt, shame, manipulation, gas-lighting, and fear. They keep their abused dependent on them, by breaking their self-trust and isolating them away from any resources that might make them feel whole, or empowered.

Every day we are battered with advertisements trying to tell us that we are worthless but that with their help we can be redeemed.

Every day we are assaulted with brands and companies whose very livelihood depends on the fact that we never find out we are worthy of love, attention, approval, acceptance, and belonging exactly as we are.

Yes, many of these major culture-creating companies are run by men. But this might be far less of a gender war than I have previously thought.

Don’t get me wrong, the patriarchy is real and has devastating effects on women, but when it comes to us all trying to live up to the standard of beauty, hotness, and sex appeal, I don’t think it’s MEN to whom we are submitting.

And the big manipulation that keeps us quiet *even if part of us logically knows this is bullshit* is that deep down in our hearts of hearts, we believe we are alone.

I recently read the Handmaid’s Tale for the first time since high school, and I was struck by how little they fought back against the devastatingly oppressive regime in power. Each person was terrified to speaking a rebellious word, for fear of retaliation if they spoke to a true believer.

And that’s how it is.

We aren’t just taught “you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.” Oh no, that wouldn’t be effective. That would never work, we’re much smarter than that.

We’re taught “everyone else thinks you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.”

And my god, is that one effective.

The psychology is cut and dry: we humans are wired for connection. We need and want acceptance, approval, and belonging.

We live in a supposedly “free market” where advertisers can say and push nearly anything, and they have teams of researchers dedicated to manipulating us into buying more stuff, and feeling like everyone else thinks we need this stuff in order to be accepted and belong.

This is our economy.

Our economy is an emotional abuser invested in all of us feeling broken, and specifically preying on women, who basically just arrived to the game of land-owning, voting, and money-making in the last century.

Think about it. After centuries of being controlled and dominated, unable to develop our own sense of purpose and self, we had internalized messages that we weren’t as valuable, smart, strong, capable, or interesting as men. When we started  being allowed to spend money, we were devastatingly susceptible to manipulation, and the advertisers figured that shit out fast.

Frankly, the whole thing makes me lean toward socialism in a way I never would have thought possible.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that when it comes to negative body image and insecurity in women, this is the result of a purposeful domination. It’s the predictable and understand result of an abusive and manipulative relationship.

And it sucks.

My apologies if you were looking for something uplifting today, this is all I got.

So much love,

Jessi

The post {#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women? appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

http://ift.tt/2hsfpsF

[ruthellisneda]

{#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women?

I recently opened up a discussion (on Instagram of course) about lesbians, the male gaze, and the male gaze’s subsequent female objectification and beauty standards.

I figured maybe women who aren’t attracted to men might worry less about looking “hot,” since the whole women-as-beautiful-sex-objects thing was made by and for men, right?

That’s how it used to be back when I read women’s magazines in high school, at least. Literally every story was about how to trick a man into wanting/choosing you (UGH) by behaving or looking a certain way.

I figured the whole thing looked like this:

Women were taught that our whole purpose in life was to be desirable enough that we “snagged” a good partner. Beauty standards got invented to help women be more competitive in the man-snagging market, and the whole thing just escalated endlessly until we all have to look like airbrushed versions of surgically altered celebrities or models in order to be “good enough”.

Intuitively, it all seemed to come back to men. When I asked a client why she so badly wanted to look a certain way, the answer was invariably some derivative of wanting to feel desirable:

“Because I want men to notice me.” “Because I want to be attractive to my spouse.” “Because I want to feel hot/sexy.“

But after I posed this question on Instagram the feedback (from women of various sexual preferences) came flooding in to prove that this shit really has nothing to do with men at all.

Apparently, no. Being gay does not offer a woman a single damn bit of freedom from the pressures of the male gaze, beauty standards, or insecurities.

Which, while I was a bit surprised, this feedback struck a chord with something I already knew deep down.

After all, my fingernails are currently dark green, my favorite lipstick is navy blue, and I constantly put together outfits (think: rompers) that absolutely befuddle most men.

I even recently told a man who wanted to jump on the phone with me to “clear up some misconceptions I seemed to have, about what men want a woman to look like,” that I didn’t see how that was relevant to the work I do.

Men certainly want to think that we women do all this work (dressing up, wearing makeup, etc) for them, but frankly if it was all about them we wouldn’t rock purple glitter eyeliner, ya know? If it was really for men, we wouldn’t have cool short hairdos, or wear platform work boots, or high waisted jeans.

It’s not for men. So then what are we doing all this for?

Note: I know some women will tell me they do all this “for themselves!” and “because it’s fun!” and I get how in some ways that’s true. But there is a constant, endless stream of ways in which women are taught they must do/look a certain way in order to be good enough; to be worthy of love; to be visible, and valuable. We can’t ignore that fact discussing why we do what we do, or how it makes us feel.

All the women who provided feedback on Instagram convinced me that we are doing all this work for social currency: looking a certain way in our society earns us special rights and privileges.

A dolled up woman is treated better than a barefaced one.

A thin woman is treated better than a fat woman.

A hot woman is treated better than a plain woman.

It’s important to mention here the role that privilege plays. Because while some things are changeable (like hair, makeup, products, procedures, exercise, diet, or even plastic surgery) some stuff just isn’t.

