#‘men’ actually is not a gender in the way we understand it. the proper definition of it is ‘people chuck dates that amara doesn’t like’

[quietwingsinthesky]

i love that one of the things amara says about chuck is that he “always had terrible taste in men.” amara what does that mean. men didn’t exist yet. what are you talking about. were you peeking outside of your prison just to see how shit your brother was at picking up guys.

[fxckn-sxck-fr]

When the x reader tag is clogged by asks, memes, text posts, and people complaining about fanfic authors/or a lack of content😭😭

And don’t get me started on finding dc fics that aren’t Batfamily here, feel like I gradually like Jason less and less each year, he’s so overrated…

Like where are the essentials?? The fluff, the angst, the in character smut??

If you don’t mind me asking, what characters are you talking about?? Because I feel like this could apply to a lot of the characters on your Masterlist 😔

(Sorry for so many yap asks in a row, I just get so fired up about this.)

(Also, if this somehow ends up in any character x reader tags, I’m so sorry. It wasn’t intentional. Tumblr’s algorithm just works in mysterious ways like that.)

(Added a cut for this post cuz it’s kinda long.)

It’s so fucking frustrating, good lord. Especially the posts complaining about a lack of content. Not only does it make the actual legitimate writing content harder to find, but it’s also just completely tone deaf the current harassment problem happening to fanfic writers. Like, don’t get me wrong, I’m also bummed out about the reader-insert drought, but as someone who’s been harassed off of previous writing blogs, you have to understand how those kinds of posts hit a sore spot for me.

Ah, yes. Btfm (derogatory) (<- and also written like that to avoid showing up in the Btfm tag). There’s honestly no way to talk about my grievances with Btfm as a concept without people thinking I’m a pretentious gatekeeper, so I’m not even gonna open that can of worms. Also, sorry to all my Jason-enjoyers out there. I love y’all, mwah. You guys are totally welcome in my humble abode. Your man, though? Yeah, no. I’m forcefully pushing him out the door with a broom. And with the current state of the Dick tag, it’s just given me more incentive to utterly despise that guy. Bro really comes in and fucks up everything, both in and out of the comics, LMAO. Kind of poetic, actually.

I made the OG post about this because of Dick. You’re totally right about it being applicable to a lot of characters on my masterlist (eye twitch), but it’s definitely the comic book men that are suffering the most. Weirdly enough, this isn’t as prominent of a problem with anime men and video game men. Like, there are still irrelevant posts in their tags, but those are spaced out enough with legitimate writing posts for it to be a nonissue. My poor Dick tag, though… if it’s not filtered out yandere Btfm or Jason posts, then it’s the memes/text posts/complaints issue or unspecified CW smut posts (I am 100% an advocate for writing whatever the hell you want, but PLEASE give the proper warnings beforehand; that includes any mentions of the reader’s gender).

I just… yeah. I’m taking one for the team and going back to totally SFW writing. We really are missing the essentials right now and it’s hurting the reader-insert ecosystem. I’ll drop the blog url when I finally post something.

(Also, before any of y’all translate this as me abandoning this blog, I’m not, don’t worry. I’m still working on shit here. Always have been. Nevah stopped the grind. I do want y’all to keep in mind that I write as a hobby, so there’s really no such thing as “a break” from this blog, and if anything, this blog is my “break” from life. A little treat from the horrors, if you will. Trust me, I wish I could post more often, but… nothing I can really do about real world responsibilities and stuff. Bwomp.)

But, yeah. You know what they say, be the change you wanna see in the world. I guess I owe it to the people after complaining so much about this. Lowkey, I think that’s also why the complaining posts rub me the wrong way. Why clog up the tags even further when you can take this as an opportunity to get a little creative? I don’t wanna write for people who just view me as a reader-insert ChatGPT, y’know?

^ And when I say this, I by no means wanna shame anyone from sending in asks. I have a lot of bangers in my inbox that I just haven’t had the time or motivation to sit down and think about (also, I really want my next writing post to be part 4 of my Older Brother series, so that’s what all of my energy has been going into recently). Y’all are such a great crowd, and I need you guys to understand how refreshing this is compared to my past experiences. Love each and every one of you, MWAH.

[xxunnanaxx]

i feel like a lot of younger queer discourse fails to account for their own ability to be stuck in a particular world view. for example; gender. it's good to want to challenge the system and broaden who it can include, but a lot of us limit ourselves to making the box bigger.

Women can do jobs men can do, men can dress in feminine clothing, that's all well and good, but ask yourself: Where are you drawing the line?

Are you going to draw it at people that want to change their gender? Draw it at people who want to move back and forth between them? What about people that choose not to identify with either of them, and pick something else?

We're spending our time talking about who's nonbinary, is ace queer, is it problematic to use traditional ideas of femininity to pursue a trans identity (skirts, dresses, makeup etc).

Consider this next time you see this kind of discourse: Are we *really* progressing peoples' idea of gender, or orientation? Or are we still playing the conservatives' version of the game?

Years ago, I used to be pretty conflicted about a question i had: Is gender a social construct, and not real? If so, how can I be transgender? How can I be the wrong of something that doesn't exist? If wearing a skirt makes me feel feminine, am I reinforcing gender stereotypes and adding to the problem?

The solution in the end is pretty simple to me: The problem isn't whether gender is 'real' or not, it's that I'm making the assumption that my mind exists in a vacuum, and ignoring the greater context of how my mind associates and identifies with things.

There isn't one "proper" way to be a woman. The disconnect here is assuming that gender exists before the person, not the other way around. On my own in the culture I grew up around, I saw the world and developed my own idea of gender, the associations therein.

In my mind, I developed my own personal 'archetype' of the type of woman I idealized, a combination of associations that grew with me, and became the platonic ideal of what I want to be like.

Now, armed with that image in my mind, I pursue it. I came first, and my gender came second, and it was up to me to experiment and learn what all those associations had become. It's up to me to decide what being a woman means to me.

I think the fundamental goal of gender progressivism is to change our understanding of what gender actually IS and what it DOES. Attempts to categorize and sort people in these boxes presupposes the underlying belief that there ARE, in fact, boxes to sort people into.

We shouldn't focus on WHERE the boxes are, we should focus on if those boxes were real in the first place. We came first, then those boxes, and we need to have a long hard look at what parts of gender are a tool for self-expression, and what parts are a tool for policing others.

At the end of the day, that's what the push and pull of progression vs conservatism is; What can, and can't people be allowed to do? Who decides? What are the rules, and who polices them?

Don't play the conservative version of the game. Gender is self-definitional, and a tool that anyone can make anything of. Trying to subvert that because it's "weird and annoying" isn't progressive, it's trying to simplify something so you don't have to learn anything new or think about it.

You aren't erasing any lines that way, just moving them to where you're comfortable. And buddy, the fascists have way more experience laying those lines than you do.

[rebellum]

Something I genuinely don't understand is the idea that trans people who were afab weren't socialized as girls because they're trans, and trans people who were amab weren't socialized as boys because they were trans.

Like, socialization refers to the process of gendered enculturation, wherein individuals are told "this is the correct way to act because you are [a boy][a girl]" and corrected and told "to be a real/proper [gender] you have to do this"

Enculturation in general refers to how people are raised into a specific culture, to expect and to follow those norms. Eg as a kid, I was taught that to use the bathroom we sit on the toilet seat and wipe with toilet paper after. In other cultures, kids at that age are taught to squat and to rinse with water with the left hand.

Gender enculturation refers to how people are taught to "do" gender, and the beliefs around gender. It doesn't have to be directly said to them. For example, I was raised as a girl, and my parents were feminists. I was totally allowed to not wear dresses as a kid if I didn't want to. But when I was a little kid, dresses were bought for me for formal occasions. As I got older that involved people assuming I would wear dresses for formal occasions. I saw this in the world around me, in media, in my classroom, etc: girls wear dresses. Boys don't, not because I was told "boys don't wear dresses", but because I happened to never see boys wearing dresses.

The process also of course involves being directly told that you can/can't do something, or that someone of a gender can/can't do something. Eg a boy on a playground tries to play with his sister and her littlest pet shops, and the kids around him (boys AND girls) tell him he can't do that, he's not supposed to do that, because he's a boy.

Gendered behaviours are attempted to be corrected in children through social pressure and verbal or physical violence. Eg, if a boy is interpreted to have feminine mannerisms, the kids and adults around him will tell him to "stop acting like a girl" or will beat him up for "being a fag", actions which further illustrate the following multiple points: 1) you are a boy 2) you are being a boy in the wrong way and failing at masculinity 3) you aren't a girl 4) being a girl is something you DONT want to be 5) being a "fag" (a man with feminine traits, like being attracted to other men) is bad, if you act like this you are a fag or are like a fag, and you deserve to have this happen to you for being the wrong kind of male (one who is feminine)

And, when it comes to perisex* kids, internal sense of gender doesn't actually influence your socialization. It doesn't matter if you're a trans girl or if you're a gay boy or if you're a straight boy who has feminine mannerisms, they are all the same thing: someone who is male who isn't behaving or looking like a male is supposed to.

*this whole process gets complicated when it comes to intersex kids whose status is known by others, because then there isn't a definitive gender that they're actually "supposed" to be. They're often punished for fundamentally failing to conform to sex, rather than failing to conform to the gender they were assigned at birth. It becomes less "you aren't a proper boy/girl" and more "what even ARE you? You're not a proper human if you aren't a boy or girl"

So I genuinely don't understand where people are coming from when they say that trans people were socialized as the gender they really are (eg, a trans man was socialises as a trans boy), or weren't socialized as their assigned gender. That doesn't make sense to me, there's something in that argument that hasn't been explained to me or that I'm failing to properly understand.

[licorice-and-rum]

please write your rant about male domestic abuse victims

Okay, I'll do this but fair warning, I might include some kind of parallels to the Depp vs Heard trial(s) because my mind functions better if I have some kind of real-life or fictional literature to support me through the development of my thoughts, so if you believe Amber Heard for some reason, you might not like what I have to say. Also, please if you're gonna comment, be gentle and polite, I'm always open to new (well-based) points of view and I promise I'm open to an honest conversation with anyone who is kind <3

Observation: I will use Domestic Violence (DV) as a broad term throughout this but know that I refer mostly to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) here. The difference between the two is that DV can happen between members of the same nuclear family (between brothers, partners, or child and parents) while IPV happens only between romantic partners.

The reason I don't use DV especially is because abuse against boys (by parents, sisters, etc.) also falls under this category and then it's a whole other discussion about the socialization of children and teenagers, the social minority they represent and how that's a whole new discussion (that I'd be happy to extend in another post actually if there are any other people interested).

To begin with, we have to understand some things: we don't have exact data about male victims of domestic abuse, not only because it's severely under-reported but also because many reports are not even filed because the lines for escaping domestic violence (police, shelters, phone lines, etcetera.) attend only women and girls, or demonstrate a clear bias towards those victims. Plus, as it happens with women as well, abuse doesn't present just physically, but also emotionally and psychologically.

However, just to give you all an idea, in the UK, for example, it's estimated that almost 20% of domestic violence reports were from men in the last two years (2022-23), according to ManKind Initiative. In the US, according to The Tech Report, almost 45% of men believe they were victims of abusive relationships in their lives. In Australia, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 38% of victims of violence in the country were men, 64% being DV-related.

Now, there is a reason for this, and this is called patriarchy. Patriarchy is the concept of one of the pillars of how our society is built, and it means the subjugation of one binary gender (female) by another binary gender (male) - although this definition is more for this essay's purpose than accurate for an academic study for example. It's important to note that gender violence presents itself against women institutionally (through proper institutions, such as the legal system, for example, or a company's hierarchy) and structurally (it's in the roots of our society culturally and thus, infecting everything else).

According to The Patriarchs, journalist Angela Saini's latest book, the Patriarchy is something tricky to explore even for our earlier academics, such as Engels, for example, because it presents itself in many different ways. For example, it changes its characterization according to culture, environmental needs, History, and other factors. Still, the important thing is that it has various different aspects in the areas it's present.

What I want to explore goes a little bit further: I want to understand how the oppression of women affects men because, unlike many other kinds of oppression, gender-related violence affects their enforcers (men) as well as their victims (women). Now, I am not saying this violence is equal to each other: violence against women permeates our societies' very core, it's ingrained in our institutions, in our culture. But on an interpersonal level, gender violence affects men and women both.

