#also like. it suggests gender as a factor matters to the topic | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mirroredmemoriez · 10 months

Text

Amanda Young style and fem whatnot thoughts

Once again here to speak my thoughts that nobody asked for because I love documenting my brain which I have to boot up like a chainsaw. I've spoken about Amanda's appearance before! Going over her outfits throughout the franchise and such and how I believe it kinda symbolises the stages she's at- I am in the firm belief her cutting her hair was almost like a rebirth for example.

However, right now I'm looking at the ''gender representation'' and stylisation side I guess? Which, I want to state- These are my opinions and thoughts and are by no way to say I'm like the only CORRECT view and anyone else's interpretation of Amanda that's different to mine is wrong, because I like seeing everyone's various takes on her character. With that said! I see Amanda as somebody who tries to be feminine, but can't express it truly how she wants? Down to factors such as she can't afford certain things like makeup accessories, and that she needs to have more of a practical wardrobe whilst being an apprentice. Oh! Also having to hide her identity at times. (I also want to slide in the fact that I don't think she's hyper feminine or masculine, honestly? She's just Amanda really, I wouldn't personally put a label on it when it comes to that.)

The first look we get of Amanda, she's in a way more revealing outfit than her future ones whilst working under John. This could just be her style, which to a certain degree I agree on... However there also could be an aspect of performative femininity, seeing as she's not ''reformed'' at this point and it's suggested in the Saw wiki that she has prostituted herself to be able to fund her drug addiction before. Basically, catering to the male gaze to get what she wants. She's wearing a cut off shirt which exposes her shoulders and collar area a lot, something we don't see again until Saw 3- And even then it's still not as cut off as the purple one. Amanda also has fishnets, a skirt and boots on. If I had to say how I view Amanda' style myself, I'd go with Hot Topic thief and or something alternative like ''grungy.'' We've also got the fact she has black nail polish on, eyeliner and more curled out hair- Even when she grows it back, it's not as wavy as it's seen here, so it's possible she's either just heavily dishevelled or she purposely has maybe curled it out a little. Once again, this could possibly be her trying to look more appealing to others by ''grooming'' herself better. However, I also think she wants to just for herself really.

Now, we've got her Saw X look, which to me is the most heavily influenced by John. Amanda has cut off her hair to I guess kinda a pixie-bob cut? A big leap from her previous haircut which had it falling at least over her shoulders if not longer. She's also very bare faced, with no heavily noticeable touches of makeup anywhere to be seen. Her clothes are drastically more practical than her previous outfit. A form fitting shirt, cargo pants and combat boots. The only influence I feel she has on this outfit is the choker and little earring. You can't really blame her for the change though- Amanda just wouldn't be putting time into something like beauty cosmetics or making any fashion statement when she's got shit to do... Y'know like make death traps and kidnap people, activities where the way you look doesn't matter and you wouldn't want your clothes to get caught on something especially.

Before I fully move on to her Saw 2 look, two honourable mentions! These both showcase the fact that nowadays, when Amanda is out and about, she's trying to hide her identity. She can't really draw any attention to herself and that is reflected in what she wears. The Scott Tibbs Documentary look has to be one of my favourites, I love the skull trousers so much and they are definitely something she wears because she likes the LOOK, not just because of ''simplicity.''

(Amanda has them on again in the deleted nightmare scene as well, so it's a recurring piece of her wardrobe.)

(I also think this is her dressing for herself- Compared to her outfits when it comes to the games and abductions)

The pig outfit, though I believe can be slightly stupid at times, due to the fact that it's probably less convenient than whipping on something like a balaclava with a hoodie and a bit more out there visually too- It still does it's main intended job, which is to conceal the identity of the Jigsaw apprentices. With the one I've selected above, this is when Amanda is going to abduct Adam, so obviously this is still pretty early in the timeline? We can see a re-appearance of smudged eye makeup like in her introduction.

TRYING TO GET BACK ON TRACK! Here we have her ''blue'' outfits as I dub them. I'm aware there is a time jump between them, however generally what I have to say for them is the exact same? We can see that Amanda is growing her hair out more and I would say these are very relaxed fits. Saw 2 Amanda has to be one of her most basic outfits I'd say, a plain blue shirt and blue sweatpants to go along with it.... The wiki feet people are going insane too.

WOOOOO! ON TO ANOTHER OF MY FAVOURITE OUTFITS. YOU JUST KNOW SHE STOLE THAT BELT FROM HOT TOPIC I AM SO SORRY! Saw 3 Amanda to me is a mix between something like her look in Saw X and then her look in Saw (2004)- I also love the contrast between it and the Saw 2 look, a blue vs red type feel almost? You're definitely more inclined to see Amanda as intimidating here than in blue. Comparisons aside, let's look at the actual fit this woman has on! Once again, she sports cargo pants with a belt to accompany and combat boots too. The shirt isn't as cut off as the purple one as I stated before, but it leaves a lot of her collar and back area exposed. It's her influence alongside John's- And her almost I wouldn't say rebelling? But defining herself outside of him. If I once again want to go full English teacher analysis... We could make the reach and say that her physically exposing herself is paired with how she emotionally is exposed as well. Her lowest points if you will. BUT! We'll move on from that so I can ramble about some other accessories. Amanda is wearing a gold ring and a watch, nothing too out there but I wanted to point them out seeing as I am covering the WHOLE outfit. Her hair is now at it's original length, once again reinforcing the fact she is almost reverting back to her old style but at the same time redefining it? Hair growth to show personal growth. (Some more honourable mentions.)

Here we have her dress, leather jacket and DBD concept art! First we'll look at the dress. It's honestly really cute to me- The ribbon around her neck just really makes it AMANDA, otherwise there isn't too much to say on the design outside of that and it's colour. Then moving on to the leather jacket, it's something I can definitely see her wearing a lot on top of her other outfits. OK! This is getting super fucking long now, I'll try and finish off soon- I have to say I love the DBD concept art and the in game designs too, I can 100% see where they've taken inspiration from with the outfits. I'm in firm belief Amanda deserves to have her arm sleeves so where they've combined that and the Saw 3 look is URHG YES. I also enjoy their take on her leather look, fleshed out the design more in my opinion. Anyway... If you've somehow gotten all the way down here? Jesus Christ, thanks I guess? I am someone who loves over analysing things and discussing characters/movies like this, so I just couldn't help myself anymore. Oh, and feel free to add on to any of this, whether you agree or disagree! MAL OUT

#amanda young #shawnee smith #saw #saw 2004 #saw x #saw 2 #saw 3 #saw movies #saw franchise #saw headcanons #saw character study #sawposting #jigsaw #jigsaw apprentices #dbd pig #the pig dbd #amanda young dbd #saw art #dbd art

95 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 4 months

Text

By: Eric W. Dolan

Publish: November 21, 2023

youtube

A recent study published in Social Science Quarterly has shed light on an intriguing aspect of our lives—how our physical appearance during our teenage years can impact our future social mobility. Researchers found that being perceived as attractive during adolescence can significantly boost a person’s chances of moving up the social ladder in terms of education, occupation, and income.

We’ve all heard the saying that “looks aren’t everything,” but this study suggests that they might matter more than we think when it comes to social mobility. While previous research has explored various factors influencing social mobility, such as education and family background, the role of physical attractiveness has often been overlooked. This study aimed to fill that gap by examining how physical appearance in adolescence might affect a person’s future opportunities and success.

“My co-author and I became interested in this topic because there is a popular notion that physically attractive individuals have an advantage over others, not only in terms of finding romantic partners, but also in terms of achieving other important outcomes, such as having higher incomes,” explained study author Alexi Gugushvili, a professor at the University of Oslo. “Yet, we couldn’t find many studies which would show if attractiveness really helps to improve individuals’ socioeconomic position when compared to their parents.”

To conduct the study, researchers analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which involved over 20,000 adolescents in the United States. They looked at information from three different waves of data collection, spanning from the mid-1990s to the late 2010s.

The researchers assessed the participants’ physical attractiveness using interviewer ratings obtained during the first wave of data collection when the respondents were aged 12-19. The attractiveness ratings ranged from “very unattractive” to “very attractive.” These ratings were used to gauge the participants’ physical attractiveness during their adolescent years.

To measure social mobility, the researchers compared the educational, occupational, and income attainment of these adolescents in adulthood with the socioeconomic status of their parents. This allowed them to determine whether individuals had moved up or down the socioeconomic ladder compared to their parents.

The researchers found that individuals who were rated as attractive or very attractive during their adolescent years were more likely to experience upward social mobility in terms of education, occupation, and income when they became adults. This effect was significant even after accounting for various factors such as socioeconomic background, cognitive abilities, personality traits, health, and neighborhood characteristics.

“Despite decades of research on how some individuals climb the social ladder in comparison to their parents, many important characteristics that can facilitate intergenerational social mobility are not well understood,” Gugushvili told PsyPost. “In the present study, we showed that being physically attractive helps individuals be better educated, have more prestigious jobs, and earn higher incomes when compared to their parents.”

The study also uncovered gender differences in the impact of physical attractiveness on social mobility. While physical attractiveness mattered for both males and females, it appeared to have a stronger influence on males’ educational and income mobility compared to females. For females, the effect of physical attractiveness on occupational mobility was less pronounced.

“The most surprising finding of the study was that physical attractiveness appears to matter more for males than females,” Gugushvili said.

But the study, like all research, includes some caveats. For instance, the researchers relied on interviewers’ assessments of physical attractiveness, which may not be a perfect measure. Additionally, factors influencing attractiveness and social mobility could be intertwined in complex ways. Future research could delve deeper into understanding the mechanisms through which physical attractiveness affects social mobility and explore whether these effects persist over time.