Even on my worst day, I’m still treated fine, thanks to the fact that no matter what I look like day to day I always have white, thin, pretty privilege.

That said, there is a huge difference when I’m dressed up, and super lean. Everyone is so nice to me, so warm, so smiley and friendly when I’m dolled up and wearing makeup, and back when I was 13% body fat, people were constantly gushing over me. When I combined the two, I felt like like I may as well have ruled the world.

Truth be told, I don’t miss how my body looked when I was super lean like that, but I do miss how people treated me. Even just 10 or 15lbs heavier now (and still relatively thin and healthy) I experience a totally different world of how people treat me.

But back to the topic at hand.

While we can’t change everything, most women know that with some daily time and effort put toward their appearance, they can dramatically improve the friendliness, attention, and available opportunities of the world they live in.

Going back to the messages women hear about how we should look and act, I can see now that despite the way it was presented, it’s less about “how to get a man,” and more about “how to be a woman.”

Looking hot isn’t about snagging a mate, it’s about obtaining social currency.

So, if men aren’t the beneficiary of women’s insecurity and disempowerment when it comes to needing to look a certain way, then who is benefiting? If our sex appeal isn’t a matter of being sexually desirable, that what is it a matter of?

This is when I remembered that rape is not a crime of lust, but rather a crime of control, hate, anger, and power.

Rape is about making the other person submissive, shaming them, and having power over them. Rape is shaming someone, making them submissive to you, and establishing a position of dominance over them. That’s why rape is used as a weapon of war all over the world, and that’s why conversations about “what she was wearing” are completely irrelevant.

Perhaps our modern female beauty standards are the same: acts of submission to dominance, unrelated to lust or love.

But if so, then who is dominating us?

The answer, my dear friends, is advertisers.

It is advertisers (and the big companies who hire them) who are dominating us. Not because they hate us, but because they want us to give them money. Nonetheless, this is an act of power and control.

Advertisers dominate us with shaming, creating new standards as soon as we reach the old ones, coming up with new fashions, new products, new places to remove hair, and new ways to hide flaws they just made up.

Is it advertisers to whom we submit, without even realizing we are submitting. We are so bowed down buying the cellulite cream and reading the articles on how to look “ageless” that we never look up and see them standing over us.

They create the looks, they create the demand, they create the flaws.

Advertisers intentionally create shame because people who feel shame are obedient. They intentionally create self-doubt, because when we can’t trust ourselves, we look outward to find out what we should do.

When that happens, there they are: whispering promises of love, success, attention, and belonging.

Hush hush my love, I know it hurts that you’re broken and disgusting, but I love you and I will help you.

They break us down, and then sell us back the promise of our our wholeness, all the while manipulating us into thinking they have our back, they just want what’s best for us, they love us like nobody else will ever love us.

Shhh, you’ll feel better after this pair of jeans (or this color of nail polish, this pore-cleansing mask, this fat-sculpting workout). Trust me.

What does this dynamic sound like to you?

Because to me, it reeks of emotional abuse.

Abusers seek to purposefully disempower their abused, through guilt, shame, manipulation, gas-lighting, and fear. They keep their abused dependent on them, by breaking their self-trust and isolating them away from any resources that might make them feel whole, or empowered.

Every day we are battered with advertisements trying to tell us that we are worthless but that with their help we can be redeemed.

Every day we are assaulted with brands and companies whose very livelihood depends on the fact that we never find out we are worthy of love, attention, approval, acceptance, and belonging exactly as we are.

Yes, many of these major culture-creating companies are run by men. But this might be far less of a gender war than I have previously thought.

Don’t get me wrong, the patriarchy is real and has devastating effects on women, but when it comes to us all trying to live up to the standard of beauty, hotness, and sex appeal, I don’t think it’s MEN to whom we are submitting.

And the big manipulation that keeps us quiet *even if part of us logically knows this is bullshit* is that deep down in our hearts of hearts, we believe we are alone.

I recently read the Handmaid’s Tale for the first time since high school, and I was struck by how little they fought back against the devastatingly oppressive regime in power. Each person was terrified to speaking a rebellious word, for fear of retaliation if they spoke to a true believer.

And that’s how it is.

We aren’t just taught “you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.” Oh no, that wouldn’t be effective. That would never work, we’re much smarter than that.

We’re taught “everyone else thinks you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.”

And my god, is that one effective.

The psychology is cut and dry: we humans are wired for connection. We need and want acceptance, approval, and belonging.

We live in a supposedly “free market” where advertisers can say and push nearly anything, and they have teams of researchers dedicated to manipulating us into buying more stuff, and feeling like everyone else thinks we need this stuff in order to be accepted and belong.

This is our economy.

Our economy is an emotional abuser invested in all of us feeling broken, and specifically preying on women, who basically just arrived to the game of land-owning, voting, and money-making in the last century.

Think about it. After centuries of being controlled and dominated, unable to develop our own sense of purpose and self, we had internalized messages that we weren’t as valuable, smart, strong, capable, or interesting as men. When we started  being allowed to spend money, we were devastatingly susceptible to manipulation, and the advertisers figured that shit out fast.

Frankly, the whole thing makes me lean toward socialism in a way I never would have thought possible.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that when it comes to negative body image and insecurity in women, this is the result of a purposeful domination. It’s the predictable and understand result of an abusive and manipulative relationship.

And it sucks.