Men are pressured into "being a man" (a white person doesn't have to prove they're white in the same sense or with the same intensity as a man has to prove his man-ness), they're molded to become people in disconnection to their own emotions, they're encouraged to be violent or at least not to be "emotional", to the point of not even noticing when they're suffering some kind of violence or from a mental disorder, for example.

This plays a significant role in how we view abuse when perpetrated by women against men but it's not all we need to observe when talking about male DV victims.

Another matter I'd like to point out is the way we view feminine violence: in the Introduction of her best-seller, Lady Killers, Tori Telfer talks about how violence committed by women is often put under one of three categories: the mysticism, the sexualization, or the banalization. That is, socially, we have a habit of thinking about violence perpetrated by women as either mythological, sexy, or just plain silly, and therefore dumb and/or laughable.

Telfer's examples throughout the book are great and I recommend the book for more insight, but to me, three cases stick out to follow as examples:

How the first woman serial killer we have Historical records of, Elizabeth Ridgeway, was killed for being a witch (mysticism);

How Nannie Doss, an old lady who fit all the 50s housewife stereotypes and killed men with poison in her cakes, had her intelligence belittled by people trying to paint her as insane despite many psychiatrical reports of her being exceptionally clever, how she was labeled by the media as "Arsenic Nannie" (banalization)

And finally, how women who perpetrate violence are often sexualized, such as Raya and Sakina, from the beginning of 20th-century Egypt, who were tied closely to the criminal underworld of their neighborhood and who actually developed a method of killing four people with little blood and avoiding messes; or Lizzie Halliday, who was labeled "the worst woman on earth" with clear implications of her ugliness; or at last, Erzsébet Báthory, known more popularly as Countess Dracula despite having been a lot crueler than the name leads you to believe; they were all sexualized one way or another, their crimes fitting their appearances rather than their acts.

What I mean to point out by that is that feminine violence is something we as a society have a tendency to downplay to a dangerous level. Part of that is a result of downplaying violence as a whole, doesn't matter the perpetrator, but a big part of it is because we see violence as a men's trait. Culturally, violence is a characteristic we attribute to men while women are "even-tempered", motherly, nurturing, and delicate.

Those are the traits of femininity. Violence is not something we easily attribute to women, while men can be only violent, domineering, "warriors".

Now, intimate partner violence (IPV) against males and perpetrated by women is significantly overlooked and under-researched. Hell, there was a real and huge doubt whether men could be r*ped at the beginning of the 2000s, and even now there are people who still don't see how men can be sexually abused.

What we do know about IPV is that, according to this article, women and men have roughly the same rate of occurrences of physical abuse against their partners, and in most of the non-reciprocal violent relationships, women were mostly the perpetrators, although it is true that the more violent abuse occurrences are mostly perpetrated by men:

"Archer Reference Archer5 attempted to resolve two competing hypotheses about partner violence, either that it involves a considerable degree of mutual combat or that it generally involves male perpetrators and female victims. His meta-analysis of 82 studies of gender differences in physical aggression between heterosexual partners showed that men were more likely to inflict an injury; 62% of those injured by a partner were women, but men still accounted for a substantial minority of those injured. However, women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently. Younger aged couples showed more female-perpetrated aggression."

Again, that's not to say that violence committed against women in our patriarchal society is in any way equivalent to what men suffer as victims of IPV because that's not true. Violence against women is in every corner of our culture, it's in the roots of our society, and violence against men is not as institutional or structural as acts of violence perpetrated against men.

But I have to criticize how we view (or maybe it's best to say how little we view, or even consider) male victims of DV when we're talking about the matter because not only we are then perpetrating patriarchal beliefs that continue to harm us, we're also portraying women as being inherently and perpetually victims of violence, always in a place of perceived inferiority (although I need to point out there is nothing inferior about suffering violence) while men fall under the category of always the perpetrators of that violence.

That's undeniably harmful because it generates a dangerous generalization in individual cases, such as Johnny Depp, for example. Many of the people I saw defending Heard seemed to not comprehend that only because Johnny Depp was in a place of societal power in relation to AH (because he was, as an older, richer man) that wasn't enough of a reason to believe he was guilty of what she accused him of. Just because generally we might rightly point out a systemic oppression of women by men, it doesn't mean that we should apply those principles to individual cases, especially when we don't have access to concrete evidence and in high-profile cases such as Depp v Heard.

Now, after all of that, I need to point out a personal opinion of mine and bear in mind I don't have anything to base myself here so feel free to criticize it if you disagree (just remember to be nice, please): all of these facts make me ask myself how many of those cases of IPV were labeled as "mutual" (because there's actually a pretty fierce discussion on the matter of whether or not mutual abuse exists from what I could find, and mostly of academic research seem to understand that mutual abuse does exist) are actually mutual and not - in case of heterosexual relationships - emotional manipulation on the perpetrator's side.

And that leads me to ask myself how many of the false reports made by women against their male partners (which are the minority of reported DV cases, let's be clear here) were labeled as mutual because the men "fought back"? How many men who were victims of emotional manipulation didn't stay in those relationships or settle cases because of the threat of their female partners reporting them back from abuse as well?

And amongst those people, how many men did actually something that could be considered violent against their partner (talking now about emotional and psychological abuse, excluding the physical aspect for now) in an act of self-defense or instinctual nastiness as a defense mechanism against something that hurt them?

Having been a reactive victim in an emotionally abusive relationship myself, I can say with some ease that I said things that I know for sure truly hurt my abuser, I know I said things in the last days of our relationship that I would never say to other people if I wasn't so defensive right out the beginning of our latest interactions. But I refuse to fall into the trap of believing myself to be an equally abusive part of that relationship because I also know I did the work to try and better our relationship, I know because my other relationships are healthy and close and emotionally vulnerable and the whole circus.

So what I do have to ask myself is that in those IPV cases in heterosexual relationships where our first reaction is to classify them as mutual abuse or something like that... what do we expect from our male victims of IPV? What does the perfect male victim of IPV look like? Is it reasonable for us to expect men not to defend themselves at all because they're generally stronger than women?

Of course, I'm not advocating here that any kind of violence against your partner is okay because they're abusing you to any gender - self-defense has explicit rules to be applied for that exact reason. I'm simply pointing out that maybe we're diving into dangerous territory, or being overly zealous, considering mutual abuse at the maximum, or not believing men at all on the other side of the spectrum, when we're presented with a heterosexual case of IPV where the female was clearly or almost undoubtedly violent throughout the relationship.

That's the many reasons I can think to question people when they are presented with a case of DV of a woman committing abuse against their male partner. Because as much as women are socially oppressed, our biases in regard to gender affect our views of both men and women and can be really dangerous when generally applied to individual cases.

So yeah, I'm not thrilled with our critical skills when it comes to male victims of abuse, loves.

Not at all.

(if you're gonna answer, remember to be nice!)

[fearevillikefire]

i often wonder why i'm transgender and generally come to the conclusion that it's probably a genetic fluke or neonatal hormonal issue or something, like the scientists say. cause i didn't mention this but jesus christ did testosterone solve every mental health issue i ever had, within the first 3 weeks or so. i can only assume it did something good for my brain, like gave it what it was missing or reduced production of estrogen that could have been causing mental problems. so i guess my theory is something is wrong in the brain. i'm not against the idea that it could be more of a nurture thing than a nature thing, i just dunno what would cause that.

i don't believe the terfs' idea that trans men have dysphoria and want to transition as a trauma response to misogyny, especially for myself because i didn't experience or witness much or any misogyny as a kid😂 i was pretty lucky. and i definitely wasn't thinking about not being able to do stuff as a female, i didn't particularly care about boy or girl stuff, all i cared about was reading books. when i first decided i was transgender, it was based on feelings about my body, i was totally lost and had no idea about anything i wanted socially. i guess when i was like 9 i wanted to be a cool guy like billie joe armstrong or gerard way or something but i also liked evanescence and i didn't wanna be amy lee... oh actually i remember wanting to be like kesha back then too so i don't know. anyways that idea is stupid as fuck because why do they think trans women are trans then🙄 yeah it's dumb. so anyways i think i'm going to listen to the scientists' theories instead. i would actually love to be part of a study on why people are transgender.

i sort of worry that the transgender "trend" where people are more likely to transition and detransition now, at least in my own observation, could really skew the results of that kind of study nowadays. i hope if they do a new one that they differentiate people who have been medically transgender for like 5+ years, since even if they're the 1% who detransition later they probably still have the same thing wrong with them making them trans. i think even "truly" transgender people detransition sometimes. Although i also hope that they do a study with people who detransitioned within 5 years or less... probably wouldn't learn much other than that they're mostly normal physically.

i'm not tripping over a lack of proper scientific explanation though tbh. there is at least explanation showing that it's an immutable part of people. i personally feel like it might be related to sexuality also but i don't have evidence other than that gay people are often gnc and trans people are often gay/bi (and straight trans ppl's sexuality isn't exactly the same as being cis and straight anyways)

i know that many trans people don't like the idea of this stuff being studied, but i'm very scientifically minded and i love human behavior and brains so i can't help being very curious about it. i don't like the idea of only some people being "truly" transgender due to some physical/mental/brain trait, since science is not perfect at all, especially when it comes to the brain. if people were judged that way it would cause some to fall through the cracks, and it wouldn't be worth it, since we have a pretty good way of determining who is transgender or not (literally just asking). i really feel bad for people who transition physically and don't like it though, because i can see how someone could misinterpret their own feelings and gender, especially if they don't understand what gender dysphoria feels like until they learn the hard way by changing their body and causing it in themselves 😭 thankfully i don't know anyone who's ever gone that far without realizing, the detransitioners i know realized because of social dysphoria when being male or a lack of it when being female.

[thehmn]

I’m going to spoil the shit of the book now so consider this your warning if you plan on reading it.

As expected the moral of the story is “no sex or gender should be below another” but it’s the first story of its kind I’ve seen where the author use trans people to make their point.

I said earlier that testosterone treatment isn’t an option for the trans men but late in the story it’s strongly implied they have illegal access to both estrogen and testosterone. They provide a trans girl with estrogen and her mother laments that she can no longer tap her for testosterone because the Man Women would pay a pretty penny for it.

If you read the book don’t expect proper terminology to be used for trans people. The author clearly has experience with trans people in our world and is trying to write them into a world where men are seen as not quite animals but definitely not real humans either. That’s why trans men are called Man Women and several characters say “but they’re not REAL men” It’s a mix of characters wanting to acknowledge their humanity because only women are real humans, but also as a way to justify the system. If men are violent creatures that can’t be allowed to walk free in a civilized society but trans men who pump themselves full of testosterone are safe then surely they can’t be REAL men. And yet the trans man Lars who has the biggest silicone penis in the district and the broadest shoulders is the kindest person in the story who provides several characters with both emotional and material goods via his sex work. He never calls himself a Man Woman but simply “someone with a silicone dick” and after losing his ability to breastfeed babies after a few months in prison he decides to not maintain his breasts anymore, commit to a more masculine look.

The system generally doesn’t allow for trans women to exist because if a child is born with a penis they’re immediately sent to one of the centers where they won’t even be taught to talk. But one trans girl slipped through the cracks because her mother managed to hide her by leaving Norway and moving to Denmark where nobody would know she even existed. Her situation isn’t as clear as the trans men because for her it was either a sex change or captivity, but the book never refers to her with anything other than female pronouns and she never laments the loss of her penis. She too is used to make a point. If men and women are really that different then how could nobody tell she was born with a penis? Basically “if the sexes/genders so different then why trans people exist?” (or “We have differences but they aren’t big enough for trans people not to exist”) It really wants to hammer home that it’s insane to divide men and women into boxes because we are all human and all capable of love and harm.

Besides that it has a bunch of interesting little details. In this future depictions of Jesus on the cross is used to scare men at the centers and remind them what happens to them out in the real world. Also apple slices are handed out a Christian ceremonies in memory of Eva. Snakes are considered symbols of femininity and one of the witches has a huge snake that only thrive on eating male snakes, however she eventually realize the snake doesn’t have to eat males, it just need male blood, symbolizing the need for the feminine and masculine to exist together.