“I think it is particularly interesting to study how and why males benefit more from their looks than females, and if the same association also holds in countries other than the United States,” Gugushvili said.

The study, “Physical attractiveness and intergenerational social mobility“, was authored by Alexi Gugushvili and Grzegorz Bulczak.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ssqu.13320

Abstract

Objective Physical attractiveness is often studied in relation to various life outcomes, but there is a lack of research on its links to intergenerational educational, occupational, and income mobility. Individuals may use physical attractiveness as one of the channels for experiencing upward or avoiding downward social mobility.

Methods Using data about 11,583 individuals from the United States National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, we contribute to the existing scholarship by investigating if physical attractiveness, assessed when individuals are around 15 years old, is an important predictor of intergenerational social mobility measured after 20 years.

Results We find that physical attractiveness matters both for males’ and females’ intergenerational social mobility outcomes, but it is more important for males, even when childhood characteristics, such as various aspects of parental socioeconomic position, individuals’ health, a proxy for IQ, neighborhood conditions, and interviewers’ fixed effects, are accounted for using imputed data for observations with missing information. Across three measures of social mobility—education, occupation, and income—physically attractive males are more likely to be socially mobile than males of average attractiveness.

Conclusion Physical attractiveness is an independent predictor of intergenerational social mobility outcomes regarding individuals’ educational, occupational, and income attainment.

#Eric W. Dolan #attractiveness #socioeconomics #physical attractiveness #social mobility #psychology #human psychology #religion is a mental illness

4 notes · View notes

opinated-user · 2 years

Note

I do find that over time lily is in some aspects becoming more conservative. Like now she's saying that women who have a degradation kink or want to be traditionally sexy are broken and need therapy (coughChurchcough). That she doesn't like that kink anymore because she's being healed by therapy.

LO tries to boil things down into easy, black and white, good or bad thinking, even when it's not.

Could a kink be caused by trauma/ poor self esteem? Yes. Is it always? No. Everyone has to decide that for themselves.

It's the same with "sexy women". Yes it can be degrading and perpetuated by shitty men/ the patriarchy, but that doesn't mean every lady who wants to where booty shorts or show off their boobs is brainwashed by it. Or that it can't be empowering for some. It's not a one size fits all topic, especially when doing so removes a woman's agency to choose and instead suggests they're all to traumatized to make the choice themselves.

she was already spreading radgem rethoric concerning gender and weaponizing it even against other trans people, so i guess it was only a matter of time before she also joined SWERF (specifically anti-kink or "kink critical") rethoric. for a while now LO has been pushing the idea that she stopped being hypersexual in public a year ago (lie) and that came to a stop for no particular reason. i do believe this is entirely some new narrative to discredit EOT's videos on her and that's also a big factor into why she's saying that now about her kinks too. if you pay attention to the way she's even speaking about this, it's making it sound like LO's blaming everyone else but herself about her creepy behaviour. she had no responsability because she was suffering with so much trauma and confusion that everyone around her did nothing to help her with. only through going to therapy (her one hour monthly session because she couldn't afford anything else, remember) did she realize how much she has been failed by everyone and how harmful that behaviour was. she's a victim, actually. as always. she had no fault that she was openly inviting a fan to come have a quickie to her home during a stream. she had no fault for sharing porn on a stream open for all ages. she had no fault on her multiple inappropiate sexual jokes, flash herself three times, one with her wife, because she was a victim and you should feel sorry for her, not hold her accountable for the huge risk she put her underage followers go through. take all of this as what it is: damage control. she's desperate to convince her audience that she's not the creepy predator that she actually is and has been for a long while, but just a innocent woman who has suffered so much and only now is finally doing things right. don't fall for it.

#lily orchard

28 notes · View notes

ailedhoo · 2 years

Text

Pondering on Feminism and What Can be Learned from a Recent Discourse

A recent discourse has made rounds on Twitter by a David, who has taken a buzzwording on the topic of ‘discrimination against men’ as it were. He had argued the Left (which as a term something I will need to dissect later) is ‘too mean to men.’ At the same we have figures to take a high ground that reeks of centralism, trying to use this on topic of ‘countering cultic recruitment’ (with the key speakers of this, Vaush, is actually done opposite with his platforming of fascists while engaging in bigotries) and try to mark the ‘opposition’ (AKA the feminists calling David out) as a mob that is not acting ‘adult’ (’funny’ women get infantized).

This has indeed ugly turnings but there are elements can be salvaged, but in a way that demands we realise that the negative expression men face are a by-product of patriarchal systems.

I am reminded of a article by William Gillis on the abuser manifesto "Conflict is Not Abuse" by Sarah Schulman; I do recommend one read the article, One Giant Red Flag, Folded Into A Book. Anyway in the article Gillis makes a very good talk on the topic of power, concepting that:

The ideology of domination is absolutely founded in a drive for stasis and isolation. Power – at every scale – is about reducing complexity in the world, simplifying to what can be controlled, what can be made rigid. The drive for power is deeply tied to a fear of the complexity created by other people having choices and thinking for themselves. Nationalism is a great expression of this: violently slicing through the complex tangle of actually existing human relationships and creating prisons in which to contain people, limiting their choice in possible relationships.

Power hates ‘complexities’ and it many ways this is a good way to conceptualise the system of patriarchy that oppresses women and does harm men too.

Power likes to treat people in over simple manners to use them and patriarchy can make things simple by turning people into this and that, in tight boxes which is enforced many methodologies, a load of them with the threat and usage of violence. Under patriarchy women are restricted by power. The same systems also requires a ordering of men to ensure they maintain to their function (particularly remember as this sits alongside class, racism and other elements to keep things ‘simple.’) Those men who do not uphold the standards face great penalties, for none shall go outside the box be the motto of power, in many ways. The fear of complexity is such as no method of containing deviation from the boxes is too great.

It would requires it own greater project to further develop from this but yo can see where I am aiming for.

Patriarchy is harmful to all, including men who are dictated by its standards but it necessary to remember its function in denial of the agency of, to put it mildly, big proportion of the population. In order to full dissect where David follied, is that he blamed feminists rather than investigate the systematic matters in ploy. At best he has taken a failure to realise, that worse he has not unlearned his bigotries.

Anyhow: men will find that feminism can help too, for I recommend one reads the following works by bell hooks: The Will to Change which talks about love and masculinity, as well as Feminism is for Everybody which talks on the enduring importance of feminism.

I also suggest in light of the discourse that the book zoom Fractured: Race, Class, Gender and the Hatred of Identity Politics by Michael Richmond & Alex Charnley needs to be read, in order to help avoid the pitfalls of status quoism. Their book is also good for its sections of Black Feminism in the USA and UK.

Longer pieces would be needed to fully address but the prime factor is that feminism is for all.

As for Vaush of course the platformer of fascists would have a dog in the race, as it were, in regards to this. The funny thing is that the figure he uses, Tate, has fallen recently by hands of him being angry at Thunberg to the point that he made a error in his rant video of a pizza box. Anyhow, the fact that certain figure is taking a “critical thinking requires to take his word...” approach is a pointless abstraction and a sign of not judging motive and not realising one can take elements without criteria to those to do so for objective that would be damaging to causes of liberation.

Feminism is a very significant ingredient to liberation.

#feminism #discourse #politics #power #society #book recommendations

4 notes · View notes

diversityintoys · 1 year

Text

How Do Diversity Toys Help Your Children With Their Worldview?

Given the current state of the world, it's evident that all kids must be exposed to diversity as early as possible. Diversity is one topic that might inspire hesitation amongst many parents, but settling the foundation for cultural diversity and inclusivity is easier than you think.

The best way you can do this is via interactive play. Using diversity toys to introduce your children to people from different cultures can help you teach your kids about diversity without offending someone's feelings.

Diversity Toys: How Do They Help Represent Minorities?

Getting diversity toys for your children allows them access to toys and dolls that represent individuals of a range of ethnicities, races, and genders. However, a few other aspects of diversity could be challenging to represent without a backstory. For those, we suggest you introduce books.

An inclusive toy box can help all parents promote positive gender, cultural, and racial identity development among kids. All children must see themselves being reflected in the life around them, including their idols and toys. Remember, the lack of proper representation in your child's box could send a harmful message to your child, like "I don't look good enough to be included" and "People who don't look like me don't matter."

They Promote Inclusion

Diversity toys help you promote inclusion by making every member of the marginalized groups much more visible in your child's day-to-day life. They also give your kids more models that reflect and represent themselves.

Such messages can seriously impact a child's self-worth and promote stereotypes. You, as parents, should also remember that not all messages your child receives are verbal. Exposing your kids to diversity at a young age can significantly improve their outlook on the world.

Speak To Your Children About Diversity.

Children start to understand and notice the world around them early in life. When you finally expose your kids to the real world, it's only natural for them to have questions like why some people look so different. These questions are valid and essential for their overall development and growth.

Suppose you want your children to acknowledge, understand, and accept diversity honestly. In that case, start by helping them better explore their identity to the point where they develop self-love and self-awareness.

To do this, you should use every opportunity and tool to help them recognize their identity, culture, background, and other factors that make them who they are. The best way to do this is by using ethnic dolls..

Start giving your kids diverse toys that allow them to explore all various perspectives and identities. You can also find novels and books portraying all types of kids and families and place them around your house. Some parents also use magazines and pictures that depict people from different parts of the world to reflect diversity better.