My apologies if you were looking for something uplifting today, this is all I got.

So much love,

Jessi

The post {#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women? appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

http://ift.tt/2hsfpsF

[joshuabradleyn]

{#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women?

I recently opened up a discussion (on Instagram of course) about lesbians, the male gaze, and the male gaze’s subsequent female objectification and beauty standards.

I figured maybe women who aren’t attracted to men might worry less about looking “hot,” since the whole women-as-beautiful-sex-objects thing was made by and for men, right?

That’s how it used to be back when I read women’s magazines in high school, at least. Literally every story was about how to trick a man into wanting/choosing you (UGH) by behaving or looking a certain way.

I figured the whole thing looked like this:

Women were taught that our whole purpose in life was to be desirable enough that we “snagged” a good partner. Beauty standards got invented to help women be more competitive in the man-snagging market, and the whole thing just escalated endlessly until we all have to look like airbrushed versions of surgically altered celebrities or models in order to be “good enough”.

Intuitively, it all seemed to come back to men. When I asked a client why she so badly wanted to look a certain way, the answer was invariably some derivative of wanting to feel desirable:

“Because I want men to notice me.” “Because I want to be attractive to my spouse.” “Because I want to feel hot/sexy.“

But after I posed this question on Instagram the feedback (from women of various sexual preferences) came flooding in to prove that this shit really has nothing to do with men at all.

Apparently, no. Being gay does not offer a woman a single damn bit of freedom from the pressures of the male gaze, beauty standards, or insecurities.

Which, while I was a bit surprised, this feedback struck a chord with something I already knew deep down.

After all, my fingernails are currently dark green, my favorite lipstick is navy blue, and I constantly put together outfits (think: rompers) that absolutely befuddle most men.

I even recently told a man who wanted to jump on the phone with me to “clear up some misconceptions I seemed to have, about what men want a woman to look like,” that I didn’t see how that was relevant to the work I do.

Men certainly want to think that we women do all this work (dressing up, wearing makeup, etc) for them, but frankly if it was all about them we wouldn’t rock purple glitter eyeliner, ya know? If it was really for men, we wouldn’t have cool short hairdos, or wear platform work boots, or high waisted jeans.

It’s not for men. So then what are we doing all this for?

Note: I know some women will tell me they do all this “for themselves!” and “because it’s fun!” and I get how in some ways that’s true. But there is a constant, endless stream of ways in which women are taught they must do/look a certain way in order to be good enough; to be worthy of love; to be visible, and valuable. We can’t ignore that fact discussing why we do what we do, or how it makes us feel.

All the women who provided feedback on Instagram convinced me that we are doing all this work for social currency: looking a certain way in our society earns us special rights and privileges.

A dolled up woman is treated better than a barefaced one.

A thin woman is treated better than a fat woman.

A hot woman is treated better than a plain woman.

It’s important to mention here the role that privilege plays. Because while some things are changeable (like hair, makeup, products, procedures, exercise, diet, or even plastic surgery) some stuff just isn’t.

Even on my worst day, I’m still treated fine, thanks to the fact that no matter what I look like day to day I always have white, thin, pretty privilege.

That said, there is a huge difference when I’m dressed up, and super lean. Everyone is so nice to me, so warm, so smiley and friendly when I’m dolled up and wearing makeup, and back when I was 13% body fat, people were constantly gushing over me. When I combined the two, I felt like like I may as well have ruled the world.

Truth be told, I don’t miss how my body looked when I was super lean like that, but I do miss how people treated me. Even just 10 or 15lbs heavier now (and still relatively thin and healthy) I experience a totally different world of how people treat me.

But back to the topic at hand.

While we can’t change everything, most women know that with some daily time and effort put toward their appearance, they can dramatically improve the friendliness, attention, and available opportunities of the world they live in.

Going back to the messages women hear about how we should look and act, I can see now that despite the way it was presented, it’s less about “how to get a man,” and more about “how to be a woman.”

Looking hot isn’t about snagging a mate, it’s about obtaining social currency.

So, if men aren’t the beneficiary of women’s insecurity and disempowerment when it comes to needing to look a certain way, then who is benefiting? If our sex appeal isn’t a matter of being sexually desirable, that what is it a matter of?

This is when I remembered that rape is not a crime of lust, but rather a crime of control, hate, anger, and power.

Rape is about making the other person submissive, shaming them, and having power over them. Rape is shaming someone, making them submissive to you, and establishing a position of dominance over them. That’s why rape is used as a weapon of war all over the world, and that’s why conversations about “what she was wearing” are completely irrelevant.

Perhaps our modern female beauty standards are the same: acts of submission to dominance, unrelated to lust or love.

But if so, then who is dominating us?

The answer, my dear friends, is advertisers.

It is advertisers (and the big companies who hire them) who are dominating us. Not because they hate us, but because they want us to give them money. Nonetheless, this is an act of power and control.

Advertisers dominate us with shaming, creating new standards as soon as we reach the old ones, coming up with new fashions, new products, new places to remove hair, and new ways to hide flaws they just made up.

Is it advertisers to whom we submit, without even realizing we are submitting. We are so bowed down buying the cellulite cream and reading the articles on how to look “ageless” that we never look up and see them standing over us.

They create the looks, they create the demand, they create the flaws.