It’s also fantasy-light. Magic is subtle but real. The main witch bake love cakes for Lars that actually works though in a way subtle way. His customers don’t fall head over heels in love with him but the cakes make them want to use his services more often. The Christian priest keeps plants around her bed and notice that they grow better when she has good sex. Another character is a stone cold skeptic but has the ability to understand plants (so much in fact that she hates eating plants and has an almost exclusively meat based diet) and has telepathic connections with dogs without realizing it.

Maren Uthaug’s books are always full of colorful characters and bizarre situations so I’m sure it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I’d highly recommend 11% if this sounds interesting to you.

I’m currently listening to Maren Uthaug’s book 11% about a world where most men have died. I should probably wait until I’ve finished the book but I’m so fascinated by the world building.

As of now it’s still unclear why the men died but when the story takes place there’s a mix of older women who fucking hates men and young women who have only met drugged up men at “breeding centers” and imagine “males” as violent boogeymen but otherwise don’t really care and just want to live in the new seemingly perfect society their grandmothers fought for. The only people who still fight for men’s rights are witches who believe masculine energies are as natural and Of Nature as feminine energies, but even they sound more like animal rights activists, standing outside breeding centers with signs every Friday. Their most provocative sign is a picture of a man with Human written on it.

Christianity has been completely transformed and is now run by priests (they don’t call themselves priestess) who can only hold ceremonies when they have their periods and snakes are their most sacred symbol because they gave knowledge to Eva and God is called The Mother.

Trans men exist but are referred to as Man Women and they all seem to be sex workers who have functional silicone penises, though I’m not far enough into the story to know if they have other jobs. They generally also still have breasts because working as a wet nurse is another source of income for them. Testosterone treatments is not an option because it would make them too masculine and dangerous to be allowed into society but they all have male names and everyone use male pronouns for them.

A really fascinating aspect of the world is how people want to get rid of the old “patriarchal architecture” of straight lines and boxes but refuse to tear it down with machines, instead insisting on letting Mother Nature reclaim it. Only Rat Girls are actively trying to destroy the old buildings by releasing hoards of rats into them and planting bamboo to break up the concrete. New buildings have round shapes and are build in ways that make them blend in with cultivated nature and inside they’re painting in beautiful colors with no hard edges. They sound a lot like colorful hobbit homes. Also, locks are considered uncivilized and of a time when violent men roamed the earth and made life unsafe so nothing, from front doors to bathrooms, have locks. For a while after most men died women would go for Night Walks to relish in the fact that they no longer had to be afraid, though they liked to visit the witches at night because it felt a little spooky, which the witches thought was good fun.

The story is naturally about a middle aged witch who is hiding a young boy illegally and gets milk from one of the trans men in the red district while also sleeping with a Christian priest who struggles with her sacred job because her periods are irregular.

I’ll come back with follow up thoughts once I’ve finished it. Unlike what you might think, Maren Uthau isn’t a scary man hater. I’ve listened to most of her other books and this isn’t a recurring trope so clearly she has something to say specifically with this story and it’s rated pretty highly by both male and female readers. I think I’m in for quite the ride.

[fabvilletales]

What's the same with our differences?

It is inherent to humans to look at something, find patterns, and then attribute characteristics to it. This phenomenon is otherwise known as Stereotyping - the oversimplification of attitudes we have towards others because we assume they hold the characteristics of a certain group, and it functions to help people make sense of the world. It is basically related to categorization, a natural instinct of survival. However, stereotyping has resulted in detrimental and even deathly effects. It has led to bullying, hate crimes, genocide, xenophobia, and countless more - these things are characterized by intolerance, and therefore, unacceptance and even alienation. 

There are other forms of intolerance. Some of these forms include things that we unintentionally and unwittingly do. And it scares me because I just realized the gravity that intolerance influences my daily life. Whether that’s fundamental attribution error or ultimate attribution error - I have been susceptible to these things many times than I want to admit. But it starts with that realization and that very acknowledgement of your own personal shortcomings and your own personal biases. As Doctor Parhar mentioned in his TedTalk, the first thing to fix one form of intolerance, racism, is to acknowledge that we have a subconscious bias - that it is easier for us to think of a particular group as homogenous rather than diverse, because it’s easier to deal with our perception about them. Thus, the same concept has been discussed in another video that explained why Koreans are racists towards people from developing or poor countries but not towards developed and western countries - it is because of subconscious bias. 

We have to humbly accept the fact that as human beings, we are likely to be stereotypical, but as human beings with the capacity for proper judgment and cognition, we are likely able to correct this. To bring them to the forefront and deal with them, deal with the negative implications of our biases, of our intolerance. This means that we actually have to perceive people regardless of their backgrounds, as unique. Of course, it does not mean we should strip them of their race, color, and their culture - it only means that we are able to get to know them for who they are. The danger about over generalization is that it gives men the entitlement and justification for the way they treat a specific group of people, and let that treatment be the definition of who they are. This explains why it is a common thing for people to treat those with tattoos as bad people or individuals from African descent as poor or primitive, when these things - which are most likely to be untrue - definitely do not define who they are. 

Racism, Stereotyping, Bigotry, Prejudice - these all stem from intolerance. It hinders people from actually focusing on the common things they have - their feelings, their interests, their ambitions - things that every human has regardless of race, gender, and status. We are so much more than our differences, so it is very necessary that we try to understand the problem - our individual - level influences to rhetorical media influences - and consciously and constantly make ourselves aware of our bias tendencies and the way we treat others. Ultimately, we need to always be directly addressing intolerance - to allow ourselves to be uncomfortable - to acknowledge our privilege, our language and the rhetoric we perpetuate, and to promote and advocate for inclusivity. It is important that we transcend the need to just tolerate and put up with our differences, instead, we should accept them first as well as our propensity to be estranging, to always try to be aware and be educated, and eventually, appreciate who we are, what makes us different and unique, and what makes us the same: living, breathing, humans in this world. 

[rainbowsky]

Anonymous asked:

Why is China so against homosexuality? [redacted] Upset gay turtle here venting.

Sorry, Anon, a lot of that rant came across as Sinophobic so I've removed it. I really urge us all to be careful about how we talk about these issues, and consider how our words might land on others. There's an incredible amount of racism and hate levelled at Chinese people these days, I believe it's our responsibility to do our best to lighten that load. Our pain doesn't justify giving others pain.

As for the issue of China and homosexuality, you're painting with a pretty broad - and apparently uninformed - brush, here.

I don't know nearly as much about this topic as I want to know (any book recommendations anyone has on queer history in China and/or translations of relevant Chinese poetry and literature would be greatly appreciated), but even in my somewhat limited understanding I know that the crackdown on queerness in China is quite recent. China has actually had a much more complex, much more nuanced, much more rich and interesting history with homosexuality and effemininity than most Western queer people would credit.

Also, the attitude of contemporary Chinese people toward homosexuality is by no means homogeneous, and queer acceptance and support for queer people is growing in China just as it’s growing everywhere else. Even those who are opposed to homosexuality aren’t necessarily opposed to it out of bigotry in the way Western queers might assume. There are cultural differences that impact all of this, so it’s important to approach issues like this with a spirit of inquiry rather than one of outrage.

Rather than try to dig into topics I’m less than qualified to educate people on, I’m going to point you to some content that might give you a broader picture of these issues.

There have been some excellent metas from Pie. I recommend reading those because they are incredibly interesting and well thought out, and present a massive amount of information on subjects related to this. (Please heed all TW and CW; some of this is not for the faint of heart).

What BL stories onscreen might mean for the queer community

Entertainment industry crackdowns and the future of dangai

The feminization of men

How China’s population policies impact the queer community

DD’s sneakers and ice cream post

This entire exchange in answer to some of my questions about the situation for queer people in China

There was also an interesting response from @exitchasedbyawookiee to a related topic that you might find interesting.

@peekbackstage made a post about masculinity in China that you might also find interesting.

One of my past posts you might find interesting:

Drag, Gender Identity and Queer Culture

There is a lot more to these topics than we are aware of in the West. They’re enormously complex, and influenced by a broad range of political, social, cultural and historical issues. As someone who has been trying to get my head around it all for a couple of years now, I can definitely say that it takes dedicated study to get any proper understanding of queer issues in China.

I urge all fans to please be extremely careful and respectful about how we talk about these issues. As I said, there is so much racism and hate against Chinese people right now and they don’t need more hurled at them, even out of carelessness. We must all take responsibility for our own attitudes and how our behavior might impact others. And it behooves us to remember that in the West we’re massively inundated with anti-China rhetoric on a daily basis.

I’ve said this many times in the past, no regime is representative of a country, no matter how much that regime wants it to be true. And it would be intellectually lazy and foolish to try to characterize billions of people with a few simple buzzwords.

I agree that it’s frustrating to see human rights trampled on, and as a queer person it can be very triggering to read some of the homophobic BS coming out of the regime these days. I understand the temptation to compare China with other Asian countries where things are more progressive, but it doesn’t serve any useful or practical purpose and only leads to more negativity.

Ultimately we all want to be good allies for queer people across the globe, and it can be difficult seeing people we love having to go without the rights, freedoms and support we want for them. I encourage everyone to guide that love and concern into positive channels. Support for GGDD and their projects and endorsements. Support for LGBTQ organizations, particularly ones dealing with queer refugees. Support for your local LGBTQ orgs as well.

In the immortal words of Johnny Rotten, “Anger is an energy.” At such a depressing, emotionally deflating time in history, anger can be exceptionally useful motivator.

Over-arching all of that, a spirit of inquiry and cultural exchange with queer people in regions we aren’t familiar with is probably the best approach to dealing with our concerns about human rights in those regions. As the old saying goes, “Nothing about us without us.” If we want to be supportive, we should let others take the lead in giving us guidance on what they need.

I know that is a lot easier said than done when it comes to China, given how walled off things can feel, but with patience and persistence it is possible. And while we’re going through that long process, I don’t think any queer person in China would begrudge us looking to our own backyards as well.

More on this topic, including educational resources, can be found here.

[boo-cool-robot]

I don't appreciate being referred to like I'm a dumbass for thinking a character who has said sexist things could in fact be sexist. Gojo letting Maki use his given name indicates that he is fine with her being familiar towards him. He also tends to use everyone's given name. This does not mean that he can't be sexist towards someone he is familiar with. Gojo said something sexist to Utahime and we don't see him say sexist things to Mei Mei, yes. I hope you do not seriously believe that a man can only be sexist if he says sexist things to every woman he knows. You don't have to read Gojo as sexist towards his students, but talking like this about my reading is unnecessary.

As for Wolke's points: Regardless of whether Gojo sincerely believes what he said to Utahime, he still said it. (The things he says to Ichiji are extremely rude but not gendered.) And that indicates Gojo accepts sexism to some degree, or at least doesn't mind being seen as sexist. I think it is absolutely plausible Gojo is sexist to some extent. By this, I don't mean that he consciously thinks women are inferior and he deliberately refuses to teach them. I mean that he's spent his whole life in a very misogynistic environment and likely has passively absorbed sexist beliefs. Similarly, we see him invoke an anti-Black stereotype to Miguel, which does make sense considering Gojo is from a society where anti-Blackness is extremely common. He doesn't aggressively hate Black people and apologizes once called out, but he did still have that passive belief. I think you would understand why it would be concerning and a possible indicator of sexist teaching practices if a real life teacher said things about women needing to behave a certain way to attract men, or women being scary in a way men are not. Unconscious biases can still show in behavior.

I don't think Gojo thinks badly of Nobara and Maki. I've said before that I actually think it's likely Gojo likes Maki and thinks she's strong. (Kirara is a question mark because she's no longer a student in JJK proper and we don't really see Gojo interact with her, but it's interesting if not indicative that she doesn't particularly care for Gojo either.) I do think that him not knowing how to train Maki's Heavenly Restriction and Nobara not needing more training on how to use her CT is not exculpatory for him not being shown even trying to train them in other ways.