All parents must make a conscious effort to help their kids explore their playtime productively. Your kids should feel dignified and honoured when learning about diversity. They should understand that being different is okay and feel empowered.

#ethnic dolls #sensory toy

0 notes

comrade-meow · 3 years

Link

Why a hand gesture has South Korean companies on edge 👌

It took three years for players to notice the "offensive" hand gesture lurking in one of South Korea's most popular multiplayer games.

When players made their avatars laugh, talk or give the "OK" sign in "Lost Ark," they clicked an icon featuring a gesture that might have appeared benign to many: an index finger nearly touching a thumb.

But some of "Lost Ark's" users began claiming in August that the gesture was a sexist insult against men, and they demanded its removal.

What happened next underscores a trend in South Korea among anti-feminists, who have been increasingly pushing companies to repent for what they see as a conspiracy within the government and private companies to promote a feminist agenda.

Smilegate — the creator of "Lost Ark" and one of South Korea's biggest video game developers — quickly complied with the requests for removal. The company removed the icon from the game, and vowed to be more vigilant about policing "game-unrelated controversies" in their products.

A gender war has been unfolding in South Korea for years, pitting feminists against angry young men who feel they're being left behind as the country seeks to address gender inequality.

Now, though, the latest development in this war is reaching a fever pitch. Since May, more than 20 brands and government organizations have removed what some see as feminist symbols from their products, after mounting pressure. At least 12 of those brands or organizations have issued an apology to placate male customers.

Anti-feminism has a years-long history in South Korea, and research suggests that such sentiments are taking hold among the country's young men. In May, the Korean marketing and research firm Hankook Research said it found that more than 77% of men in their twenties and more than 73% of men in their 30s were "repulsed by feminists or feminism," according to a survey. (The firm surveyed 3,000 adults, half of whom were men.)

The fact that corporations are responding to pressure to modify their products suggests that these anti-feminists are gaining influence in a country that is already struggling with gender issues. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development says that South Korea has by far the largest gender wage gap among OECD countries. And roughly 5% of board members at publicly listed companies in the country are women compared to the OECD average of nearly 27%.

A suspicious sausage

The online firestorm that has spread across South Korea's corporate landscape kicked off in May with a simple camping advertisement.

GS25, one of the country's biggest convenience store chains, released an ad that month enticing customers to order camping food on their app, promising free items as a reward. The ad showed an index finger and a thumb appearing to pinch a sausage. The finger-pinching motif is frequently used in advertising as a way to hold an item without obscuring the product.

Critics, though, saw something different in that hand signal. They accused it of being a code for feminist sympathies, tracing the use of the finger-pinching motif to 2015, when the symbol was co-opted by Megalia, a now-defunct feminist online community, to ridicule the size of Korean men's genitals.

Megalia has since shut down, but its logo has outlived the group. Now anti-feminists are trying to purge South Korea of its existence.

Source: Megalia, @starbucksrtd/Instagram, @gs25_official/Instagram

GS25 removed the hand symbol from the poster. But critics still weren't satisfied, and began trawling the advertisement for other feminist clues. One person pointed out that the last letter of each word featured on the poster — "Emotional Camping Must-have Item" — spelled "Megal," a shorthand for "Megalia," when read backward.

GS25 removed the text from the poster, but that still wasn't enough. People theorized that even the moon in the background of the poster was a feminist symbol, because a moon is used as the logo of a feminist scholar organization in South Korea.

After revising the poster multiple times, GS eventually pulled it entirely, just a day after the campaign launched. The company apologized and promised a better editorial process. It also said it reprimanded the staff responsible for the ad, and removed the marketing team leader.

The online mob had tasted success, and it wanted more.

Other companies and government organizations soon became targets. The online fashion retailer Musinsa was criticized for offering women-only discounts, as well as using the finger-pinching motif in an ad for a credit card. The company defended the use of that motif as a neutral element regularly used in advertising, and said its discount program was meant to help expand its small female customer base. Still, founder and CEO Cho Man-ho stepped down after the backlash.

South Korean demonstrators hold banners during a rally to mark International Women's Day as part of the country's #MeToo movement in Seoul on March 8, 2018. Dongsuh, the Korean company that licenses a Starbucks ready-to-drink line in the country, was attacked in July after one of its Korean Instagram accounts published an image of fingers pinching a can of coffee. The company pulled the ad and apologized, saying that it "considers these matters seriously." The firm also said the image had no hidden intent.

Even local governments have been caught up in the pressure campaign. The Pyeongtaek city government was criticized in August after uploading an image to its Instagram account that warned residents of a heatwave. It used an illustration of a farmer wiping his forehead — and critics noticed that the farmer's hand was shaped similarly to the finger pinch.

"How deeply did [feminists] infiltrate?" one person wrote on MLB Park, an internet forum used primarily by men. Another person shared contact information for the city government, encouraging people to flood their channels with complaints. The image was later removed from the Instagram account.

Gender wars

At the core of the anti-feminist campaign is a widespread fear among young men that they are falling behind their female peers, according to Professor Park Ju-yeon, professor of sociology at Yonsei University.

The sentiment has grown because of a hyper competitive job market and skyrocketing housing prices. The government has also rolled out programs in recent years to bring more women into the workforce. Proponents of those programs have said they're necessary for closing gender gaps, but some men have worried they give women an unfair advantage.

Another compounding factor: Unlike women, men in South Korea have to complete up to 21 months of military service before they're 28 years old — a sore point for some men who feel unfairly burdened.

Anti-feminists have also taken umbrage with President Moon Jae-in, who, when elected in 2017, promised to be a "feminist president." Moon pledged to fix the systemic and cultural barriers that prevented women from participating more in the workforce. He also vowed to address sexual crimes in the wake of the global #MeToo movement.

This year's corporate pressure campaign adds another complication, as brands weigh the possible fallout.

Young men are "big spenders," said Professor Choi Jae-seob, a marketing professor at Namseoul University in Seoul. He added that many young people today are driven by personal political values when they buy things.

Ha, a 23-year-old university student, said he pays attention to what companies say about gender issues before making a purchase.

"Between two stores, I would use the one that doesn't support [feminism]," said Ha, who declined to give his full name because he said that gender is a thorny topic among his peers.

Ha said he's far from alone. When his friends were discussing the GS25 camping poster, for example, he was surprised to find that many of them felt the way he did: "I realized that many men were silently seething."

"I realized that many men were silently seething."Ha, a 23-year-old university student

The gender war leaves companies in a tough spot, according to Noh Yeong-woo, a consultant at the public relations agency PR One.

By not responding to allegations that they are taking a stance on gender issues, that could lead to what Noh called a "constant barrage of accusation" and the creation of a stigma. It also means that companies are actively monitoring online groups and studying what their users have designated as hidden codes or associations, to avoid being called out.

"They are continuously checking for the next problematic symbols," Noh said of brands in South Korea.

Stigmas and fighting back

Some women, though, say that the corporate apologies are also creating a climate where some people are afraid to identify as feminist.

"It's the new Red Scare. Like McCarthyism," said Yonsei University's Park, referring to the mass hysteria to root out communists in the United States in the 1950s.

Lee Ye-rin, a college student, said she has been a feminist since middle school. But in recent years she has found it impossible to be open about her stance.

"It's the new Red Scare. Like McCarthyism."Professor Park Ju-yeon, professor of sociology at Yonsei University

She recalled an incident in high school, when some boys openly heckled a feminist friend of hers while that friend was giving a class presentation on the depiction of women in the media. Lee and her classmates were too scared to defend the friend.

"We all knew that a person who would step up and say that feminism is not some weird thing would be stigmatized, too," Lee said.

In response to this year's anti-feminist pressure campaigns, though, some feminists have been fighting back. The apology over the camping poster from GS25, for example, prompted feminists to call for boycotts against the company. Some people shared images online of themselves shopping at rival stores, using hashtags that called on people to avoid shopping at GS25.

Balancing act

As there doesn't seem to be much hope of finding middle ground for those waging South Korea's gender war, experts say companies have to figure out ways to avoid being dragged into a brand-damaging fight.

Noh, from PR One, encouraged companies and organizations to educate their employees on gender sensitivity — and even reconsider the use of symbols that have become heavily politicized.

Finger-pinching motifs "are images with complex metaphors and symbols and they already carry a social stigma," he said. "So, once you get involved in it, it's hard to explain them away ... the issue keeps spreading until they are removed as demanded."

Park, the Yonsei University professor, said that part of the problem is that many South Korean companies are led by older men who don't have a firm grasp of present-day gender issues. The average age of an executive-level employee at the country's top 30 publicly traded companies is 53, according to a 2020 analysis by JobKorea, a Korean version of LinkedIn.

That suggests a level of irony. Maybe it's not that some of these companies have a specific agenda, as online critics are accusing them. Perhaps for some of them, high levels of leadership are just not in tune with the debate.

To Park, the vitriol directed at companies has also buried some of the underlying, systemic issues that contribute to gender inequality, along with debates about how best to crack the glass ceiling or address the division of labor at home, among other concerns.

"Some very important debates are being buried," Park said, adding that today's gender war is being fought on the tip of the "iceberg." "It's not a fight about the fingers."

#Anglo.txt #lmao it's this again #👌

60 notes · View notes

tocrackerboxpalace · 3 years

Note

I always find it interesting how Paul goes out of his way to say that he “likes the theory” that john could’ve been in love with him and of course the “he would’ve made a pass at me” shtick. Like sir…. what straight man likes the idea of their male best friend being in love with them? I guess someone could say both quotes are just examples of his big ego but having your best friend being in love with you if it’s unrequited is awkward as hell and we all know Paul hates when things are awkward and anything but perfectly friendly

Hi! I’m so sorry this has taken so long, I lost the ask for quite a while but I found it in my drafts just now (hooray!)