Advertisers intentionally create shame because people who feel shame are obedient. They intentionally create self-doubt, because when we can’t trust ourselves, we look outward to find out what we should do.

When that happens, there they are: whispering promises of love, success, attention, and belonging.

Hush hush my love, I know it hurts that you’re broken and disgusting, but I love you and I will help you.

They break us down, and then sell us back the promise of our our wholeness, all the while manipulating us into thinking they have our back, they just want what’s best for us, they love us like nobody else will ever love us.

Shhh, you’ll feel better after this pair of jeans (or this color of nail polish, this pore-cleansing mask, this fat-sculpting workout). Trust me.

What does this dynamic sound like to you?

Because to me, it reeks of emotional abuse.

Abusers seek to purposefully disempower their abused, through guilt, shame, manipulation, gas-lighting, and fear. They keep their abused dependent on them, by breaking their self-trust and isolating them away from any resources that might make them feel whole, or empowered.

Every day we are battered with advertisements trying to tell us that we are worthless but that with their help we can be redeemed.

Every day we are assaulted with brands and companies whose very livelihood depends on the fact that we never find out we are worthy of love, attention, approval, acceptance, and belonging exactly as we are.

Yes, many of these major culture-creating companies are run by men. But this might be far less of a gender war than I have previously thought.

Don’t get me wrong, the patriarchy is real and has devastating effects on women, but when it comes to us all trying to live up to the standard of beauty, hotness, and sex appeal, I don’t think it’s MEN to whom we are submitting.

And the big manipulation that keeps us quiet *even if part of us logically knows this is bullshit* is that deep down in our hearts of hearts, we believe we are alone.

I recently read the Handmaid’s Tale for the first time since high school, and I was struck by how little they fought back against the devastatingly oppressive regime in power. Each person was terrified to speaking a rebellious word, for fear of retaliation if they spoke to a true believer.

And that’s how it is.

We aren’t just taught “you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.” Oh no, that wouldn’t be effective. That would never work, we’re much smarter than that.

We’re taught “everyone else thinks you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.”

And my god, is that one effective.

The psychology is cut and dry: we humans are wired for connection. We need and want acceptance, approval, and belonging.

We live in a supposedly “free market” where advertisers can say and push nearly anything, and they have teams of researchers dedicated to manipulating us into buying more stuff, and feeling like everyone else thinks we need this stuff in order to be accepted and belong.

This is our economy.

Our economy is an emotional abuser invested in all of us feeling broken, and specifically preying on women, who basically just arrived to the game of land-owning, voting, and money-making in the last century.

Think about it. After centuries of being controlled and dominated, unable to develop our own sense of purpose and self, we had internalized messages that we weren’t as valuable, smart, strong, capable, or interesting as men. When we started  being allowed to spend money, we were devastatingly susceptible to manipulation, and the advertisers figured that shit out fast.

Frankly, the whole thing makes me lean toward socialism in a way I never would have thought possible.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that when it comes to negative body image and insecurity in women, this is the result of a purposeful domination. It’s the predictable and understand result of an abusive and manipulative relationship.

And it sucks.

My apologies if you were looking for something uplifting today, this is all I got.

So much love,

Jessi

The post {#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women? appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

http://ift.tt/2hsfpsF

[albertcaldwellne]

{#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women?

I recently opened up a discussion (on Instagram of course) about lesbians, the male gaze, and the male gaze’s subsequent female objectification and beauty standards.

I figured maybe women who aren’t attracted to men might worry less about looking “hot,” since the whole women-as-beautiful-sex-objects thing was made by and for men, right?

That’s how it used to be back when I read women’s magazines in high school, at least. Literally every story was about how to trick a man into wanting/choosing you (UGH) by behaving or looking a certain way.

I figured the whole thing looked like this:

Women were taught that our whole purpose in life was to be desirable enough that we “snagged” a good partner. Beauty standards got invented to help women be more competitive in the man-snagging market, and the whole thing just escalated endlessly until we all have to look like airbrushed versions of surgically altered celebrities or models in order to be “good enough”.

Intuitively, it all seemed to come back to men. When I asked a client why she so badly wanted to look a certain way, the answer was invariably some derivative of wanting to feel desirable:

“Because I want men to notice me.” “Because I want to be attractive to my spouse.” “Because I want to feel hot/sexy.“

But after I posed this question on Instagram the feedback (from women of various sexual preferences) came flooding in to prove that this shit really has nothing to do with men at all.

Apparently, no. Being gay does not offer a woman a single damn bit of freedom from the pressures of the male gaze, beauty standards, or insecurities.

Which, while I was a bit surprised, this feedback struck a chord with something I already knew deep down.

After all, my fingernails are currently dark green, my favorite lipstick is navy blue, and I constantly put together outfits (think: rompers) that absolutely befuddle most men.

I even recently told a man who wanted to jump on the phone with me to “clear up some misconceptions I seemed to have, about what men want a woman to look like,” that I didn’t see how that was relevant to the work I do.

Men certainly want to think that we women do all this work (dressing up, wearing makeup, etc) for them, but frankly if it was all about them we wouldn’t rock purple glitter eyeliner, ya know? If it was really for men, we wouldn’t have cool short hairdos, or wear platform work boots, or high waisted jeans.

It’s not for men. So then what are we doing all this for?