I think one reason for the difference in our readings is that you prioritize higher-level decisions by Akutami as explaining the reason Gojo behaves the way he does. I see you point to plot events as the reason we only see Gojo train Megumi, Yuta, and Yuji. And I definitely would agree that Akutami creating a cast that doesn't have as many women and girls is a reason for Gojo not being very close to many female characters. It seems like to you, your default reading for a character is "not prejudiced" unless shown strong evidence otherwise. On my part, that's not the case. For my reading, I am taking the in-universe facts of Gojo not training his female students and contextualizing them with other in-universe things Gojo has said, concluding that Gojo is unconsciously sexist. Your read is legitimate and I don't think anyone has to agree with me. I don't even think that my reading must be the most correct. I just find it interesting to do in-universe readings that don't prioritize meta-knowledge. I just don't think "this literal patriarch in an extremely sexist society might be sexist in-universe" requires extraordinary justification, and I don't think Gojo can said to be definitively not sexist in how he treats his students.

(And re: curses in Shibuya, curse personhood is not a settled question in JJK, and whether exorcising curses counts as murder is something that different characters think differently about. Regardless of where one falls in that debate, the disaster curses are shown to have thoughts and feelings and Gojo was both mocking and very brutal towards them. I don't think he was wrong to be very violent since they would have murdered thousands had he not intervened, but Gojo toying with Hanami and Gojo as he fights them is a relevant data point in the whole picture of how Gojo feels about violence. "Gojo thinks violence is fun" is a reasonable conclusion to draw.)

uhm guys, why am I seeing the overly violent and/ or misogynistic gojo interpretation getting popular among fans now. 😐

I’m not saying that he isn’t a violent person, but it’s been bothering me for a while that people have started to center his entire personality around violence and what he displayed against the disaster curses in shibuya (the emphasis being on the fact that he was fighting CURSES not humans) - especially considering his development post HI and his epiphany that not everything in life can be achieved through strength and violence.

“he didn’t train nobara or maki”. nobara has a traditional CT and was thoroughly trained by her grandma, plus she was literally taken out of the story in shibuya while he got sealed. maki is someone with a HR, hardly anyone at JJT knows how to train such a person besides giving her physical training and battle experience (much less gojo who generally struggles with teaching). that’s why she basically learned everything by herself.

“he only trained his male students” he was absent for most of the story bc of his enormous workload since he’s the only special grade on full time active duty?

that’s why he had to send yuta off to miguel. he took megumi with him to the zenins for strategic reasons/future arrangements (bc they were clearly interested in megumi’s talents). he probably showed him the basics of his CT, but megumi interpreted his technique on his own and it’s implied that he doesn’t rly train him unless megumi asks him to do so. he only taught yuji the very very basics and basically let him in todo’s and nanami’s care later. his other students also trained on their own mostly, regardless of their gender.

like come on guys, gege’s writing is definitely misogynistic at times, but saying that gojo was deliberately mistreating his female students isn’t it.

[charlie-rulerofhell]

An interview with Måneskin: “It's not about out bodies, it's about our music”

Heyo, I'm back with another translation. This time the article is from the German Rolling Stone website who met with Måneskin after their TikTok performance at the Schwuz, Berlin, and posted the interview yesterday. Again there were some interesting questions asked (and the pictures they added to the article are quite nice, though severely lacking some Ethan content, but check it out!).

Again, I hope that no one has already gone through the effort and translated it or is currently working on a translation. Also this is an official invitation, if you stumble across any articles or video interviews in German that you would like to have translated just message me and I'll get to it! (or if you just wanna chat about Måneskin, my inbox is always open :))

Have a great day everyone!

Full article under the cut.

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

An interview with Måneskin: “It's not about out bodies, it's about our music”

Jose-Luis Amsler

July 6, 2021

Måneskin are just what this generation has been missing. Passionate, corny, and full-on honest. In an interview with Rolling Stones, the ESC winners explain to us why they would never work in a normal job and why the hype for their appearance is sometimes going too far.

Damiano, Victoria, Thomas and Ethan are entering the nearly deserted dance hall, before they wait on stage in a red-blue spotlight. They are wearing glittering fish net tops, black tape across their nipples, leather pants, heels and make up. The camera men who are filming in portrait format (9:16) suitable for TikTok are whirling up the haze of the fog machine.

Måneskin are [in] Berlin to give a TikTok concert. A TikTok livestream of this scale has not been done often – tension is in the air. The four Italians don't know at this point that due to the stream the few people present are not allowed to clap or cheer. In complete silence and with slight uncertainty the four are crossing Neukölln's club Schwuz. A few puzzled glances are exchanged. Finally,  Måneskin are striking the first chord.

Then the rich sound of Ethan's bass drum is tearing through the silence. It's almost as if someone has flicked a switch somewhere. There it is, the rock star presence that is hovering over everything they do, with an ounce of arrogance (in the best sense of the word). Singer Damiano is dancing lasciviously on his heels, and during an especially ecstatic solo guitarist Thomas is throwing himself down on the floor in a way it can only be done by a passionate 20-year-old musician who had never had to worry about the looming doom of an artificial knee joint [for 'passionate' the interview is using the term 'besessen' which means 'possessed', and although I think it's rather supposed to describe the way Thomas is 'possessed / obsessed' with the music, thus passionate for the music, you never know if they didn't mean to say that the way he dances looks 'possessed' … I mean, they might be on to something here ;)]. Around half an hour and about 120 decibel later, Damiano says their goodbyes with an almost shy-sounding “Okay, bye.” After the performance, we do our interview in the Schwuz.

Rolling Stone: It was a little bit weird, right, when you went on stage today?

Damiano: Yeah, that was really strange (laughs). They only told us after the performance that the audience was instructed to stay silent for the stream.

Vic: But at least they weren't silent because we were shit (all laughing). We are slowly getting used to playing without a live audience. I mean we are doing this now for more than a year.

RS: What do you think about these new kinds of concerts such as the TikTok livestream today?

Damiano: Well, at the moment it is the only option to perform anyway, so it's alright. But of course you cannot compare this to a proper concert.

Thomas: But it's pretty cool that so many people can experience our concert live.

Vic: Also we're gonna start touring again soon. Right now we are arranging some festival and gigs. In December we will be touring Italy and afterwards we are planning to go on tour through Europe. But we don't have anything fixed yet, there is just a lot going on at the moment.

“A lot going on”. Quite an understatement considering the recent journey Måneskin has made through the past weeks after their ESC win. Their singles “Beggin'” and “I Wanna Be Your Slave” went through the roof (also thanks to Social Media) and are currently dominating the international charts – lately they were also number one in Germany. There is barely a radio station that isn't playing the band on heavy rotation [would love to know what stations they listen to, have never heard Måneskin played in German radio tbh :( ], and everyone opening Instagram or TikTok these days is flooded by Måneskin content. Every second a new fanpage with the name of 'maneskin_obsession' or 'damianos_slut' is springing up like a (virtual) mushroom. It sounds like a cliche, but Damiano, Vic, Thomas and Ethan became international stars over night.

“Of course it's nice to get compliments. But sometimes they definitely cross a line.” – Damiano David

RS: How has your life as a band changed since your win at the ESC in Rotterdam?

Vic: I think we don't even notice a lot of what's happening. Right after the ESC we went to a studio in the countryside where we made music the whole day long. So at first we didn't realise that so many things were happening all around us – and that we had so many new fans. We're just now beginning to learn what's going on. We were at Sony yesterday, there were so many fans waiting for us. That was crazy.

RS: A large part of the attention you are getting now is about your outer appearance, your style, your attractiveness. Is that getting a little too much sometimes?

Damiano: Of course it's nice to get compliments (laughs). But sometimes they definitely cross a line. Especially when we just talk about our music or about a social or political topic that we care about. In those moments it's just completely inappropriate to reduce us to our appearance. Sure – when I'm posting a half-naked picture of myself on Instagram I know that I will get these kind of comments. And then it's totally fine, I mean in the end I'm posting the picture to show myself. But sometimes it's not the right place for it.

RS: And also you should be allowed to wear what you want without being sexualised, right?

Vic: Yes, absolutely. We are wearing these outfits because we feel good in them, not to put the focus on our bodies. And in general it shouldn't always only be about how you dress. We are musicians – so first and foremost it should be about our music. But I think it will still be a long way until we will reach that point.

“That the boys are wearing make up does not tell you what gender they are attracted to. Those things should never be equated with each other.” – Victoria De Angelis

RS: But still you are sending a message with your style against stereotypical gender roles. I guess it's also not only coincidence that we are in the Schwuz today, which is normally a party location and safe space for the LGBTQ community.

Vic: Yes, that is all part of the positive message that we try to send. We want to give our audience the feeling that they are free. Free to wear whatever they want to wear, be how they want to be and love whom they want to love. It's unbelievable that there is still so much intolerance in our times. That has always been really important to us so we try to talk about these topics. We also believe that the narrow-mindedness of society is an educational problem. When you grow up with people all around you telling you how you should be, you will never feel completely free. The more people are talking about it, the sooner things will change.

RS: Some artists who are advocating for these topics are accused of 'queerbaiting', that they are only pretending to be a certain way to gain more support from the queer community. Have you also been faced with those allegations?

Vic: Yes, a few times. But of course we never pretended to be anything. Some people accuse of us queerbaiting because we look and act the way we do. But that's flawed thinking. We don't believe that clothes are connected to a person's sexuality. That the boys are wearing make up does not tell you what gender they are attracted to. Those two things should never be equated with each other.

RS: This courage for free self expression that you are conveying is mainly lived by our (young) generation through Instagram and the like. What is your relationship to social media?

Damiano: For me it was almost scary at first. The more we grew, the more people were trying to twist all of my words. But over time you start to understand that with more fame you also get more criticism. The happier you look the more hate you will get. It's not only like that for celebrities. If you are brave enough to show the things that make you happy there will always be people that support you, but they are also those that envy you. Of course, this should never lead anyone to not express themselves openly but that's easier said than done.

Vic: We are also trying not to spend too much time on social media. In the end we just try to be honest with our fans and to avoid negativity.

[caption under the picture of Damiano: 'Is already being compared to icons such as David Bowie']

It's actually surprising how little power a win at the ESC holds in most cases. Almost 200 million people are watching this shining spectacle every year – and still, a few months afterwards it is hard to remember who those people were that got covered in confetti during the award ceremony. It's the well-known curse of a casting show that rests on the winning bands. When just next year a new sensation will come to marvel at, how much impact does a win have then? There are exceptions of course, like Lena who is until this day, 10 years after her win in Oslo, a part of the more famous music scene of German pop music. With their charisma, their unusual sound at least for our modern standards, and their contemporary message Måneskin could become such an exception, too.

It's likely also helpful that the band already had a standing in the Italian music scene prior to their ESC participation. Their first album 'Il ballo della vita' already achieved platinum in 2018, three years prior to Sanremo and the ESC. And then there is also the long way that led the four schoolmates to this point that helped them gain the necessary persistence. Because contrary to what some people might want to believe Måneskin are not a phenomenon that has just been deliberately bred to be this way by the entertainment industry for Eurovision.

“I have worked [in a 'normal' job] for a whole month in my entire life – it didn't really end well.” – Damiano David

RS: You were all raised in Rome, the capital of the catholic church. What was it like to start as a young progressive band in such a conservative environment?

Damiano: In the beginning, when we started as buskers, no one gave a damn about us anyways (all laughing). But of course … Once we got a bit bigger there were a few people who had a problem with us. For example when we went to Sanremo, there were quite many people who thought that the way we looked and acted we shouldn't be allowed to represent Italy. They didn't even want to listen to our music first.

Vic: Especially when it comes to appearance and sexuality, Italy is a little more backward than other countries. The church probably also has an influence there. They are often quite conservative of course, so many people grew up with such a [conservative] mindset.

RS: You once said that the song 'In Nome Del Padre' is an answer to exactly those people. What does the song mean to you?

Damiano: Back in the beginning [of our career] we had to deal with a lot of problems. They didn't want to let us play in clubs because we would take too much space as a band or because they didn't like our (fashion) style or because they didn't want to pay us. Italy isn't a good place for bands. Our musical style was also criticised a lot. Many people were telling us: Don't do that [rock music], you won't get popular with that in Italy, you will never achieve anything with it. Of course those comments were hurtful but they were also a good reason for us to continue with what we did. And we turned our sadness into anger. With that song we wanted to tell those people from back then: Fuck off and look at us, we did it!

RS: Did you ever consider working in a nine-to-five job and live a 'normal' life?

Damiano: Nah, not really. For one month in my life I worked [in a 'normal' job] – it didn't end well (all laughing).