We're going to start with a disclaimer here that I personally think that John and Paul are perhaps the most complicated people you could ever study in history. Trying to psychoanalyze anyone, whether it be your parents, friends, self, etc. is an incredibly daunting task, because 'people' are nuanced in ways we will never understand no matter how many scientific strides we make towards doing so. Take any of the countless environmental factors that affect behavior: parents (attachments, involvement, punitive styles, parenting styles); sociocultural/historical context (primarily gender role socialization and sexuality, for our purposes); mind-altering substances (drugs/pills/alcohol, addictions); mental health (views on mental health, eating disorders, depression); identity theory and stages of psychosocial development; the list goes on and on. Now, consider all of these psychological and sociological developments in the context of John Lennon and Paul McCartney—who experienced all of these things that the rest of us do—but add a historical, unprecedented and unsurpassed level of fame, wealth, publicity, and public transparency.

All that being said, here's a little psychoanalysis.

I think you’ve nailed it, because up front: Paul is not immovably heterosexual. I tend to disagree with the label, anyway, because sexuality is a spectrum and it hardly makes sense to categorize it when it is both fluid and indefinite. What I mean when I say this about Paul is that sexuality is a social construct, in that what is “straight” is defined by place, time, and human interaction. But we’ll get into the messy implications of that in a second.

First things first, yes anon. I absolutely agree with you. Paul, lovely Paul, is so so interesting when it comes to the topic of sexuality (particularly John's, secondarily his own). For example, as you mention, Paul stating openly that he enjoys the idea of John being attracted to him, in a sexual manner that assumes a very particular power dynamic. Considering the many times that Paul openly denies any romantic linking between himself and John, this is a troubling development indeed—why would someone who is so adamant about denying romantic involvement also almost proudly flaunt sexual suggestion?

I use the term “romantic” here as in conceptualized Romantic Love, because I think it’s important to define the type of “love” that Paul is cornered by in the linked Stern interview. There’s a great paper by Dion & Dion (1996) called ‘Cultural perspectives on romantic love’, and it defines “romantic love” within the following parameters: idealization of the partner, suddenness of onset, physiological arousal, commitment to the well-being of the other, intense attraction involving idealization (typically in an erotic context, but not necessarily), expectations of the endurance of the relationship, preoccupation with the partner, belief that the experience of love has a special quality, and lastly, passionate experience. Take a breath.

Now, note that it never actually mentions physical involvement, namely just infatuation, idealization, and arousal. It makes a lot of sense why Paul would frame Stern’s questions in this light—writing songs for one another and calling them the “love of your life” is heavily implicated in this type of romanticism—and thus be extremely put off by it. But, looking in as outsiders, I think it’s safe to say that John and Paul’s relationship more than meets the “criteria”, if you will, for romantic love. The infatuation, commitment, idealization, preoccupation, etc. etc. is painfully evident in their relationship, what with their inside interactions and exclusivity. The part I could foresee being argued is the arousal and physiological attraction, but even then I would point to both of their accounts on meeting each other for the first time: Paul saying John looked suave without his glasses, and John saying he dug Paul ‘cause he looked like Elvis (y’know, like one of the biggest sex symbols of the era?). I know this part’s not super scientific-y, but come on. For all you immovable heterosexuals out there, how often do you meet a Potential Friend and only talk about how fuckin’ hot they looked the day you met them like it’s a flashbulb memory? Paul literally talks about remembering the exact shirt and hairstyle John had at the fête.

So, we often see interviews like this: where Paul will be like “Never mind the new album. John, though, isn’t that something. Gorgeous man. Love that guy to death”, the reporter will be like, “Ah, yes, so you loved him?”, and Paul will say, “Wtf? Stop putting words in my mouth?”

Why might he do this?

Paul grew up in the 1950′s and 60′s in Liverpool, a region where homosexuality would remain criminalized until 1967. I feel like I can’t emphasize the historical context enough sometimes. Paul had his beliefs, attitudes, and values shaped by a society that condemned and actively prosecuted homosexuality. And, as we well know in our own experiences with legislature, simply passing an act or law or what have you does NOT inherently alter society’s perception. In fact, prosecutions of homosexuality reportedly increased in the months following the Sexual Offences Act 1967. Some writers argue that homosexuality is still not decriminalized, and persecution is simply operating under other names like “public indecency” charges or “the gay age of consent”.

I believe this clash is where Paul’s cognitive dissonance comes in. Regardless of whether or not homosexuality was “illegal” for the majority of Paul’s life, his formative years occurred in a time period where a specific behavior/feeling was demonized. If you were raised under the resounding ideology that “gay = wrong”, it’s going to be extremely difficult for you to adapt when something suddenly says, “hey! gay = not wrong.” If you, as an adolescent, are constantly being fed that homosexual thoughts, feelings, and actions are sinful (religiously-based), morally wrong (socially-based), or legally wrong, experiencing those very things, no matter the magnitude, is harrowing and sickening. You won’t want to believe it, and you’ll do a lot of things to trick yourself into loopholes.

And, it’s not just the “morality” of homosexuality, either. It’s what homosexuality means. As I mentioned at the start, sexuality is a social construct and what’s “straight” now may not be what was “straight” fifty years ago. For example, take the ancient Greek custom of pederasty, where adult men would sleep with young, often teenage, boys. This wasn’t a matter of “homosexuality”, but rather (depending on the context) a social custom, a “rite of passage”, and even a female exclusion tactic. That’s a weird, warped, hypersexual example, but it emphasizes the point of historical context: that “custom” in today’s society would be considered both homosexual and pedophilic. Same thing goes for the circle jerks, really, in emphasizing the social context: even though it’s a sexual act in a room full of men, it’s not polyamory or homosexual if they’re just “getting off” or “passing the time” or “boys being boys”. This is important, because the way that homosexuality had been explicitly defined in terms of the law (which, in turn, had its effects on societal perception) was largely sodomy. Since this was the case, it would make perfect sense for Paul to consider kissing/touching/mutual masturbation/handjobs and actual homosexuality (read: oral stimulation or anal penetration) mutually exclusive. It’s so easy to get caught up in technicalities when systems formulate sexuality as this kind of binary, in what “is” part of the sexuality and what “is not”. Paul can say that John’s not a homosexual, because John never fucked him. Paul can say that he’s immovably heterosexual, because whatever happened with John wasn’t defined as “gay”. And the same goes for reconciling these feelings with himself: they’re not gay, because gay means getting buggered or sucking off your mate.

I think this is where Paul’s background and foreground intersect and why we see such conflicting stances on John with regards to love.

If you’re unfamiliar with cognitive dissonance, the main premise is this: someone has thoughts that don’t reflect their actions, and that brings about an uneasiness within the person. Paul is happy to talk about John for hours, to write about John (Oh, man, who has the quote of Paul saying he could write songs about John and always deny it? I’m too lazy to sift through my likes), to talk about how fit he looked when he saw him 60+ years ago, to mention the “deeper love that neither of them could admit to”. Those are the manifestations of the thoughts (which, really, we’re lucky to have, because I feel as though Paul allows us only a sliver of his truest thoughts and feelings—very self-policed media presence, as I’ve mentioned before). The actions are then, in turn, denying what is so clearly an expression of love and chalking it up to “bein’ mates” or whatever the hell. John and Paul had a love of cosmic proportions that we—fans, historians, biographers, even their peers—will never truly be able to comprehend. The fact that this is experienced by Paul and yet he works so hard to trivialize it creates that unease that we see when he directly contradicts himself over and over again, rambles on about an unrelated topic, or becomes incredibly (almost bitterly) defensive. If we wanted to get theoretical, we can also operate under the assumption that Paul experienced this same cognitive dissonance in the reverse format: telling himself that he was clearly straight while experimenting with John, and then panicking in India or wherever if John tried to take a step to produce an actual, tangible relationship.

In long-winded closing, I do think it’s possible for Paul’s behavior to be a result of his massive ego [affectionate], and I wouldn’t excuse it from at least playing a part. There’s never any one cause for these things. However, considering all these sociological and psychological factors, I think it’s more likely that these conflicting and strange accounts are exactly as he hints at: a larger phenomenon that he couldn’t admit to. It’s fun to hear that someone loves you, or is attracted to you! He publicly enjoys the idea of John being in love with him, but only to an extent. As soon as you suggest reciprocation on his part, it crumbles and the defense mechanisms kick in.

It’s all about plausible deniability: much of his discussion on John could, potentially, be re-construed as platonic, the “sexual attraction” thing a power play, the songs about something/someone else. His biggest defense is the “would have made a pass at me” schtick, because to Paul, that’s plausible: “Uh, c’mon, love. If he didn’t want me, he didn’t want anyone.” It’s also a bit of that famous McCartney gatekeeping I love so much, that “if John were ever going to get experimental, who would you think he’d go for first?” Because again, to Paul, that seems the most likely way to get the press off of their backs whilst simultaneously protecting his own sexuality, because it implies that John never tried anything and thus that neither(!) of them were in a position to try anything. He gets defensive because there’s that ever-present tug-of-war between his feelings towards John/what they meant, and what he allowed himself to do with/say about John, which is all influenced by his social and historical contexts.

Okay, the end! (I promise this time.) This was a lot and I hope it 1) makes sense, and 2) makes up for the awful response time :) Thanks so much for your comment!