Note: I know some women will tell me they do all this “for themselves!” and “because it’s fun!” and I get how in some ways that’s true. But there is a constant, endless stream of ways in which women are taught they must do/look a certain way in order to be good enough; to be worthy of love; to be visible, and valuable. We can’t ignore that fact discussing why we do what we do, or how it makes us feel.

All the women who provided feedback on Instagram convinced me that we are doing all this work for social currency: looking a certain way in our society earns us special rights and privileges.

A dolled up woman is treated better than a barefaced one.

A thin woman is treated better than a fat woman.

A hot woman is treated better than a plain woman.

It’s important to mention here the role that privilege plays. Because while some things are changeable (like hair, makeup, products, procedures, exercise, diet, or even plastic surgery) some stuff just isn’t.

Even on my worst day, I’m still treated fine, thanks to the fact that no matter what I look like day to day I always have white, thin, pretty privilege.

That said, there is a huge difference when I’m dressed up, and super lean. Everyone is so nice to me, so warm, so smiley and friendly when I’m dolled up and wearing makeup, and back when I was 13% body fat, people were constantly gushing over me. When I combined the two, I felt like like I may as well have ruled the world.

Truth be told, I don’t miss how my body looked when I was super lean like that, but I do miss how people treated me. Even just 10 or 15lbs heavier now (and still relatively thin and healthy) I experience a totally different world of how people treat me.

But back to the topic at hand.

While we can’t change everything, most women know that with some daily time and effort put toward their appearance, they can dramatically improve the friendliness, attention, and available opportunities of the world they live in.

Going back to the messages women hear about how we should look and act, I can see now that despite the way it was presented, it’s less about “how to get a man,” and more about “how to be a woman.”

Looking hot isn’t about snagging a mate, it’s about obtaining social currency.

So, if men aren’t the beneficiary of women’s insecurity and disempowerment when it comes to needing to look a certain way, then who is benefiting? If our sex appeal isn’t a matter of being sexually desirable, that what is it a matter of?

This is when I remembered that rape is not a crime of lust, but rather a crime of control, hate, anger, and power.

Rape is about making the other person submissive, shaming them, and having power over them. Rape is shaming someone, making them submissive to you, and establishing a position of dominance over them. That’s why rape is used as a weapon of war all over the world, and that’s why conversations about “what she was wearing” are completely irrelevant.

Perhaps our modern female beauty standards are the same: acts of submission to dominance, unrelated to lust or love.

But if so, then who is dominating us?

The answer, my dear friends, is advertisers.

It is advertisers (and the big companies who hire them) who are dominating us. Not because they hate us, but because they want us to give them money. Nonetheless, this is an act of power and control.

Advertisers dominate us with shaming, creating new standards as soon as we reach the old ones, coming up with new fashions, new products, new places to remove hair, and new ways to hide flaws they just made up.

Is it advertisers to whom we submit, without even realizing we are submitting. We are so bowed down buying the cellulite cream and reading the articles on how to look “ageless” that we never look up and see them standing over us.

They create the looks, they create the demand, they create the flaws.

Advertisers intentionally create shame because people who feel shame are obedient. They intentionally create self-doubt, because when we can’t trust ourselves, we look outward to find out what we should do.

When that happens, there they are: whispering promises of love, success, attention, and belonging.

Hush hush my love, I know it hurts that you’re broken and disgusting, but I love you and I will help you.

They break us down, and then sell us back the promise of our our wholeness, all the while manipulating us into thinking they have our back, they just want what’s best for us, they love us like nobody else will ever love us.

Shhh, you’ll feel better after this pair of jeans (or this color of nail polish, this pore-cleansing mask, this fat-sculpting workout). Trust me.

What does this dynamic sound like to you?

Because to me, it reeks of emotional abuse.

Abusers seek to purposefully disempower their abused, through guilt, shame, manipulation, gas-lighting, and fear. They keep their abused dependent on them, by breaking their self-trust and isolating them away from any resources that might make them feel whole, or empowered.

Every day we are battered with advertisements trying to tell us that we are worthless but that with their help we can be redeemed.

Every day we are assaulted with brands and companies whose very livelihood depends on the fact that we never find out we are worthy of love, attention, approval, acceptance, and belonging exactly as we are.

Yes, many of these major culture-creating companies are run by men. But this might be far less of a gender war than I have previously thought.

Don’t get me wrong, the patriarchy is real and has devastating effects on women, but when it comes to us all trying to live up to the standard of beauty, hotness, and sex appeal, I don’t think it’s MEN to whom we are submitting.

And the big manipulation that keeps us quiet *even if part of us logically knows this is bullshit* is that deep down in our hearts of hearts, we believe we are alone.

I recently read the Handmaid’s Tale for the first time since high school, and I was struck by how little they fought back against the devastatingly oppressive regime in power. Each person was terrified to speaking a rebellious word, for fear of retaliation if they spoke to a true believer.

And that’s how it is.

We aren’t just taught “you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.” Oh no, that wouldn’t be effective. That would never work, we’re much smarter than that.

We’re taught “everyone else thinks you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.”

And my god, is that one effective.

The psychology is cut and dry: we humans are wired for connection. We need and want acceptance, approval, and belonging.

We live in a supposedly “free market” where advertisers can say and push nearly anything, and they have teams of researchers dedicated to manipulating us into buying more stuff, and feeling like everyone else thinks we need this stuff in order to be accepted and belong.