Vic: We all made music since we were kids. It's a huge part of us, that we couldn't just ignore. And the most important thing is that you do something that makes you happy. At least that's what we believe. So we started from a young age to put all our time and energy into music.

Thomas: Yeah, exactly. Ever since we were in school together we always made music. That has always been our main focus and it is until today. We play and play and play because it is the only thing that …  

Ethan: … we live for.

Damiano: Music has also something very therapeutic for us. Even when we are in a bad mood or fight with each other – yeah, that happens, too – then all of that is gone the moment we enter the stage. Maybe that's the beautiful thing about music – that it allows you to forget everything else. You're just standing on stage, having fun with your friends.

From most bands you wouldn't buy such a corny love letter to music. Mostly it just sounds like an empty phrase, a well-practiced quotable line. But when there is something that defines Måneskin and that becomes more and more evident during our conversation it's their uncompromising honesty. The four of them are definitely not lacking a sense of humour but they take their music very seriously. Which should not be taken for granted in a generation that has mainly produced sarcastic cloud rappers and has made cynical twitter comedy a national sport. And maybe Måneskin are exactly what this generation was lacking all along.

Still, the four musicians, all in the age of 20 to 22, are also prone to the constant need for self-expression, that has become an intrinsic part of today's life. This does not only reflect in the outfits of the band (always 'on fleek') and their Instagram profiles, but also in their lyrics. Their latest record 'Teatra D'Ira – Vol. 1' shows a clear theme: The album is an ode to individuality, accentuated by fast and hard sounds.

Sometimes this message fitting for a Disney movie [really? guess I have been watching the wrong Disney movies my whole life …] is wrapped in a contrasting loud and forceful packaging, but never so much that it becomes inauthentic or self-caricaturing [note: I'm honestly not entirely sure what they wanted to say with this sentence since it uses a lot of rhetorical devices that could be interpreted in different ways, but I'd say this sounds the most plausible]. And in the end, the thing that makes Måneskin so interesting is their unification of the spirit of this time – between TikTok hedonism and an omnipresent political statement – with the music of past generations.

“When you are twenty, you start to think about what the future will hold.” – Damiano David

RS: Your musical style is often described as classical 70s rock, but in fact there are many different influences in your music. Sometimes you groove almost into funk, sometimes it's more rapping than singing. How did this mixture come to be?

Thomas: It's just that we all have our own individual influences and then we meet somewhere in the middle. And we always try to stay open for experiments.

Ethan: Yes, we are very experimental in our song writing process.

Vic: We also don't want to limit ourselves to what is regarded as typical rock music. If rap fits better at some point then we just add that in. It just happens naturally without us thinking too much about it.

RS: So why was it still rock music in the end?

Vic: Because it's the style that we feel most represented by. But actually we just play the music that we enjoy playing. That's really important to us so that we can show something real on stage. We don't want to pretend to be something that we aren't or mock those people that really enjoy our music. You should always be proud of what you're doing and never fake anything just to sell more records.

RS: Is there something like an Italian rock music scene?

Vic: There are quite a lot of bands – but the most of them are much older than us or they are more going in the direction Indie rock. There isn't really a young rock scene, which we think is a pity. But ever since we got more famous people are telling us that they started listening to rock music because of us or that they bought their first guitar and such. That's incredibly nice!

RS: So you're saying that you also want to show this style of music to a younger generation. And you capture this contrast quite well in the song 'Vent'anni', which is a typical rock ballad but lyrically portrays the thoughts of today's youth. Where did the motivation come from to write that song?

Damiano: With the song I wanted to show that I'm just a normal guy, a really typical 20-year-old. I experience the same things that other people in my age are experiencing, I'm just doing another job than them. Also I wanted to describe this age as a whole because I think it's a really special age. At 20 you start to think about what the future will hold. I think it's one of the most important stages of your life. Since we (the four of us) are all in the same age, I then started to mix our experiences together. In the end the song shows what it means to us to be 20. There is a lot of good things – you are quite carefree and are looking at life enthusiastically. But on the other hand you're too young to do certain things and too old to do others. Some people are treating you like a full-grown adult, but …

Vic: … not entirely.

Damiano: Exactly. It can get pretty frustrating at times. We wanted to show our audience: Hey, we're also just 20 years old, and we're going through the same things as you. We understand you.

RS: Except that you are the ones who are becoming a world-wide phenomenon right now. How do you want to maintain this honesty?

Damiano: I think that we could just reach this point because we have always been authentic – for better or for worse. Also we are just trying to have fun with what we're doing together. That's something special that we don't want to lose. In the end we're just four friends who started to live their dream. It's actually pretty simple. Of course – we go on stage, we get a lot of attention, we give interviews – but when we come back home we're just four friends.

[ghost0loxer]

Imagine, a gender fluid teenager like myself has a favourite/feel-good film and that film is “Just One of the Guys,”from the mid 80s.

Picture this: theatre class, we watch “She’s The Man”, a dreamworks film from the 2000s. And yet, the social justice issues within the film are glaringly obvious to today’s society. Don’t get me wrong, it can be a funny film in a group setting - but then there are scenes that are just uncomfortable. Now, we discussed these themes in class, but I just can’t help but think about the film that came before it. Yes, StM (she’s the mans) is a modern day adaption of Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night” but I was thinking about the modern day adaption before StM, “Just One of the Guys” from the mid 80s.

I love this film. For multiple reasons, which I hope to discuss.

Number one, our main character. Terry Griffith is stubborn. If she thinks something is right, she won’t let anyone say no or get in her way. Now in some cases, this is great. It’s definitely a shift in the usual romantic comedy female lead (especially for the 80s). But it’s one of her biggest flaws. In the beginning, Terry doesn’t win a contest for a part-time job at the Sun Tribune. She believes her article was amazing, but she speaks with her English teacher and he gives it to her straight. “You don’t have what it takes to be a reporter.” Her article is boring; it’s about the nutritional value of the lunch menu in the school cafeteria, of course it’s boring. But the words her teacher tells her has her convinced it’s because she’s a woman. Thus, she leaves school for two weeks and transfers as a buy to another school who are holding the same competition. Once she gives her article, she is told almost the same thing, but this time, she’s given proper feedback to improve it. Of course, there was some irony with this scene between Terry and the teacher. “Just because you’re guy, doesn’t mean you can’t be sensitive or light.” Thing is, she doesn’t give up, she strives to fix it and finds a new angle. I love her determination, I love the way she doesn’t let others push her around. Furthermore, her transition to a man. In StM, Viola as a guy is made to be cringey and comedic, you watch and think, there’s no way a guy would do that. But Terry, having grown up with a younger brother and is actually smart, manages to nail the role. Sure, she has slip-ups, but she stays afloat and she’s not being over the top. She’s chill and convincing, yet you as the audience can tell she’s trying to appear masculine. Her lines are witty and she’s sharp. Someone has something to say, she’ll be able to backtrack and answer with a joke or sarcasm quickly. I like smart characters.

Another point, the way women are written in this film. A lot of women in this film are treated like shit, but it’s probably a realistic depiction of the 80s. Everyone is talking about dating and sex, it seems to be the only topic the women in this film speak about, unless they are Terry. Terry seems to be the only character in this film whose main goal is not romance or sex. She strives to be a reporter, she wants to prove herself, and she rejects the advances upon her frequently. Whether it’s the boys asking her on dates in halls, or her own boyfriend attempting to seduce her when her parents aren’t home, she doesn’t put them above herself, yet she still lets them down easily, unless they become more pushy (case in point, her boyfriend, Kevin, in the beginning). She can stand up for herself, but she’s not the only one. Her best friend, Denise is one of the many women looking for love, nevertheless, she holds standards. I will admit, I didn’t like Denise’s acting in the beginning; she’s not a great character, but even she manages to reject men’s advances constantly. She’s not afraid to say it bluntly and she expresses her true emotions when certain guys try to ask her out. She tells it to them straight, and I respect her for that (despite her lack of empathy for some). Terry’s brother is constantly hitting on Denise, but she stands her ground. She doesn’t hit him or curse him out, she spins words around him and always lead back to the key word “no.”

This is my third, and maybe final point, (because I’m not great at writing but I’m starting to get tired) the way they handle sexual orientation. It seems if you’re going to make a film about a cross-dressing woman who falls in love with a man, you have to discuss sexuality and this film is not afraid to. That was my biggest beef with StM, when Viola confessed her love to Duke, the made it blatantly clear that it was “weird” and “unusual”; the editing and music cuts. It was done for comedic purposes, but in that moment, it just made me cringe. Even when the principal marched onto the field during the big match to expose Sebastian as “the woman he was all along,” he used a big megaphone and said to the whole crowd this man is in fact a girl. If it were to happen in the real world, and this character was a trans male, that would be traumatizing and so so insensitive. I couldn’t help thinking the way they handled the reveal in StM was poor and shitty.

But with JOotG (just one of the guys)? It’s done respectfully. Throughout the film, Buddy, Terry’s younger, sex-obsessed brother (I have thoughts on this character), often refers to Terry as a transvestite or sexually confused. They make references about her dating other women and jokes. It’s not treated like taboo, but just something people normally talk about, and as a questioning kid when I first watched the film, I really needed that. Although it was used for jokes, the fact that it wasn’t treated like a silent topic made me think more of it and discover who I was; it was media like this that made me accept myself.

Even with the reveal. Kevin, Terry’s boyfriend (or ex boyfriend by the end), stomps up to Terry after she’s wrestled with the school bully and was dumped into the waves at prom. Rick, who’s been Terry’s friend (and is the male lead) throughout her time at his high school, immediately questions who Kevin is and he responds with a harsh and sure “Terry’s boyfriend.” Of course, that doesn’t expose Terry as female, but makes Rick assume she’s a homosexual. But instead of calling her weird or replying negatively, he answers Kevin’s question calmly and says he’s just a friend. There is no prejudice, no disgust, Rick is shocked, but that’s expected. Furthermore, this reveal not only does not alienate homosexuality, it puts the center of focus on the main characters rather than have the whole audience/prom witness this exchange. Sure, the rest of the school is watching but the camera never pans over to them, and even then, Terry drags Rick away from the crowds to a secluded area to explain more.

Even once they’re secluded, Rick doesn’t yell at her or is homophobic. He just says “I understand, you’re gay.” As we know, Terry is not in fact gay and she reveals this to him in a similar fashion as StM, at least it’s not flashing a whole crowd. But the thing that hits me, is the fact that it’s not used as a joke or for comedy. Throughout the film, they’ve mentioned homosexuality and being transgender, but it was used as a light-hearted joke (nothing insulting or derogatory). In this moment, it’s not a joke, and it’s the bare minimum for a emotional scene like this, but it always hits me.

Of course, Rick gets justifiably mad that he’s been deceived and he storms off. Terry’s flaw catches up to her here, as she kisses him in front of the prom guests, stubborn to make him realize how much she cares. ( I didn’t agree with this action to be frank, I cringed ). The crowd gasps and it’s the usual reaction to a homosexual kiss and Rick just pulls back, says “It’s alright everyone, he’s got tits,” and leaves with Deborah.

In true romantic comedy fashion, life moves on. Terry gets the job at the Sun-Tribune after writing her article about posing as a guy and everyone who was longing for love in the beginning has found it, except Terry. The ending, however, is Rick coming back for her after a couple (days? Weeks? Idk all I know is it’s summer by the time he comes back, how much space between prom and summer?) and they kiss, go on a date and all is good.

Now after writing this long ass post, I’ve come to realize the main reason I like this film. Sure, Terry is a good character (not morally sometimes, but she’s interesting to watch), the way women are presented also is good, but my main source of affection for this film (in comparison to StM) is the way they handle the switching of genders. I’m gender fluid, I don’t always like being a woman or a man, I switch almost daily and half the time can’t decide if I want to grow out my hair or cut it. Seeing Terry, originally a woman, manage to convince people she was a guy made me wish I could do it too. It made me realize, I don’t always like being a woman. I want to be a guy sometimes, and I want that to be accepted. It was media like this, like Ouran High School Host Club, like Bare: A Pop Opera, that made me understand my gender and sexuality. (Even media that didn’t have any relation to LGBTQ+ helped).