#paul mccartney #john lennon #paul psyche #cw pederasty #psychoanalysis #sociological analysis #this is not so little i lied before the cut #asks #:)#@sunflouwersea here's your psychoanalysis love

52 notes · View notes

fellowstrangetownappreciator · 3 years

Text

Curious and autistic-coded

Hello there! April draws to an end and with that I think it’s high time to hurry up and write this. What does April have to do with anything, you ask? April is the Autism Acceptance Month. So what better month to do this?

Unfortunately I didn’t make it. I failed. It’s already 1. 5. when I’m posting this. But at least I tried to deliver on time.

In this mini essay I’ll present my case about why I think the Curious brothers from TS2 Strangetown display autistic-coded traits and my personal takes on it.

It’s basically your average headcanon post but with a funny top hat!

0: Preface: What do I mean by “autistic-coded”?

When a character is coded as something, it means that they have traits that are associated with the demographics in question to make the consumer knowingly or not link the character with the demographic, although the character's "label” is never explicitly disclosed.

In the nutshell, it means that there are canonical reasons to read the characters as autistic, although you won't find the word "autism" anywhere in the game nor in the developer's commentary.

In this particular case I do believe that the developer may not even be aware of the code, as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. If there is, I’m not aware of it and I would be happy to learn.

So, let’s start!

1: “The white male who is very good at science”

Unfortunately autistic representation in pop-culture has a long history of being rather straightforward in which traits the characters often have. This stems from the belief that autism is “a boy’s disorder” (that’s why some autism charities to this day use blue in their symbols). Among popular examples of autistic-coded characters are Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon Cooper and Death Note’s L and Near. I’m sure you can think of more but you’ll find that most of them are men and either explicitly white or racially ambiguous white-passing. They also tend to be gifted in tech, logic or other science-y activities.

There’s nothing wrong with that! Nothing wrong with being an autistic with those “stereotypical” characteristics and there is nothing wrong with people being represented. What is wrong is the monotony and afab people/people of color being underrepresented which leads (among other factors) to harder access to diagnosis and resources for those people in real life. But! That’s a topic for a different day. (and not for a simbrl, mind you)

Back to the Curiouses! I just wanted to say that autism in media is traditionally associated with characters whose gender presentation, race and interests align with theirs. Those characteristic thus make a very convenient template for autistic-coding.

2: Inconsistent performance, huge gaps between strengths and weaknesses

Pascal, Vidcund and Lazlo are very skilled Sims by default, extraordinarily even for their age. Pascal has a skill maxed while his younger brothers both near maxing theirs.

But as you can see in Pascal’s default skill panel, apart from Creativity, all his other skills are extremely low, 0 points for Mechanical, Body and Charisma, 1 point for Cooking and Logic and his second best skill, Cleaning, has only 3 points. The same situation can be observed in Vidcund’s and Lazlo’s, except their strong suits are Logic and Cooking respectively.

Huge discrepancies within performance in different cognitive areas is a common trait found in those on the autism spectrum. We’re often talking extremes here and the scale of the difference is the defining factor. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, it’s just in neurodivergent people those tend to be unusually noticeable.

I think that skills, simplified as they are, are the closest The Sims has to possibly simulate that because they track the character’s performance and expertise in different areas and allow comparison. In real life, of course, this comparison is not nearly as possible and exact, nor desired, but for all our analysis-loving enthusiasm, here we’re still talking fictional characters.

3: Struggle with social cues

It is widely known that one of autistic traits are difficulties with processing social situations, picking social cues and successfully replicating socially desired behavioral patterns.

But these three are Sims, are they not? They cannot possibly display this trait, since they’re programmed the same way as others.

Yes and no.

It is true that there is no specific in-game feature that would allow Sims to behave with explicit neurodivergency in mind* but with the right combination of traits they can simulate behavior that really hits close to home for neurodivergent players.

*at least not in TS2, TS3 has traits that simulate some possible neurodivergencies but their names tend to be rather... ableist unfortunate and they’re not relevant to this post since they’re not autism related, and even if they were, we’re focusing on TS2 exclusively

Let’s take look at Lazlo here. He is, indeed, a playful soul. He likes to goof around, tell jokes, make others laugh. And since he’s very close to his brother Vidcund, close enough even to Tell Dirty Joke (an interaction that needs quite a high relationship to unlock), he autonomously does just that.

And oh boy, does Vidcund disapprove.

From my personal experience playing them, their relationship usually takes quite a hit from every cheeky joke Lazlo throws Vid’s way. They usually autonomously repair it very quick but it happens often.

But that’s a standard behavior. Vidcund’s very serious, he doesn’t take well to jokes.

No. I mean technically yes, Vid is definitely a grumpy old plant dad but, at least in my game, he tends to accept Lazlo’s jokes. All kinds of them, actually, except for the dirty ones. And Pascal, who technically has even lower Playful points (0 in comparison to Vidcund’s 4), doesn’t seem to mind Lazlo’s poor attempts at grown-up humor.

But! What is it that makes Lazlo try still? What drives him to attempt to make Vidcund laugh with a dirty joke over and over again? (and fail?)

I my interpretation, Lazlo doesn’t do that on purpose, he is just really poor at evaluating “dirtiness” of a given joke and frequently misinterprets Vidcund’s cues. The animation of a dirty joke being rejected even supports that as Vid doesn’t signal his discomfort with any exaggerated easy-to-read facial expression until Lazlo gets to his punchline.

No only that but as I mentioned, the invisible lines between spicy and too vulgar are often hard to thread. I can recall many times I thought I was saying a witty quip on an “adult” topic and was met with awkward silence or someone shushing me because “that’s not how you speak in public”. I can well imagine myself in Lazlo’s shoes.

A situation of social cues being misinterpreted or ignored can be observed also in Vidcund. Programming-wise, those are just his low Niceness and extreme Shyness showing but combined they again paint a picture of a very neurodivergent-looking behavioral pattern.

He often behaves like the concept of politeness or social rules doesn’t exist because the combination of the aforementioned traits makes him come off very blunt (lecturing and shoving telescope-peepers with no warning whatsoever) and distant (having a high chance of rejecting simple small-talk socials).

(That’s Jasmine Rai casting the “Summon Vidcund” spell.)

Yes, I am fully aware that it makes a stronger case for him being an a**hole than autistic but... there’s no reason he can’t be both. Not all autistic people are sweet cinnamon buns, all personalities you can think of can be neurodiverse and, for some their neurodiversity can even amplify their inconsiderate ways, as I believe it is the case with our dear grouch Vidcund.

4. Their bios

“No matter what happens, Pascal believes there is a logical explanation for everything. In his free time, he practices home psychoanalysis and collects conspiracy theories.”

(that’s how I imagine practicing psychoanalysis looks like, sorry Freud)

“Serious and exact, Vidcund strives to fit the universe into a nice tidy package. He has an unnatural fondness for African violets.”

(let’s collectively pretend those are African violets)

“Not as studious as his older brothers, Lazlo got his degree in Phrenology. He likes to call phone psychics and spends hours trying to bend forks with his mind.”

*error: screenshot of Lazlo bending forks not found*

(but here he is hanging out with Erin Beaker, the closest thing to “calling phone psychics” you can actually do in-game)

Both Pascal’s and Vidcund’s bios point to a pattern-focused worldview with a strong emphasis on rationality as the center-point that anchors the way they understand the world around them and build their principles on. This “pattern-ization” of thinking is a common autistic trait, with rationality being a popular theme because emotions tend to be difficult to access and asses for many of us.

Lazlo’s biography is an outlier. But it still has something significant in common with those of his brothers: All three of their bios allude to a potential special interest of sorts.

Special interests as an autism-related term are very specific, in-depth and long-term hobbies or areas of expertise that make an autistic person happy and they tend to go to seemingly exhausting lengths, often at the cost of other areas of knowledge and most likely the person’s ability to talk about anything else for a long enough time. (a loving hyperbole, no disrespect meant) Mine are my characters and cats. An even more intense but a short(er)-term passion is called a hyperfixation.

Them potentially having a special interest is yet another possible autistic-coded feature.

5. Wait. Why does it matter?

Right. What does it matter if a Sim (A SIM) (or two or three) is autistic? What do I hope to achieve, pushing my autistic Curiouses agenda down your throats?

I got to write a long rant-piece about some of my favorite TS characters and I feel like I can finally die satisfied.

Apart from that and me sharing my happiness of finding some good pixels I can relate to, it is a matter of representation.

Remember by the very beginning I wrote how most of the representation our community gets in media tends to be just a one specific type of character?

And how the Curious brothers seem to fit the stereotype to a point?

There is something I omitted, something I saved for the last on purpose.

The role. The role in their story, the role in the society the piece of media portrays.

We often see neurodiverse, autistic or autistic-coded character as children, students, villains, lone savants, victims in distress, comedic relief sidekicks, either very vulnerable and needing protection, or detached and having their role defined only by their academic prowess or their special interest/profession.

What we rarely get to see them as, are... parents.

That’s what many of us autistics are or plan to be someday in the future. The dogma around autism has started to dwindle relatively recently and there are little to no examples of autistic adults being the care-givers for once in the media around us.

The Curious brothers are just that. They are chaotic, they are eccentric, they can be a little too much... but they are dutiful and loving fathers/uncles to their little aliens they raise.

They make it work. Even if they face difficulties, even if they don’t exactly fit the standard.

“Sometimes, a family truly can be three brothers raising alien babies, and it’s beautiful.”

It encourages us to define family by love rather than traditional structures and it shows us that portrait of a functional neurodiverse family we need to see.