This is our economy.

Our economy is an emotional abuser invested in all of us feeling broken, and specifically preying on women, who basically just arrived to the game of land-owning, voting, and money-making in the last century.

Think about it. After centuries of being controlled and dominated, unable to develop our own sense of purpose and self, we had internalized messages that we weren’t as valuable, smart, strong, capable, or interesting as men. When we started  being allowed to spend money, we were devastatingly susceptible to manipulation, and the advertisers figured that shit out fast.

Frankly, the whole thing makes me lean toward socialism in a way I never would have thought possible.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that when it comes to negative body image and insecurity in women, this is the result of a purposeful domination. It’s the predictable and understand result of an abusive and manipulative relationship.

And it sucks.

My apologies if you were looking for something uplifting today, this is all I got.

So much love,

Jessi

The post {#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women? appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

http://ift.tt/2hsfpsF

[johnclapperne]

{#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women?

I recently opened up a discussion (on Instagram of course) about lesbians, the male gaze, and the male gaze’s subsequent female objectification and beauty standards.

I figured maybe women who aren’t attracted to men might worry less about looking “hot,” since the whole women-as-beautiful-sex-objects thing was made by and for men, right?

That’s how it used to be back when I read women’s magazines in high school, at least. Literally every story was about how to trick a man into wanting/choosing you (UGH) by behaving or looking a certain way.

I figured the whole thing looked like this:

Women were taught that our whole purpose in life was to be desirable enough that we “snagged” a good partner. Beauty standards got invented to help women be more competitive in the man-snagging market, and the whole thing just escalated endlessly until we all have to look like airbrushed versions of surgically altered celebrities or models in order to be “good enough”.

Intuitively, it all seemed to come back to men. When I asked a client why she so badly wanted to look a certain way, the answer was invariably some derivative of wanting to feel desirable:

“Because I want men to notice me.” “Because I want to be attractive to my spouse.” “Because I want to feel hot/sexy.“

But after I posed this question on Instagram the feedback (from women of various sexual preferences) came flooding in to prove that this shit really has nothing to do with men at all.

Apparently, no. Being gay does not offer a woman a single damn bit of freedom from the pressures of the male gaze, beauty standards, or insecurities.

Which, while I was a bit surprised, this feedback struck a chord with something I already knew deep down.

After all, my fingernails are currently dark green, my favorite lipstick is navy blue, and I constantly put together outfits (think: rompers) that absolutely befuddle most men.

I even recently told a man who wanted to jump on the phone with me to “clear up some misconceptions I seemed to have, about what men want a woman to look like,” that I didn’t see how that was relevant to the work I do.

Men certainly want to think that we women do all this work (dressing up, wearing makeup, etc) for them, but frankly if it was all about them we wouldn’t rock purple glitter eyeliner, ya know? If it was really for men, we wouldn’t have cool short hairdos, or wear platform work boots, or high waisted jeans.

It’s not for men. So then what are we doing all this for?

Note: I know some women will tell me they do all this “for themselves!” and “because it’s fun!” and I get how in some ways that’s true. But there is a constant, endless stream of ways in which women are taught they must do/look a certain way in order to be good enough; to be worthy of love; to be visible, and valuable. We can’t ignore that fact discussing why we do what we do, or how it makes us feel.

All the women who provided feedback on Instagram convinced me that we are doing all this work for social currency: looking a certain way in our society earns us special rights and privileges.

A dolled up woman is treated better than a barefaced one.

A thin woman is treated better than a fat woman.

A hot woman is treated better than a plain woman.

It’s important to mention here the role that privilege plays. Because while some things are changeable (like hair, makeup, products, procedures, exercise, diet, or even plastic surgery) some stuff just isn’t.

Even on my worst day, I’m still treated fine, thanks to the fact that no matter what I look like day to day I always have white, thin, pretty privilege.

That said, there is a huge difference when I’m dressed up, and super lean. Everyone is so nice to me, so warm, so smiley and friendly when I’m dolled up and wearing makeup, and back when I was 13% body fat, people were constantly gushing over me. When I combined the two, I felt like like I may as well have ruled the world.

Truth be told, I don’t miss how my body looked when I was super lean like that, but I do miss how people treated me. Even just 10 or 15lbs heavier now (and still relatively thin and healthy) I experience a totally different world of how people treat me.

But back to the topic at hand.

While we can’t change everything, most women know that with some daily time and effort put toward their appearance, they can dramatically improve the friendliness, attention, and available opportunities of the world they live in.

Going back to the messages women hear about how we should look and act, I can see now that despite the way it was presented, it’s less about “how to get a man,” and more about “how to be a woman.”

Looking hot isn’t about snagging a mate, it’s about obtaining social currency.

So, if men aren’t the beneficiary of women’s insecurity and disempowerment when it comes to needing to look a certain way, then who is benefiting? If our sex appeal isn’t a matter of being sexually desirable, that what is it a matter of?

This is when I remembered that rape is not a crime of lust, but rather a crime of control, hate, anger, and power.

Rape is about making the other person submissive, shaming them, and having power over them. Rape is shaming someone, making them submissive to you, and establishing a position of dominance over them. That’s why rape is used as a weapon of war all over the world, and that’s why conversations about “what she was wearing” are completely irrelevant.

Perhaps our modern female beauty standards are the same: acts of submission to dominance, unrelated to lust or love.