When I first heard of “She’s the Man”, I had hoped it would be like these pieces of media. And it wasn’t. It was an alright film, but made me feel disappointed and somewhat let down. And that’s why I just prefer Just One of the Guys. Maybe it wouldn’t float in today’s political climate, maybe I’m wrong for seeing these points as reasons it’s one of my favorites, but its still better than StM and is one of my favourite films.

[vampish-glamour]

You know what's scary? I do understand where radfems come from... I really understand them. This whole bs that the term "female" is insulting to trans women and that even a hairy sasquatch kind of male, can call himself a woman now, without even being trans, is a fucking joke. They really push women into radfem thinking with this.

The only problem is, this hurts real trans people, that really struggle with disyphoria and won't be taken seriously anymore...

And in the end, women suffer once again, but this time it's not because of men, but because of the gender fandom.

I agree. I’ve actually been meaning to make a post about this, so I’ll just give my thoughts here.

I tend to find that radfems, on the very surface, can have good points. Examples being

The word woman has become meaningless and this isn’t okay

People think femininity = woman, and that’s harmful to women

The gender fandom is off the walls crazy

Now despite these not actually being exclusively radfem/terf beliefs… many posts about them are either made by radfems, hijacked by radfems, or assumed to be made by radfems. So it’s easy to end up in the radfem side of Tumblr after a while of searching through tags.

And it’s easy to think “yeah, this is something I can get behind”… because you may think that these points mean the following (and the posts about them probably are talking about the following as well)

Anyone can “identify” as a woman, even if they aren’t actually a woman, and this isn’t okay. (Woman = both cis and trans women)

People think that femininity = woman, which leads to women calling themselves nonbinary if they aren’t feminine enough, or trans women being made to feel like they aren’t passing if they aren’t feminine enough

MOGAI is off the walls crazy

But the radical feminists take these points to mean something else entirely, and the radical part of radfem eventually rears it’s head. Then those points turn into

The word woman has become meaningless because of the evil disgusting trans women who are invading poor cis women’s spaces!!!!

Men think that they’re women because they wear dresses!!!!!

The gender fandom is crazy and by gender fandom I mean not just MOGAI and non dysphorics, but dysphoric trans people too!!!!

And the insanity of radical feminism/terfism really shows through.

But that insanity aside, on the very surface I do understand where they’re coming from, in the sense that I can tell what it is they’re against, and what they’re misunderstanding. I can also understand what they’re angry about… and see where they blame the wrong people (dysphoric trans people).

They seem to often come from a place of thinking that MOGAI and non dysphorics speak for the entirety of trans people, so end up grouping dysphoric trans people in with the she/theys and genderfluids. They look at a genderfluid talking about “sometimes I wear boy clothes and sometimes I wear girl clothes”, and think this applies to a dysphoric trans woman… despite the two being vastly different.

They see one trans woman, often a “non dysphoric”, talking about how awful it is for lesbians to not like male genitalia (which yes, is incredibly homophobic), and then think that this applies to all trans people, despite the majority of trans people understanding that it’s okay for people to not be interested in dating trans people.

They see literal men claim to be trans women while experiencing no dysphoria, and claim that they represent all trans women. So they go on about how these men are ruining the definition of woman (and yeah, I do agree that it’s bullshit that any man can just “identify” as a woman)…but don’t seem to get that dysphoric trans women are completely separate from that issue.

They see a bunch of modern day activists claim that the word “female” is offensive to trans women, or that we need to use degrading gender neutral language like “people who bleed” and “birth givers” to be inclusive to trans people… and assume that it’s actual trans people making these arguments. When in reality, from what I’ve seen most actual trans people are against it.

After looking through radfem/terf blogs and seeing what they had to say, I came away with a solidified belief that modern day “trans activism” is actually harming trans people. Because it allows transphobes like these to form a completely false idea of what a trans person is, and base their bigotry off of that.

They generalize based on the loud majority, and unfortunately the loud majority is the “gender fandom”, while dysphoric trans people are pushed to the back. It’s very clear that radfems haven’t listened to or spoken with actual dysphoric trans people, and don’t understand what being trans actually is. Because of this, I can understand where people get these beliefs about trans people from. Because you have the loud majority claiming that “this is what being trans is!!!” While spotlighting absolute bullshit.

And that’s how they can get sucked into radfem ideology, because they start out with the sensical surface level things, and then get pulled into the more radical beliefs that end up being absolute batshittery.

So yeah, I can absolutely see where many radfems come from when it comes to gender. They have no idea what a trans person actually is, because all they’ve been exposed to is the mainstream activism. The upsetting thing is, that this leads to transphobia that hurts actual trans people in the long run.

I’m in no way trying to excuse the rampant transphobia from radfems. Many of them probably are just genuinely transphobic, and would hate trans people even if the mainstream activism wasn’t a factor.

But I do believe that for many, the mainstream activism is a tipping point. If real trans people were at the front of the activism, and making it known what being trans really is… instead of the crazies who are currently in the spotlight, I think we’d have much less people going towards transphobic ideologies, because they’d have a proper understanding of what being trans is, rather than only seeing the bullshit that is currently pushed. And they wouldn’t be in a spot that allows them to be pushed towards radfem/terf beliefs in the first place.

[misswenndy]

Submissive Men

I think it’s time someone cleared the air around what it means to be a submissive man.  The public perception of a submissive man is not a good one.  There is a huge taboo on it, and many misperceptions on what a submissive man actually is. This is really sad, because many women are missing out on some fantastic men, that just might meet them on all the levels they always wished a man could meet her on.  But since he admits he’s submissive, he is often dismissed as a potential partner in her eyes, due to these misunderstandings.

First of all, the biggest misperception  is that being submissive is weak.  Now lets take a look at this from a few angles.  Being submissive can simply mean, he likes to be led, and he likes to put others before himself.  That he is less aggressive, but more compassionate and thoughtful and selfless.

Now many women, like chivalry, and being courted.  For chivalry to exist, men must put aside their own needs and put hers first, for “regular men” this usually comes with the ulterior motive to get into her pants.  For a submissive man, this comes naturally and his desire to make her happy, and putting her first, makes him happy. So, does a man that wants to please, and wants to make her happy, does that make him weak? In what way?  

Now if you turn it around and look at a “regular man” who is courting and being chivalrous simply to get into her pants for his own selfish needs what do you see?  I see a man that simply wants to use her, and once he’s “conquered” her, he will likely move onto the next woman that he deems worthy of chasing.  Her happiness is often a non issue to him as long as he gets laid.  This is what we see in night clubs and bars all over the world. This isn’t uncommon.  We live in a world where we actually have to explain the definition of consent, lets not forget that.

So, how is a submissive man weak, compared to a “ regular man”?  If you really have a good look, the “regular man” has no commitment, he has no burdens, no sacrifices, therefore, where is the strength?  When you look at the submissive man, he has to put aside his own needs, that takes strength.

He has a willingness to learn who she is, and what she needs, and strive to make her happy, that takes a lot of mental strength and self control.  And, all of that, is before she is even interested in dominating him, he must show and prove his strength of character to her, long before she even considers the idea.  

So he must be strong on the emotional level as well as mental.  Now physically, “regular men” and submissive men, is quite irrelevant. There are submissive men of all forms and “regular men” of all forms, so this isn’t about who is physically stronger. So that’s a non issue.

Physically however, submissive men, tend to be more diplomatic, and try to resolve problems without resorting to violence whenever possible.  “Regular men” on the other hand, tend to be more aggressive, and lack empathy to greater degrees, and tend to resort to violence before proper communication. This is seen all the time in road rage and so on, and lets not even get into rape and all that…

Another misconception about submissive men, is that, they’re gay.  This one is huge, and makes many submissive men hide in the closet afraid to express their submissive tendencies because of the strong taboo.  Being submissive, and being gay, are extremely different things.  That includes submissive’s that gravitate toward cross dressing.  Submissive men, may be a little more gentle, and sometimes a little less masculine. At the same time, we do have a huge issue of toxic masculinity in the world.  So submissive men kind of bring a bit of a balance to what it means to be masculine.  Men are brought up into a world, that teaches them that showing emotions as a man is gay or weak.  

Submissive men, want to show their emotions, because they understand that suppressing these emotions isn’t healthy for anyone in their lives.  Allowing emotion to flow freely through them, enables them to be vulnerable with the women in their lives, who are no strangers to vulnerability, with toxic masculinity always chasing her.

When you take a good look at vulnerability in this way, you can begin to see it as a strength and not a weakness.  A submissive man allowing himself to be vulnerable means he must open up in all the ways he fears the most.

In other words, he must face his deepest fears, and allow himself to be naked, emotionally with his partner.  This is something many men, never, ever, experience.  They’re not strong enough to let go that much.  They’re too busy believing that being macho and unfeeling is somehow the only way to be strong in this world, and as a result we have a world at war, which is nothing more than a big dick contest.

So submissive men, actually bring a balance to masculinity, that can meet the feminine on the levels most men never can. So instead of seeing submissive men as being gay, perhaps we can change the perception to having the balls to be emotional.

Even if a submissive is a cross dresser, or a sissy, it does not mean he is gay.  It means, he wants to understand the feminine, that the raw power felt exploring what it means to be feminine, humbles him as a man.  It actually helps him become a better man, because he is balancing his masculine and feminine sides within him, which will give him a stronger intuition, bring him more in touch with his body, and the natural world.  

It will make him feel more alive, more in tune, and give him heightened senses.  So exploring the feminine side isn’t necessarily a bad thing for a man to do, and I would recommend that all men be open minded enough, and dare I say, strong enough to actually explore it a little.  

Now many men, especially if not submissive, reading this, would be offended by that.  If you’re not comfortable enough to explore the feminine side, how can you call yourself a macho man? There’s a weakness there, inhibitions, fear of vulnerability. It has nothing to do with being gay, that’s the excuse that you come up with to rationalize your decision to never explore it.  The ego in full force.

There is only one thing that makes anything gay, and there is nothing wrong with being gay either. But lets at least get our definitions straight.  The only time anything is gay, is if it’s being done, or desired to be done, with the same gender.  That’s it, nothing more.  

A girl can take a man up the ass with a strap on, and it’s not gay. It’s anal sex. It’s not gay sex.  He can desire to be taken up the ass by his girlfriend, or even on his own, with a butt plug.  Again, not gay.  If he desires a man to be doing it, then yes, that’s gay.  A man wearing panties is not gay either. A man being feminine isn’t gay. A man being with another man, masculine or feminine, that’s gay.  I think you’re getting the point I’m making?

I hope you are, because, the stigma is ridiculous, and the misperception needs to rectified. There are so many submissive men in this world that deserve a chance.

Submissive men must be so strong, to face the extreme levels of vulnerability to submit to a woman in a relationship, that strength and value is often not given credit.  So much of what we see on the internet portrays submissive men as weak, and worthless, to be degraded and humiliated and treated like a dog.  Now, the idea of the things above, in fantasy, can be a turn on, because it caters to a submissive’s desire to submit, no matter how hardcore.

But in reality, it’s a very different picture. In reality it can be a whole lot more romantic and intimate, passionate and charming.  A submissive can be cherished by a woman, and make a fantastic partner that can really meet her on all the right levels and satisfy her needs, not just sexually, but around the house, and in life in general.  He wants to. He needs to.  

It’s a part of who he is, to make her happy is to make him happy.  He’s a man with the ulterior motive of making her happy to make him happy. It’s a very different approach than simply getting laid and moving on to the next.  

A relationship with one partner dedicated to making the other partner happy, is difficult to fail.  It sets a foundation from the start and it has the ability to evolve, because communication is open.  Trust is inherent.  Where there’s trust, there’s always going to be passion and intimacy.  Without trust, there are always insecurity issues, cheating issues, masturbation issues…. etc… With a submissive man, all of those issues are non existent.  It helps her to fully relax knowing he’s there for her, without any doubt of his intentions.  How many women and men, could benefit from this kind of relationship?

And that, is precisely why I wrote a book dedicated to introducing this kind of relationship in a gentle way that doesn’t scare people away with intense fetishes or erotica. A practical approach to a relationship that can set you both free in ways you can’t even imagine yet.  The human body is designed to love, to feel, to be vulnerable, to let go of inhibitions and be accepted for who you really are, with another, down to the deepest level of your soul.