And goodness, is it a powerful sight.

#the sims 2 #the sims #ts2 #simbrl #pascal curious #vidcund curious #lazlo curious #autism acceptence month #headcanon #actuallyautistic #autistic curiouses agenda #please someone take tumbrl from me

138 notes · View notes

coda-90 · 3 years

Text

The Evolution of Social Standards

by Durga Kulkarni.

Psychological Evolution

Why do Social Opinions matter?

Social Expectations

Social Organisations

Psychological Evolution

What is it?

Psychological Evolution, or Evolutionary psychology has roots in Cognitive Psychology and Evolutionary Biology.[1] It focuses on how evolution has shaped the mind and its behavior. It also concentrates on how the main purpose of our lives has shifted, from survival, to contentment. Additionally, it helps us in understanding why we humans behave the way we do, and what are the underlying instincts that we are unaware of which is making us do these things. It also states the importance of human interaction and connection in our lives.

When it comes to human interactions, there are a few default archetypes noticed in each interaction, them being: exchanging information, opinions and expectations. In today's world, during a healthy conversation, we tend to follow these archetypes, for the sake of adding simplicity, purpose and direction to the conversation. This is where social opinions and expectations start affecting us.

Initially, due to the hierarchy that used to exist in the tribes, conversations were very minimal and reserved, but as the tribes kept splitting, and more exchange of information was needed, the people realized that they needed a proper language for their convenience.

The “Pooh-Pooh theory” holds that speech originated from spontaneous human cries and exclamations; the 'Yo-He-Ho theory' suggests that language developed from grunts evoked by physical exertion; while the 'Sing-Song theory/La- La Theory' claims that speech arose from primitive ritual chants and playful songs.[2]

By the time of the Roman civilization, the hierarchy amongst men was very much visible, and was put to use. Along that period, the importance of exemplary words and literature was noticed, and was worked upon by involving a new change bringing item in all the civilians and senators lives; Newspapers (Acta Diurna (Daily Events)). In these newspapers, multiple things were mentioned, including the next political event, the victories. They even had an obituary section in their newspapers. Along with all this information, slowly opinions started seeping into the texts. These opinions helped people in creating a judgment for voting.[3]

By 1600, the social hierarchy was divided into six parts; Monarchy, Nobility, Gentry, Merchants, Yeomen and the Labourers. Due to this, if any judgement was to be made, it would have largely been based on rank.[4]

Then by, about the 1800’s, the social hierarchy was divided into three parts; Upper class, Middle class and the Working class. The Upper class used to consist of the Aristocrats, Nobles, Dukes and other wealthy families working in the Victorian courts.The Middle class consisted of industrial revolutionaries, who have changed our lives. The Working class, lowest among the Victorian social hierarchy were the working class. This class remained aloof to the political progress of the country and was hostile to the other two classes. This working class was further categorised as the skilled workers and the unskilled workers.[5]

In the 2000’s, the hierarchy merged and divided into five social classes; Upper, Upper-Middle, Middle, Working and Lower class. This did not cause as much difference and conflicts as the other classes did in the past. But something else did.

Why do Social Opinions matter?

“Social influence is the process by which individuals adapt their opinion, revise their beliefs, or change their behavior as a result of social interactions with other people.”[6]

When we are in the presence of other people, we like to blend in. To blend in, we abide by a few social norms. These norms help us maintain a calm, mannered and composed personality throughout the day. These norms turn into expectations, expectations turn into opinions and opinions turn into reality. These opinions and expectations, when pondered upon, seem quite irrational, but due to these opinions and expectations being around for a long time, we have grown to accept them, and to some extent, even like them. But then why question it?

The reason being that these opinions and expectations ARE in fact quite irrational and toxic.

Interdependence

We follow these opinions and expectations because we are living in a society that entirely works on being Interdependent. Interdependence is the state of being dependent upon one another (Mutual dependence/Interdependence). For eg. We depend on our neighbours and they depend on us to be welcoming and decent.

To abide by the social expectation of being decent, we usually follow the societal idea of “Decency”, which is being calm, reserved, polite, helpful, straightforward and clean.

Also, other people's evaluations of us is both crucial and necessary to impact behavioral changes, which is what ultimately allows us to gain professionally and personally.

Social Expectations

Each social situation entails its own particular set of expectations about the “proper” way to behave. Social roles are the ‘part people play as members of a social group’. With each social role you adopt, your behavior changes to fit the expectations both you and others have of that role. There are 7 main types of societal roles; Leader, Knowledge Generator, Connector, Follower, Moralist, Enforcer, and Observer.[7]

To explain these roles, we will take a problematic social situation into consideration, to show what exactly each role does.

Leader: Proposes strategies and techniques to conquer a problematic situation. (Leader of a country)

Knowledge Generator: Shares information about the status of the situation. (Advisory)

Connector: Transmits the decisions made by the leader or opinions of other roles. (Media)

Follower: Follows a leader. (Politics)

Moralist: Looks for fair shares for all the other roles. (Law)

Enforcer: Punishes the behavior of other roles. (Army)

Observer: Shares information about the compliance of the behavior of other roles, as well as the role who answers to another observer's request about information about other roles. (General crowd)

We as human beings keep on switching between these roles according to the situation. With these roles, there can be unsaid expectations. Most of the time these expectations are rather helpful than problematic, though there are exceptions. But these exceptions occur only when there’s excess of Destructive criticism, Stratification, Peer Pressure and Mass Hysteria.

Destructive Criticism

Destructive criticism is defined as criticism performed with the intention to harm, derogate and destroy someone's creation, prestige, reputation and self-esteem. It's meant to ridicule, damage and bring the person down.

It is very common on social media. Sometimes it even occurs with your closest peers.

Stratification

Social stratification refers to a society's categorization of its people into rankings of socioeconomic hierarchy based on factors like wealth, income, race, education, sex, and power. The people who have more resources represent the top layer of the social structure of stratification.

This is also widely noticed in public spaces such as schools.

Peer Pressure

Peer pressure is the influence displayed by people within the same social group. It is also the term used to describe the effect this influence has on a person to agree to in order to be accepted by the group. Sometimes peer pressure is used to positively influence people, but most of the time it’s not. Many adolescents fall into the trap of Peer Pressure.

Mass Hysteria

Mass hysteria is a phenomenon that conveys collective illusions of threats, whether real or imaginary, through a population and society as a result of rumors and fear. Mass hysteria occurs anywhere at any time. This is very common during global pandemic.

Social Organisations

In sociology, a social organization is a pattern of relationships between and among individuals and social groups. Characteristics of social organization can include qualities such as sexual composition, spatiotemporal cohesion, leadership, division of labor, communication systems, and so on.

These are the most noticed basis for the Social Organisations; Religion, Gender, Race and Monetary status.

Religion

Religion affects human beings very much. It is the root and base for our mental growth and morals. Religion is a very controversial topic to talk about. Many of them involve multitudes of intricate rituals.

Religions are based on philosophies by spiritual people. These philosophies are more of lifestyles, and when people follow a religion they completely imbibe it, no matter what. This changes their outlook towards social interactions and social opinions. This causes a difference in everyone’s knee-jerk reactions associated with different situations.

Gender

There has always been inequality between the female and male gender. This is called Sexism. Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls. It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles. This means in many countries there aren’t equal human rights for both the genders. Even though in few countries there may be basic equal rights for both the genders there always is one favored gender and things like salary and weight of opinion is not the same for the favored gender.

Race

Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits according to physical appearance and can be stratified based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or hate directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern Racism is often based in social perceptions of biological differences between people. These views can take the form of social behaviour, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are supposed as ingrained superior or inferior to each other, based on assumed similar inheritable traits, or qualities.

Monetary status

The Monetary status of people has an influence on decisions made by law. It also gives them unrequited privilege to commit minor or major crimes, and evade the consequences. This brings a sentiment of power and pride in them, which then gives them a sense of togetherness.

In summary, this write up covers up the basic Evolution of Communication, the importance of abiding to Social Norms, the Seven basic types of Social Roles, Compelling Social Ideologies that change the perspective of the human mind, and the differences that bring humans together.