But if so, then who is dominating us?

The answer, my dear friends, is advertisers.

It is advertisers (and the big companies who hire them) who are dominating us. Not because they hate us, but because they want us to give them money. Nonetheless, this is an act of power and control.

Advertisers dominate us with shaming, creating new standards as soon as we reach the old ones, coming up with new fashions, new products, new places to remove hair, and new ways to hide flaws they just made up.

Is it advertisers to whom we submit, without even realizing we are submitting. We are so bowed down buying the cellulite cream and reading the articles on how to look “ageless” that we never look up and see them standing over us.

They create the looks, they create the demand, they create the flaws.

Advertisers intentionally create shame because people who feel shame are obedient. They intentionally create self-doubt, because when we can’t trust ourselves, we look outward to find out what we should do.

When that happens, there they are: whispering promises of love, success, attention, and belonging.

Hush hush my love, I know it hurts that you’re broken and disgusting, but I love you and I will help you.

They break us down, and then sell us back the promise of our our wholeness, all the while manipulating us into thinking they have our back, they just want what’s best for us, they love us like nobody else will ever love us.

Shhh, you’ll feel better after this pair of jeans (or this color of nail polish, this pore-cleansing mask, this fat-sculpting workout). Trust me.

What does this dynamic sound like to you?

Because to me, it reeks of emotional abuse.

Abusers seek to purposefully disempower their abused, through guilt, shame, manipulation, gas-lighting, and fear. They keep their abused dependent on them, by breaking their self-trust and isolating them away from any resources that might make them feel whole, or empowered.

Every day we are battered with advertisements trying to tell us that we are worthless but that with their help we can be redeemed.

Every day we are assaulted with brands and companies whose very livelihood depends on the fact that we never find out we are worthy of love, attention, approval, acceptance, and belonging exactly as we are.

Yes, many of these major culture-creating companies are run by men. But this might be far less of a gender war than I have previously thought.

Don’t get me wrong, the patriarchy is real and has devastating effects on women, but when it comes to us all trying to live up to the standard of beauty, hotness, and sex appeal, I don’t think it’s MEN to whom we are submitting.

And the big manipulation that keeps us quiet *even if part of us logically knows this is bullshit* is that deep down in our hearts of hearts, we believe we are alone.

I recently read the Handmaid’s Tale for the first time since high school, and I was struck by how little they fought back against the devastatingly oppressive regime in power. Each person was terrified to speaking a rebellious word, for fear of retaliation if they spoke to a true believer.

And that’s how it is.

We aren’t just taught “you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.” Oh no, that wouldn’t be effective. That would never work, we’re much smarter than that.

We’re taught “everyone else thinks you need to buy all this stuff in order to be worthy.”

And my god, is that one effective.

The psychology is cut and dry: we humans are wired for connection. We need and want acceptance, approval, and belonging.

We live in a supposedly “free market” where advertisers can say and push nearly anything, and they have teams of researchers dedicated to manipulating us into buying more stuff, and feeling like everyone else thinks we need this stuff in order to be accepted and belong.

This is our economy.

Our economy is an emotional abuser invested in all of us feeling broken, and specifically preying on women, who basically just arrived to the game of land-owning, voting, and money-making in the last century.

Think about it. After centuries of being controlled and dominated, unable to develop our own sense of purpose and self, we had internalized messages that we weren’t as valuable, smart, strong, capable, or interesting as men. When we started  being allowed to spend money, we were devastatingly susceptible to manipulation, and the advertisers figured that shit out fast.

Frankly, the whole thing makes me lean toward socialism in a way I never would have thought possible.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that when it comes to negative body image and insecurity in women, this is the result of a purposeful domination. It’s the predictable and understand result of an abusive and manipulative relationship.

And it sucks.

My apologies if you were looking for something uplifting today, this is all I got.

So much love,

Jessi

The post {#transparenttuesday} Who is oppressing women? appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

http://ift.tt/2hsfpsF

[christianmutineers]

?By John Peccavi            March 6, 2017

Hisrory repeats itself.  Sometimes.

For Christians in the Roman Empire, the year 312 began bleakly. Already, they had suffered great persecution and a new wave seemed to be starting.  Then, a strange thing happened.

Constantine, defeating his enemies, became emperor.  And he gave the Christians’ God credit for the victory.

Before a decisive battle, Constantine had told his warriors to place a Christian symbol on their shields and banners.  He explained that in a vision (or dream) he had seen a sign in the sky and heard words now usually translated as “in this sign conquer.”  In a later dream, Christ explained to Constantine the significance.

Whatever Constantine saw in his vision and no matter what it was, exactly,  that he had his men put on their shields, as emperor he used this symbol of Christ on his standards:

Did Constantine just make up the story of a vision t/o inspire his troops to fight?  Was the symbol on their shields the equivalent of Dumbo’s magic feather?

All we can say for sure is that they won.   Constantine’s later actions might provide a clue about his sincerity, but they included both good and bad.

Constantine did not forsake, totally, the dirty deeds and thuggery which emperors typically have used to retain power. And he delayed being baptized until the end of his life.

However, the Roman Empire under Constantine stopped persecuting Christians and instead began lavishing money on the church.   Priests became respectable members of the community and churches became places to attend and be seen

Over time, the church grew into a semi-official agency of the government, a force for law and order.   That sounds benign, even beneficial, but it made the church aserv ant of two masters, God and Caesar.  And it appeared to be Caesar who was giving the daily bread.