[alloftheimaginesblog]

You’re Never Helping Again (Indiana Jones x Plus Size History Professor Reader)

Plot: A follow up to ‘Let Me Help’ in which it's made apparently clear that Indy definitely overestimated his ability to teach the gendered nuances of Victorian Medical practice or something. All your students demand that you never let him teach one of their lessons again, He pretends that it went effortlessly and was the best lesson he's ever taught.

Character: Indiana Jones x Plus Size History Professor Reader

Requested by @hufflepuffing-all-day-long​

PART TWO OF ‘Let Me Help’ 

Part of my Secret’s Out Saga (Plus Size History Professor Reader x Indiana Jones) series and part of my Plus Size Reader x Character series!

For once in your life, you listened to Indy and you did exactly what he instructed you too. You never liked following rules, especially when it came to men and boyfriend’s rules but you knew that he was right. You were running yourself into the ground and you needed to let yourself up for air, even if it was a few hours of self care.

You’d been in Indy’s apartment many times before, you stayed over multiple times during the week, but you’d never been here alone. You’d never let yourself in with a key before, you’d never kicked off your shoes and hung up your jacket as though it were your apartment; you’d never even made yourself anything to eat here before, Indy always took care of that! It felt strange, extremely odd, that you were here in his apartment without him. It almost felt... exciting? He had said he was meaning to give you a key soon anyway... was this what it was like? A proper, long-term adult, serious relationship? You smiled to yourself as you explored his apartment, wanting to soak up everything whilst he wasn’t here. You’d never really had this before - never had anything this serious before. Men just never treated you the way he did. Men around here just weren’t... they weren’t like Indiana.

His living room was organised chaos. There was mess, like coffee cups lying on the table and on his desk and his jacket and shoes in a pile the end of the sofa, but the rest of it was organised chaos. Piles of papers stacked high and low, messy but organised. He had piles of essays to grade, dissertations to grade, books stacked, piles for his newest research papers; it was organised but it was chaos. His living room was exactly how you’d imagine it to be; brown and leather - that academia look. He had trophies and certificates on shelves, you smiled as you read over them, he was still young but my god, he had accomplished so much. He had replicas of artefacts on the walls and on the remaining shelves but as you looked, some of them looked a little too old and a little too perfect that you were sure it was the real thing. He never failed to surprise you.

You made your way to his bedroom, now this was your favourite part of his apartment. It was simple, not a lot in his bedroom. Four post brown wooden bed, messy bed (he was never one to make the bed in the mornings), wooden drawers and wardrobe. It was very basic but it was the little details that you loved. He had drapes around the bed, that usually remained tied up they were more for decoration, but he had told you the story of how he came to be in possession of them. When you glanced at them they just looked plain white with some dark embroidery but when you looked up close, you realised that it was writing all around the bottom of them. He’d told you that he’d been in India years ago and helped them get an artefact back and they’d given him these drapes which had ‘Indiana Jones; our hero’ in their native language all around it. You had laughed when he told you that, “Of course, you’re the only person I know that would have drapes singing your praises on them and get away with it.”

A photo in a frame was perched against his bedside cabinet. It was a picture of you, not you and Indy, no, just you. It was a picture of you reading a book whilst curled into his couch. It was a grainy photo, black and white and a little faded but he loved that picture. You’d never really liked it, the curls in your hair had come loose, your lipstick was all faded, your glasses were half way down your nose, you were in your pyjamas and could see all your lumps and bumps and yet, Indy loved it. You’d asked him why he loved it so much one day, he just smiled and said, “It’s just... you.” You placed the photo down before heading to his closet. You did have a bag of clothes here but who in their right mind would turn down the chance to steal one of his shirts?

You filled the bath and whilst you waited, you were reading his newest research paper. He had let you read the drafts but now, this was close to being the finished thing and you couldn’t help but want to read it. He never failed to amaze you with his academic talent, the knowledge that man had; the first hand experience this man had with so many cultures and artefacts, it blew you away every time. You’d finished reading just as the bath was ready, “Incredible,” you whispered as you stood to put it away back on his desk - you knew that if you kept it in the bathroom with you you’d somehow end up dropping it into the bath.

The bath was a perfect temperature, you were glad for it. Sometimes if a bath is too hot you get too stressed about trying not to lobster yourself that you don’t enjoy it and sometimes if you make it too cold... well, that’s just no fun, is it? You sunk into the warmth of the water, relishing in its soothing touches. You washed your hair, trying to detangle the mess of curls with your fingers as you let the soapy suds clean away all your worries.

Soon, you were out of the bath and padding around the kitchen trying to find something to eat. You’d put on one of Indy’s looser fitting shirts. It didn’t button over your stomach so you’d pulled on one of his stretchy t-shirts under it. You found leftovers in the fridge from the night before, homemade spaghetti and meatballs. You had been surprised when you found out that Indiana was a decent cook. You thought that with him being so busy teaching, writing and adventuring that he wouldn’t have a lot of time to cook for himself. Sure, he loved Chinese take out but he could whip up a decent meal.

It wasn’t long after you’d reheated the spaghetti that you heard the front door open and heavy footsteps. You poked your head out of the kitchen to see Indy taking his jacket off and taking his glasses off, “How you feeling?” He asked as he walked into the kitchen with you.

“A lot better,” you admitted, “thank you... Really, Indy, thank you.” He smiled bashfully as you thanked him, “I hope my students weren’t too wild for you.”

He shook his head, “One of the best lessons I’ve ever given actually,” he said quickly... too quickly.

“Yeah?” You asked with a frown, “cause it was going to be a pretty full on lesson about Victorian medical practice, that can get quite tricky especially when we bring gender into the equation-” He cut you off.

“You don’t think I could handle it?” Indy asked, unusually defensive.

“Of course you could, Indy,” you rolled your eyes, “I was merely saying that sometimes even I find teaching Victorian medical practice hard going, there’s just a lot and I know my students, I’ve trained them to question everything so that they know and understand every single detail.”

Indy raised his eyebrows, “Oh I know they question everything... Believe me, I know.” You eyed him suspiciously but he seemed eager to drop the subject and he’d already done so much for you today that you just shrugged and passed him a plate of spaghetti.

The rest of the night was spent with you going over the research you had and what you still didn’t have sources for. Indiana proved to be very helpful. He had hundreds of books, some in shelves, some scattered around, and he was able to find the sources and missing pieces of information that you needed. It didn’t take long until you had finished your first draft. You beamed as you put the pen on the desk, “I’m finished. I did it!” Indiana was right there beside you, giving you a kiss on the forehead, and singing your praises, “I couldn’t have done it without you, Indy,” you whispered as he congratulated you, “Thank you.” 

It seemed a wise choice to take the rest of the night off after that. Yes, you were aware that you had papers to grade and dissertation drafts to sift through but you could get to them tomorrow. Tonight, Indy had better plans for you. He was going to help you relax with something a little more intimate and pleasurable than grading papers.

The next morning, you’d used some of your spare clothes that you left at Indy’s to get dressed and found him in the kitchen with two mugs of coffee waiting. You ate a small breakfast with him, talking about your lesson for the day, “You might want to go over yesterday’s lesson again with your class,” Indiana said nonchalantly, “Some of your students didn’t really fully understand and I ran out of time.”

You narrowed your eyes but nodded anyway. He didn’t know that your students would tell you exactly what happened yesterday so you let him believe that he was safe for a while longer.

You felt great. You felt like the weight had been lifted off of you shoulders and you were refreshed and well-rested. It just showed you how much having someone help you out benefited you. You couldn’t thank Indy enough, you just appreciated it so much; that he would help you out like that. His sweet gestures always made you feel like the luckiest woman alive.

With your lesson plans and papers in hand, you walked into your class to see all of your students already there, “Class doesn’t start for another forty five minutes!” You frowned, “What’s going on?”

“Thank god you’re back!” One of the girls, Sarah, said with a huff, “You are never letting Dr Jones teach us again!” 

You put everything on your desk and sat in your chair, “Why?” You asked tentatively, “What happened?”

“He had no clue, Professor!” A boy at the back told you, “First twenty minutes started out strong but as soon as we started asking questions, he just rambled and could not figure anything out.”

You couldn’t help but laugh as they told you more about what really happened. Poor Indy. He had tried, he really had tried but he was just not prepared for the inquisitive nature of your students, “He was getting so annoyed that we asked so many questions,” another girl said, “after about an hour of his rambling, he eventually handed us out textbooks and told us to read in silence for the rest of the time.”

Wiping your eyes for the tears of laughter, you took a breath, “Well, Dr Jones really helped me out yesterday and he at least tried to teach you, that’s more than what some people would do. I apologise that I wasn’t here though.”

“Professor, please promise that he’ll never teach us again. Promise us.”

This started your hysterical laughter again, “I promise.”

You couldn’t wait to see Indiana at lunch. As always, he was waiting outside of your class to walk you to his where the two of you would eat lunch, “I went over everything again and they all seem to understand a lot better now,” you said, trying to not smile.

“Yeah?” He asked, clearing his throat, “Good.”

“They did tell me something about yesterday though,” you smirked as you walked into his classroom, “they never want you to teach again.”

And so, the jig was up, “They told you, huh?” You found yourself doubled over laughing as you recounted what they’d said to you, “Well, it’s not my fault they ask too many questions!” Indiana exclaimed, “Everything I said, they questioned!”

“Thank you for covering for me but you’re never helping me again.”

[dwellordream]

“In February 1924, Illustreret Fagblad for danske Damefrisorer, one of the leading trade journals for Danish women's hairdressers, reported that short haircuts for women were becoming increasingly common throughout most of Europe. Although the trend had not yet reached Denmark, it was likely to do so, the journal predicted, since "we have seen within the last couple of months the first signs of .. . shorn hair here in Copenhagen." The prediction proved correct. In July 1925, Ugens Spejl, another trade journal, reported that the new fashion was spreading "like fire in old houses." That same year, the president of the Ladies' Hairdressers Association estimated that 25 percent of Copenhagen's female population had their hair cut short.

The following year, one Copenhagen barber claimed that no less than 75 percent of women under the age of 30 had adopted the new styles, leading the editor of yet another trade journal, Danmarks Barber-og Frisortidende to conclude that "there is something almost epidemically contagious about the advancing shingling. Each and everyone who lets her locks fall for the scissors immediately draws four or five others with her." Although contemporaries may have exaggerated the numbers, contemporary street photography and surviving photo albums suggest that a significant number of young women did in fact dispose of their long hair in the second half of the 1920s. 

It is also telling that no fewer than 48 of the 59 women interviewed for this project recalled having their hair cut short before 1930. As Anne Bruun explained many years later, "That was just what you did. If you were young and wanted to be in style, that was definitely the look. Anybody who wanted to be up-to-date did that." Helene Berg agreed. "Short hair made you look chic, made you look modern," she claimed. Besides, as Louise Ege pointed out, short hair "kind of fit with the other things that were fashionable. Short dresses and all that." But despite their enthusiasm for the new hairstyles, actually acquiring one of the fashionable bobs was not always easy. While the number of beauty salons had been growing since the turn of the century, women's hairdressers generally shied away from providing their female customers with the short haircuts they desired.

For decades women's hairdressers had worked hard to create a respectable female profession by promoting themselves as specialists in hygiene and conventional feminine beauty, an accomplishment they were not willing to sacrifice by embracing the controversial new styles. Moreover, since most hairdressers were only used to working with combs, brushes, and curlers, few were actually competent to cut hair. As a result, many women had to enter male barbershops to have their hair cut, a step many took with considerable trepidation. The difficulties of finding a stylist both willing and able to cut a woman's hair was not the only obstacle to a fashionable appearance. Many fathers and husbands explicitly prohibited the new styles. Others let their disapproval be known more indirectly.

As Magda Gammelgaard Jensen recalled, "I really wanted to get my hair [cut] short, but I didn't know how to go about it. It wasn't so easy when there was a man around." According to Mr. H. M. Christensen, the president of the Danish Grooming, Toilet and Sanitary Workers' Union, many women therefore chose to "have their hair cut at a time when their husbands and fathers [were] not at home." Outside the private sphere, other forces also strove to contain "that unfortunate tendency among young ladies to shear their hair." Some workplaces openly discriminated against women who adhered to the new fashion. Several prominent department stores did not hire women who sported the new hairstyles. Others fired employees after a visit to the hairdresser. 