#Psychology #sociology #random words #women rights #teenagers

49 notes · View notes

dragon-shifter-life · 3 years

Note

Slight color changes are not indicative of a shift. There are many reasons as to why you might see a ‘different’ color. Most often this is due to lighting. For example If it’s sunny, natural light may make colors more warm toned. Even with basic white artificial light, it may be hard to tell the true color of something. The angle at which you look at things is also a factor. People from the ‘p-shifting community’ are always claiming they’ve shifted in one way or another. If you’re telling the truth you should show proof. Like the other anon said, how can people ever be expected to believe you when there is zero evidence backing your claims? Have you considered how harmful this can be to children learning about otherkin? Many have been taken in by cults, making them think if they just practice they too can transform. There are still people out there who think that the earth is flat despite they’re being pictures of the earth. The only “evidence” flat earth era have is that they cannot see the curvature of the earth. So clearly it must be impossible to prove the earth is round. But as we know, it’s impossible to see the curve of the earth due to our small size compared to the earth and how close we are to it. With an unobstructed view even it’s possible to see a fraction of the curve. I know you aren’t going to listen to what I have to say but you should consider the facts. Think of shifting as a science experiment, a hypothesis, rather than a fact of which it isn’t. Or until it can be proven. And if I’m being honest, you watch too much TV. No one is going to experiment you or hunt you. You are a human being. I do not doubt that you are otherkin but your physical body is human. If people were allowed to do so and kill freely then there would be anarchy. But there’s not. Of course there are criminals here and there, crime is present virtually everywhere. But you’re not going to have the government coming to your house because you *think* you grew a scale or your skin changed it’s tone slightly. And even if you were able to completely transform, biologically you are a human. Let’s say I take a ball of clay and I sculpt it into a coin. Maybe I paint it silver as well. I can’t just go to a store and pay for something with it. Does it look like a coin? Does it maybe feel like one? Certainly. But it’s not a coin. It’s clay and paint and it will always be that no matter what form it takes. Do you think trans people get experimented on just because they identify as the opposite gender? No of course not. And neither do otherkin of any kind. There has not been ONE otherkin that has ever been captured or hunted because of what they identified as. Any people that claim someone is a hunter is clearly a child who’s been manipulated into believing in them or an adult who’s trying to pass on those false claims. You’d really have to be extremely paranoid to believe in such a thing. You may as well believe in the boogey man or bigfoot. Honestly unicorns are more likely to exist than otherkin hunters.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I definitely do think that shifting should be seen as a science to be studied, and I'm majoring in biology to study just that. On the biological level, our cells undergo a lot of changes- shifts, if you will- just being a part of our bodies. Stem cells, for example, transform and become whatever cell is needed in the body when they're needed. Stem cells are our microscopic shape shifters in everybody. Production of things like hair are regulated by hormones in your body, which is why men tend to have more body hair; it's regulated by testosterone. This works by telling a cell to activate and read a certain portion of the DNA in your cells that cause hair growth.

Now let's talk about scales for a second: scales are made of keratin. The skin on your body is keratinized skin, meaning it produces keratin. This is what makes your skin waterproof. Among the dragon shifters I've met, we all have a skin condition called keratosis pilaris, which is an excess of keratin in our skin that collects around hair follicles. I have a hypothesis that I intend to study and test empirically, but don't yet have the equipment to do so, that there is a connection between shifters that produce scales and keratosis pilaris.

As you can see, there is preliminary evidence to support this hypothesis, even though it's not yet been thoroughly studied. And this is how all science starts out. There's something that exists that suggests something, and it gets studied, repeatable experiments are performed, and the hypothesis becomes accepted as fact. I'm not approaching this like a conspiracy theorist, I've long wanted to study shifting empirically and develop factual evidence to provide to the public. As a personal rule, I would not ask anyone to do or endure anything that I wouldn't do or endure myself, and all studies would be done safely and humanely.

As for my skin color change, this is what's called anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't have claimed this as fact if I didn't see such changes in artificial lighting that I have seen my skin in many times before, and only sometimes have I seen it a different color. At these times, I've felt particularly like I was going to shift or like a shift was starting. While anecdotal evidence is considered impermissible in most situations, it can provide the basis for further studying and experimentation to figure out why it happens.

Also, I don't think otherkin are shifters. In my eyes, otherkin and shifters are different. You can be a shifter and be otherkin for a creature other than that which you transform into, but not every otherkin can shift. It is dangerous to spread information that suggests that, and I agree with those statements.

Let me rephrase the privacy topic and lack of evidence. There is a correct way to reveal the existence of shifters to the public. If done correctly, things will likely go the best way that they can, with the least amount of abuse of the information as possible. However, you have to recognize that even with mundane issues, such as racism and homophobia, people who are people and nothing more are being killed, arrested, abused, and otherwise mistreated in 2021. Shifters can logically expect the same, if not worse, because it would be much easier for people to call us less than human. These are real threats to the community, whether you think so or not. You cannot deny the violations of human rights in our modern world. Again, I won't deny the improvements within the past hundred years, but we're still far from perfect. So yes, we fear for our lives and safety of our identities are revealed and things are revealed to be true.

Posting anonymously online helps us find others like us and build a community, and yes we're aware of hackers and how easy it is to find your identity, but most people are going to see us as liars as you and the other 10 anons in my inbox have.

I have always and will always respect skepticism. I understand that it's difficult to believe something as truth with no evidence. But understanding that most shifters dont have the means to collect evidence, don't have the knowledge to explain it in a factual manner, or don't have the resources to study themselves and provide sufficient evidence can help you understand that it's not so easy to give you the evidence you require to quell your skepticism.

To the other anons, your asks may have been answered here as well. I appreciate the anons who are at least somewhat respectful in their requests for more information and seem receptive to the idea of a response that may sufficiently rebuttal some of their claims.

8 notes · View notes

silversavant2021 · 3 years

Text

The Least Protected Group...Single Fathers!

There are several laws that protect various groups in our society, and in various areas...employment, wages, education, etc. According to the U.S Federal Law website, “these laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity”. However, although they protect according to gender, there is another group within gender which needs protecting in another specific area. That area is fatherhood, and when it comes to their rights to their children after separation, and/or divorce.

If we look through the articles online, and in booklets on custody we will see a great deal of information on what is called conservatorship and in all of these documents the deciding factor is a term called, “the best interest of the child”. In looking at that statement, we would think it would be both parents but it is not.

In Texas, the Family Code gives the father the same rights as the mother as far as custody of the children however that is rarely carried out. The mother is usually granted the position of custodial parent, even if the father is in a better position of stability in order to have the child(ren).

The imbalance has gotten so great until various states are beginning to take action on behalf of the fathers. In Massachusetts, a ballot initiative was created, and approved 85 to 15 percent on protecting the rights of the father. The ballot was an initiative to approve equal legal and physical custody of the children in the case of divorce. This ballot was requesting that “the courts uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children”. And that state is not the only one requesting this by proposition on behalf of fathers. The Washington Post had an article by Michael Allison Chandler entitled “More than 20 states in 2017 considered laws to promote shared custody of children after divorce.”

One would have to ask; why is this necessary since most custody paperwork state that either parent has the right to conservatorship, or custody? It is because Family Courts use the concept called “best interest of the child” to decide who will hold this position, and that term is wholly subjective. Over the years, this term has been used to give custody, in most cases, to the mother.

Ms. Chandler also states that, “we are led to believe that the plight of fatherless children is caused by husbands walking out on their wives, fathers abandoning their children, and “deadbeat dads” when one of the best-kept secrets in American society today is that two-thirds of divorces are now sought by wives, not husbands”. She claims that the “feminist movement has taught wives that they can seek “liberation” by walking out of their marriage contract and marital duties and still reap the benefits of marriage, i.e. their children and his money.”

In considering the background elements of this controversial topic I interviewed Baba Richard and Sri Namaste Moore, who are “The Infinite Couple” and have a combination of 30+ years of experience, (and success), in dealing with men, women, and couples regarding relationships.

Sri Namaste stated that this basically started with “Women’s Rights” movement, and explained how this played into this situation of mothers being given more rights than fathers in the case of custody.

She elaborated on what two legal rights, which were attached to this movement, brought about:

• Women’s Reproductive Rights:

• Reproductive Rights — claims having the ability to decide whether, and when to have children—are important to women’s socioeconomic well-being and overall health. Research suggests that being able to make decisions about one’s own reproductive life and the timing of one’s entry into parenthood is associated with greater relationship stability and satisfaction.

• AbortionRights:

• AccesstoAbortion-IntheUnitedStates,the1973SupremeCourtcaseRoev.Wade established the legal right to abortion. State legislative and executive bodies nonetheless continue to battle over legislation related to access to abortion, including parental consent and notification and mandatory waiting periods. In addition, public funding for abortion remains a contested issue in many states: federal law has banned the use of federal funds for most abortions since 1977, and currently does not allow the use of federal funds for abortion unless the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest or the woman’s life is in danger. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 reinforces these restrictions, but state Medicaid programs have the option to cover abortion in other circumstances using only state, and no federal funds.

Sri Namaste stated, “Initially, women were supposed to be given Reproductive Rights/Freedoms however a woman had that already, and had already exercised her right when she chose to have unprotected sex. That was/is her exercising her “right to reproduce” by allowing herself to get pregnant. She had a choice to prevent that from happening by several different means.

“Then giving her the sole right to decide to keep the baby, or not, is giving her sovereignty as well. Now she has the right to decide “life or death” with impunity in the case of this child. Even though the child was created by the woman and the man; the father has no rights and even if he wants the baby, (which belongs to him as well), he has no right to it.”

Also, that baby is not “her body”, it is a whole separate entity.

Sri Namaste also stated, “The “double standard” is amazing! If the pregnancy is wanted then, even at the earliest stages, the woman celebrates the pregnancy. She will call the baby “hers”, buys clothes, has a celebration, names the baby, etc. And if she should “miscarry”, (lose the baby), she mourns, has a funeral, etc. HOWEVER, if the pregnancy is unwanted...suddenly it is NOT a baby, it is a fetus – a non-thing.”

I asked her how did all that plays into child custody?

She stated, “Because the woman has already been given “sovereignty” over the baby/fetus before birth so it just carries over when the child is born...she still has those rights. However, everyone should be sovereign over their own life, and when one has a child, that is a “separate” life which belongs to the mother AND the father who made it.”

“Also, because that child is a combination of the mother and the father, she shouldn't be able to make that decision alone, and definitely not on the behalf of the father. The state should be the entity who is stepping in to ensure decisions would be neutral, but they are not.”

I was surprised at how all of this fit together.

In order to get a perspective from a man, from a father’s point of view, and from one who had gone through a divorce and custody within in the court system, I then spoke to Baba Richard, who stated:

“I think fundamentally there is something that is happening here. Once you are a parent then being a good parent is based on time passing and you being engaged in that. In talking about the role of the father, what is happening and is implicit in the whole system is that fatherhood is irrelevant. The “state” is functioning as the “father surrogate” and making decisions as to what the state and the woman are going to do about the child(ren).”