And status.  The church was becoming an unofficial organ of the most powerful empire on the planet, bringing church leaders close to the source of earthly power.   Yet Christ had rejected  power and prestige and set an example washing other people’s feet.

The church helped unite the Empire by creating a common set of beliefs that people from different countries and cultures could share.   Church membership offered an opportunity to belong and be accepted.  It created a collective “us” against   infidel “them.”

However, there was a problem.  Various groups of Christians held different beliefs, creating conflict rather than community.  For Christianity to function as the adhesive of the Empire, something had to be done.

In 325, Constantine brought bishops and other church officials from across the Empire to Nicea.  The government footed much of the bill.

Adopting an official “correct” position on subtle theological points made faithfulness a matter of conforming to what someone else had decided.  A creed, like a cataract, dims vision and interferes with a person’s search for truth.

In my view, a creed can turn something alive into something mechanical.  Being faithful has little to do with reciting a creed in church.  God calls the believer to adventure, to seeking the Kingdom by loving and serving and leaving self behind.  Truth grows from humility, service and love, and it is absolutely personal.

Creeds tend to control rather than free.  Undoubtedly, the Roman Empire’s bureaucrats liked creeds.

It is tempting to say that in some countries today, the rulers find it handy to keep a church on the payroll.  But that statement may be a bit cynical.  I shouldn’t have to remind myself that a high official professing to be a Christian might, in fact, be sincere.

Regardless of pomp, a ruler remains a human being with human needs, including the desire to be part of something greater than himself, to feel a sense of purpose.  Institutional religion can fill that bill.

Such religion attracts through its rituals, ceremonies and traditions.  A person, including a ruler, can venerate and derive satisfaction from the institution but leave it to the priests to be the holy ones who deal with God’s demands.  Maybe Constantine delayed his baptism not because he doubted but rather because he believed he had to do not-quite-Christian things to hold the Empire together and did not want to soil the church with hands he got dirty while running the state.

Whether Constantine compartmentalized Christianity in that fashion is difficult to discern now, but recent events in Russia parallel what happened in the Roman Empire 17 centuries earlier.   Vladimir Putin reprises Constantine’s role as champion of a previously oppressed church.

Putin regularly attends the Russian Orthodox Church and I do not doubt either the intensity or sincerity of his feelings.  But is he attracted to the church because he seeks the Kingdom or because the church’s rituals and traditions, the certainties of its doctrines and morals, provide the solid structure which something inside him craves and demands?

We can ask a somewhat similar question about Putin’s attitude towards the legal system:  Does he love the Law or does he love laws?  Does Putin regard Law as a way of doing justice, as a system in which the powerful and the weak, the state and the individual, stand as equals before an impartial judge?  Or does he value laws as chain link fences, corraling the unruly and unpredictable and keeping people in line?

Because I’ve never met him or even been to Russia, I can only make an uneducated guess.   However, it would not surprise me if Putin were among those who regard laws as instruments of order more than justice.

Perhaps Putin’s love of the Russian Orthodox Church stems, at least partly, from the church’s role as a stabilizing institution of Russian society and as an historic component of Russian identity.

The 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi began with a pageant dramatizing the history of Russia and its people.  Television showed Putin watching with apparent satisfaction.  It offered a glimpse of his desire to suture up the wound inflicted by communism and to reconnect the people with their heroic past.  The Russian Orthodox Church provides a link with that past.  

Putin first became president of the Russian Federation in 2000.  In 2001, Russia issued a series of stamps with pictures of historic church buildings.

Also during Putin’s first term as president, Russia adopted a law requiring the government to return church property seized by earlier communist regimes.  By one report, during the last 15 years, the Russian government has built or restored 33,000 churches.

More recently, during Putin’s current term as president, the government has embraced the Russian Orthodox Church’s strong stance against homosexuality.  A new law prohibits portraying gays and lesbians as normal.

Thus, Putin’s Russia has moved in the opposite direction from the United States.   It has attracted interest from some evangelicals outside Russia, who share the view that Western culture has become decadent.

However, when a government favors a particular religious institution, that church soon slides from favored to monopoly.  It happened when Emperor Constantine had the Council of Nicea determine which doctrine was correct and which heretical.  It is happening in Russia.

Last year, supposedly to help fight terrorism, Russia enacted a law prohibiting all but government-authorized officials from preaching or distributing religious literature.   The law applies even in private homes and restricts religious activities to “registered” locations.  

In response, the Billy Graham Foundation postponed and changed the location of a “World Summit of Christian Leaders in Defense of Persecuted Christians” which originally was to be held in Moscow.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has withdrawn a number of Mormon missionaries from Russia.

The law, allowing religious activity only by authorized officials and at registered locations, gives the Russian Orthodox Church a monopoly.  However, when government can pick a favorite church, even the favorite isn’t free.  

Credits - Jean-Christophe Benoist:  Statue de Constantin Ier, Musée du Capitole, Rome; Official Portrait of Vladimir Putin, Presidential Press and Information Office, Russian Federation; Golradir, Chi Rho; Labarum of Constabtine, reconstruction by Eugene Ipavec; stamp series “Religious Buildings of Russia” from Russian Post. (All via Wikimedia Commons.)