In 1924, the personnel director at Crome & Goldschmidt, one of the leading clothing stores in Copenhagen, flatly declared that he "would absolutely not engage or employ any young woman with bobbed hair." Other businesses had similar policies. The president of Salomon David Jr. Inc., Inger Diemer, explained that she had "banned bobbed hair." "I demand," she continued, "that the women who work with us, sign [a contract] that they will not wear short hair. In my mind, that is not proper in an old, highly esteemed firm." The director of Bispebjerg Hospital, Charlotte Munck, also banned short hair for all nurses under her supervision.

Even women in less publicly visible occupations faced ostracism if they chose to adopt the modern styles. Inger Mangart, for example, who worked as a part-time cleaning assistant in a private home in the late 1920s, recalled being dismissed the first day she arrived with short hair. The press was equally adamant in its stance against the new styles. To discourage young women from following fashion, newspapers and popular magazines delighted in sensationalist stories about domestic turmoil caused by short hair. Divorces, physical abuse, family disintegration, and even murders were described as tragic, but predictable, outcomes of women's changed appearances.

Assuming, however, that young women were more likely to follow fashion prescription than sensible guidance, journalists and other commentators figured that the most efficient way to combat the modern styles was simply to declare them unfashionable. "Bobbed hair is no longer in style," one beauty advice columnist thus warned as early as 1922, several years before the new styles hit Denmark. "We hardly have to repeat that bobbed hair has already received the death sentence abroad," another fashion expert claimed that same year. "There is no doubt that this fad, the short hair, is coming to an end," Ugebladet asserted a couple of years later, and in 1925, B.T. was pleased to report that "all countries now agree that the fashion of short hair is finally on the retreat."

Yet despite these elaborate efforts to suppress the new haircuts, women's enthusiasm did not wane. Many critics therefore felt compelled to explain the dangers of the new styles in the hope that young women would be swayed by their arguments. Some journalists and beauty advice columnists sought to discourage young women from having their hair cut through use of the kind of racist imagery that permeated early twentieth century European culture. By labeling the new styles "Hottentot hair" or "Apache cuts," they strove to impress upon young women the incompatibility of short hair with refined Western womanhood. "Surely, no young lady wants to look like a monkey," one reporter thus argued, apparently hoping that young women would recognize the similarity between women's short hair and animal fur. 

Other observers claimed that short hair simply made women look ugly and unattractive. Cutting one's hair was therefore inevitably at the risk of losing "the man's admiration and desire." Although some men admitted that a short-haired woman might serve "as a drinking buddy," those who participated in the public debate all insisted that the new styles did not mix with marriage and motherhood, implying that short-haired women could expect to live out their lives as spinsters and old maids— an argument that presumably would dissuade any young woman from such reckless behavior. While most female critics tended to focus on the aesthetic aspects of the new styles, it was quite different considerations that fueled much of the vehement male opposition. 

Like many other people in the early twentieth century, these commentators believed there was a direct correlation between external appearance and internal self. When a woman cut her hair, she was not only defying conventional standards of femininity but was also prone to develop some of those mental traits that usually characterized people with short hair—namely, men. As Ludvig Brandt-Meller, a male hairdresser who opposed the new styles, explained, "Short hair tends to emancipate the woman. It is as if it affects her psychologically." Others found that short-haired women became "like men in character and gestures," insisting that "that 99 out of 100 women with short hair have simultaneously acquired boyish or mannish manners."'

A few alarmists saw even greater dangers ahead. The very act of cutting a woman's hair, they argued, would eventually alter a woman's biological constitution and turn her into a man. Believing that the mass of hair on a human body was constant, some argued that short hair would necessarily cause women to grow beards. Others predicted the advent of female baldness. "The evidence is right there, since 60 percent of all men over forty [who presumably had cut their hair since childhood] are bald, while less than 0.1 percent of all women [who had never previously cut their hair] suffer from this weakness," another critic of the new styles explained. 

While men had tended to object to short dresses because they rendered women too attractive, their reactions to short hair were therefore quite different. According to male critics, short hair "emancipated" women and made then unwomanly, even masculine, and not attractive enough, a violation of gender norms that seemed to them much graver and ultimately more unpleasant than women being overly sexy and seductive. Even those who did not necessarily believe that short hair would actually turn women into men found this quite disturbing because, as one correspondent wrote to the editor of the newspaper B.T. in 1925, "If there is something we men cannot stand, it is precisely women void of femininity. "

Young women's seeming disregard of men's opinions about the new styles only made matters worse. Apparently, young women were no longer pursuing physical beauty and style for the purposes of male pleasure and admiration. How, then, were men to understand women's enthusiasm for short hair as anything but a sign that women cared less about male approval than about their own "emancipation"? Some even feared that the popularity of the new styles might indicate an explicit sexual and emotional detachment from men. In comparison with those who defended short dresses when they first appeared, supporters of the new hairstyles were therefore faced with a much more difficult task. 

The opposition to women's short hair was much fiercer than the opposition to short dresses had ever been, as short hair connoted emancipation, female defiance, and rebellion against men's judgment in a way that short skirts never had. During this entire controversy, the voices of women who cut their hair were rarely heard in public. Under heavy fire, most young women seemingly preferred to avoid the discursive battles that raged around them. On the few occasions that any of these women did speak up, they generally adopted a very cautious stance, seeking to diffuse the opposition by reassuring critics of their whole-hearted commitment to femininity and respectable womanhood. 

In 1925, one young woman who described herself as "old-fashioned" despite her short hair thus sought to counter criticisms of the new styles by denying that there was any link between appearance and identity. "Why in the world should a young girl not be equally feminine and good whether she has bobbed hair or long hair?," she wondered. "It does, after all, not change the nature of the young girl to have her hair cut off." More often, young women simply tried to skirt criticisms by emphasizing the very pragmatic concerns that allegedly had led them to the barbershop. "Much can be said both for and against the bobbed hair, but the fact that it is a practical way of wearing one's hair, nobody can deny," one woman argued.

Nonetheless, the relative silence on the part of the women who wore the new hairstyles did not mean that no voices were raised in their defense. Complicating the picture of vocal male opponents and a largely silent group of female supporters, the chief public advocates of short hair for women in the 1920s were in fact male barbers. Not that barbers were a particularly fashion-conscious bunch or especially committed to young women's right to determine their own appearance. These men simply saw the new styles as a means to propel their profession out of the crisis in which it had lingered for decades. 

The rise of the medical and dental professions had dealt the first blow to the former surgeon-barbers, eliminating what had been the most profitable areas of their occupation. Later, when men began to shave themselves rather than frequenting the barber twice or three times weekly, the financial base of most barbershops had been further undercut, and scattered attempts at cultivating new areas of business expertise such as facial massage and manicure had contributed only little to their economy. 

In this context, the fashionable new styles for women seemed a god-send for barbers eager to cultivate both a new clientele and new sources of income, and since women's hairdressers generally opposed the short hairstyles and most often refused to cut women's hair, barbers were left with the uncontested responsibility for providing young women with the look they desired. Of course, barbers were not oblivious to the offense women's short hair provoked or the wrath they might incur by accommodating female customers. 

It was therefore in their own best interest to counter the opposition, and toward that end they adopted the same strategy that fashion advocates had successfully used a few years earlier, namely, to attempt to disassociate short hair from any kind of subversive intentions on the part of women. Short hair, they insisted, had nothing to do with defiance of feminine conventions or even modern fashions. It was a style adopted for reasons of comfort, ease, and practicality only. "It is not the senseless mimicking of fashion follies that has led women to allow their hair to be cut off," one barber thus insisted in 1926. "Rather, it is the natural development in all social strata that has forced the women to choose a practical hairstyle."

To give credibility to this claim, barbers traced the origins of women's short hair not to feminist rebels or decadent fashions, but to that highly respectable, self-sacrificing female heroine, Florence Nightingale. "When a war begins," one writer explained, "masses of younger and older women who wish to be nurses in the army immediately sign up. The healthiest among them are selected, and the first step on the road to their new vocation is to cut their hair as short as men's, first, because the daily care takes too long time, and secondly, because a nurse cannot run around with a zoo of carnivores [sicl] in her long hair." Upon their return, the reasoning continued, admirers adopted similar hair styles. 

Although there was little historical evidence to support such an explanation—after all, Florence Nightingale's reputation had been established during the Crimean War almost three quarters of a century earlier, and few women had followed her example in the intervening years —this argument had several advantages. First, it disassociated short hair from any kind of female defiance. Second, it sought to ground the popularity of the new hairstyles in admirable, patriotic concerns. And third, it tied short hair to notions of health and hygiene. From the mid-1920s, particularly the latter, combined with arguments about the practical requirements of the labor market, formed the core in the defense of women's short hair. 

In addition, barbers also sought to address anxieties over the seeming dissipation of gender differences by calling attention to the cultural and historical versatility of hair styles. In an article entitled "Masculine Girl Hair and Feminine Boy Hair," the author set out to prove that "women have not been 'the long-haired sex' for as long as we believe." A sampling of Greek, Roman, and Persian traditions led him to conclude that "long hair appears just as frequently on men as on women when one examines history, which is why hair has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual character." 

Just as long hair did not make men less masculine, short hair would not eradicate women's femininity. In fact, some argued, it held the potential of actually heightening it by drawing attention to women's fine facial features. "The shape of the face, the beauty of the skin, as well as the soft lines of the neck" were accentuated by short hair, one barber wrote, poetically comparing a woman's face to a "painting [that] is also seen more clearly in a simple frame." In the case of modern dresses, fashion advocates had gradually managed to convince most critics of their compatibility with conventional womanhood. Short hair fared differently. 

Short, simple haircuts for women never gained acceptance in the 1920s, at least not among the men and women who publicly expressed their opinions. The controversy over women's hair only died down at the end of the decade, when a new, modified style of short hair became popular. Ironically, this new short style, which eventually appeased critics, emerged from the beauty salon run by women's hairdressers. Having been entirely unsuccessful in their attempts to coax women into preserving their long hair and eager to regain some of the professional territory lost to barbers, women's hairdressers found themselves forced to dispense with their rejection of the short fashions. 

Still unwilling, however, to embrace the bobbed look, they devised a new strategy. Arguing that short hair unfortunately had been "carried to extremes... by the less cultivated segments of the female population" and was sported by "each and every factory and shop-girl," (middle-class) women were offered a chance to distinguish themselves as "finer ladies" through "feminine and graceful styles with curls and waves" while they were waiting for their hair to grow out again. By fashioning themselves as aides to women concerned with the reestablishment of their femininity and by presenting their care for short hair as a form of damage control, hairdressers were able to legitimize their growing interest in women's new hairstyles. 

With relatively few ideological scruples they were therefore able to plunge into this profitable market during the last years of the 1920s, gradually recapturing the patronage of most women. However, that women left the barbershop and (re)turned to the beauty salon did not indicate that long hair was regaining its popularity. Fashionable hairstyles for women remained short for the rest of the decade. What did change was the way short hair actually looked. Female hairdressers, one fashion columnist noted with applause, did "everything to give the short style a more feminine air than earlier." 

Permanent waves and curls, artificial hair pieces, decorative combs, ribbons, and barrettes all contributed to this goal. This new, feminized version of short hair quickly gained popularity among women interested in variation and possibly weary of public hostility. Within just a few years the original simple, straight styles had virtually been abandoned. Customers, one hairdresser noted with pleasure in 1927, now wanted "to become more feminine, not with completely long hair, but with longer short hair, enough to be curly in the back and around the face .. . so that the repulsive boyish head becomes beautified and more feminine."

Thus, after a brief but troubling intermission where women's adoption of short hair seemed to be blurring gender differences, new curlier versions of bobbed hair marked the reestablishment of gender distinctions in fashionable self-presentation. Even though women continued to cut their hair, the clear stylistic differences between short hair for men and short hair for women soothed critics, and gradually their opposition faded. With their confidence in the stability of sexual difference restored, some of the harshest opponents were even able to admit a few years later that they actually found short hair quite charming and attractive—if not on their wives, then at least on their daughters.”

- Birgitte Soland, “The Emergence of the Modern Look.” in Becoming Modern: Young Women and the Reconstruction of Womanhood in the 1920s