“The father is looked at as an economic contributor at maximum, or somebody that if you refuse, or are not meeting whatever standard they say, economically, then you are punished. The system is already in place that you, father, are here to provide economics so the state and the mother can decide what they are going to do with your resources in order to decide what the future of your child is going to be.”

“Once one starts from a “faulty premise” all decisions after that...none of them can be, “well this is great”, because it is a “domino effect”. Look at fatherhood and motherhood as two parallel lines...train tracks, if you will...equal parallel lines and they must be because they both have equal responsibility for the welfare of what they created. Once we say the only “line” that matters is the motherhood line when going forward, then the fatherhood line veers off...we don’t need that, don’t want that line. So, once you engage with the state those two lines are no longer parallel, and never brought back into parallel. Fatherhood gets a “dotted line” which says “you can pay money but we will decide how often you see the child.”

“Visitation is something you do for someone who is “incarcerated”. You don’t visit your “prodigy”, you don’t “visit” your children, children don’t “visit” you. What are they talking about? Either we ALL visit, or nobody visits. Shared custody by default, NOT an arrangement the father has to negotiate his way into. The presumption should be that BOTH parents will share equal responsibility for raising the child(ren) that they have created between the two of them.”

“When you go into that equation with the idea that “woman create children”, and men- we don’t know what they do...but they are engaged in some level of “malfeasance” or irresponsibility because a child has come forward so now the state needs to come in to make things fair...better...more equitable, for the women. One has to wonder, “how is the state the arbiter between these two people?”

“There is a default belief/assumption that there has been some wrong-doing on the part of the man...the scales are inherently imbalanced and “justice”, the state, is stepping in to balance this inequity. The woman has been victimized by this man through the act of pregnancy and now the state is here to make things right again.”

“You, the woman, being right, and righteous, should be supported in whatever you decide to do. It is impossible for you to not to visit your children because the presumption is that the child is at home, and home is always with YOU.”

However, in the case of the man, let’s bullet point the situation and think like this... “Imagine a world where”:

-You are guilty before the proceedings even start.

-All you will get is a decision as to what level of punishment you will endure.

-You will never be found “not guilty” because this is the nature of things.

-You will incur penalties that are overwhelming in most cases.

There is no court of appeals, the only thing, the most you can get is a lessening of the penalty/sentence but you will have it until the courts decide that you don’t.

“Now where is this? In a foreign country? Or some weird dystopian future where everything has “gone to hell in a handcart”? No, this is what a person live with every day if that person is a MAN, and happen to get divorced from a woman, and there are children involved. Or weren’t married and there are children involved.”

I said, “I don’t understand, why doesn’t the courts give joint custody”? He said...

“It is inherently unfair, and I think that there is a presumption of “guilt” with respect to men who are in court...for whatever reason. When I went for my divorce, the judge, his attitude toward me was hostile for no reason. I am not a criminal, and was not there for an assumption of any criminal activity.”

“While waiting for other people to handle their business I saw many different types of cases. There were people who came through who had committed crimes. I had committed no crime, was only there due to processing a divorce. Me, and this woman, had decided we did not want to go forward in life anymore. I couldn’t understand how I warranted all of this “ire” from the judge? I didn’t know him, personally. We both, (my spouse and I), were there at the same time, and when he talked to her, he was nice, and soft spoken...and then when he talked to me it was, “well, what's this!!!” spoken in anger.

I asked him, “But there are documented “rules” that apply to everybody, even mothers; why aren’t they enforced? He said...

“Because there is another issue as to why things go the way they go. Men are not prepared. Actually, it is almost the opposite of being prepared. They are intentionally unprepared because number one, one of the things that I saw in the four or five guys that I know, including myself when I got divorced, is that they are emotionally exhausted...there is a great deal of stress, strain, etc....and a man has to still keep up everything while all of this going on.”

“One of the things about the linear nature of men is that we, we don't do well with this kind of “stress”. We don’t maintain hatred in “perpetuity”. Even if you look at a man whose been trained as a military soldier...yes, they may be upset about the enemy...but the actual pulling of the trigger, or launching the missile is very dispassionate. This is just a job that he is doing...combatants over there...we got them all right, cool. Let's go home, you know, but they don't usually keep that “emotional charge” every day.

“But it's one of the things about the feminine, and I've seen it, they can hold a grudge. Oh my God...even if the two people haven't been together for decades, kids are grown, and gone on and whatever. And it's like, you want to set her off, mention his name in her presence, and it's just like the day that they got divorced.”

“The point being is that when they go into this court situation, number one, most people don’t have any experience with this...it’s not like buying a car, one gets to do this many times so they know what to expect. When they go into this situation, it's the first time, and they don't know what to think or how it's going to go. Also, all they want is for the pain to stop, and they think that after this, we can be “okay”, it’s official.”

“Most men are at the point where they think, “You know what, I'll start over, whatever car, house, whatever things. I don't care. I don't care about any of that because being able to sleep at night”, even if they have to sleep on a pallet. However, here’s the hinge that door swings on...the men go into this thinking that what she wants is stuff, right? What they find out is what she wants is for him to suffer, and no amount of money, no amount of stuff, all the things that he gave, the “quid to the pro quo” that he thinks is going to happen... doesn’t!”

And so that's a double whammy because then they're shocked because they're like, wait a minute, I gave you what you said you wanted...all the stuff. I let you have whatever it is that you want up to, and including what I considered the most precious...the care of the children. But now he finds that the woman, the court, and the state are thinking, “how much worse can we make this? What else can we do?” Whatever he thought he was going to give, that's not enough, and he is thinking, “Wait a minute, I gave everything so how can that not be enough? There isn’t anything more to give.” And the courts state, “you better come up with something because now we have rules in place that where we're going from present into the future. And now as a state, we can enforce those rules and say, not only have you given all of your material possessions presently, now we are going to look into the future and you will give all your possessions in perpetuity, or until the child(ren) are 18-21 years old.”

“Suddenly, he comes into this realization that the rules that are imposed upon men in that situation are only for men. There are no equivalent rules for women. So, if he doesn't do whatever the court says, then there are penalties and it is NOT that she can’t do what the court says and “be penalized”, it is because she has no rules!”

Personally, I was shocked, and had nothing else to say.

As I began to research further for the solution(s) to this challenge for “fathers”, I decided to do some research on this topic with “Father’s Rights” organizations. I found three agencies, and interviewed the three men who had started, and/or participated in them. What I found was confirming.

The first person interviewed in this arena was Joshua Banks, who is the Founder/Facilitator of IDADS, (Involved Dads of Action Developing and Succeeding), and he is the Program Coordinator. His agency has been in operation since 2015, and his motivation was dealing with families for 7 years as a Pastor. He assisted 300+ people through online summits, and approximately 80 fathers on a weekly basis.

He states, “It is always better for the child when there is joint custody however the system seems to be in opposition to this. It seems that “best interest of the child” always translate to the Mom. A majority of the fathers I deals with want to be involved in their children’s lives, and the few who are reluctant is due to the “toxicity” of the relationship with the mothers.”

His advice to fathers seeking joint custody to:

Engage the Mom, try to get her “onboard”.

As soon as the child is born, go to child support court, (whether you live together or not), so there will be no risk of “arrears”, (even if you only put payment as $100). This is because even if you take care of your child, pay bills in the household, etc. the “child support system” does NOT acknowledge/recognize support paid OUTSIDE of their courts. This will make it easier when you go to Family Court regarding custody.

Build Credibility - Employment, shelter, and a proper environment for his child.

Effort - It won’t be easy, and he will have to “fight”.

Involvement - No matter how difficult it is made, stay involved!

Attorney - If at all possible, get an attorney.

His agency is currently involved with the Attorney General’s Father’s Rights Division; Child Protection Services - Father’s Rights Coalition; and the University of Texas - Child and Family Research Partnership under Dr, Osborn. His agency also receives referrals from Child Protective Services.

The second person I interviewed in this area was Isaac Rowe, who is the Founder of “The Man In Me”, and he is the CEO. His agency has been in operation since 2012, and his motivation was seeing the “fatherless sons” in his arena. He was also troubled by what he saw a friend go through not being able to be with his father...saw it from a “child’s” standpoint. He decided to tell fathers to fight for their rights, and more time with their children. He assists 300+ men through conferences, and speaking engagements, and approximately 80-120 men weekly/bi-weekly.

He states, “Joint custody is always best for the child because everyone is doing their part for the sake of that child. A father’s participation beyond “court appointed visitation” is very important, and valuable to the child. The biggest hinderance I have seen is that the judges will rule against fathers, and there is definitely a double standard.”

He doesn’t have much dealings with the agencies in the area however they have helped fathers to come to his meetings. His advice to fathers seeking joint custody is to:

• Try to co-bond with child,(easier when mom is onboard). • Take care of himself,(spiritually, mentally, physically, financially). • Get in programs to better themselves • Don’t give up,or sign over rights, [you will still have to pay child support]. • Show responsibility; employment, housing, etc. • Don’t get behind in child support payment; no child support arrears.

The last person I interviewed in this area was Marcus Griggs, who is the Director of Fatherhood Services at “The Man In Me”. His motivation was having a well-adjusted dad, and see what not having one had done to youth, and men. He transitioned from working with youth to working with men. Also, he saw the “system” was not set-up for “families”, (which included fathers). He assists 30-40 men on an average.

He said, “All the men I deals with want to “father” their children. I feel that it is better for the children to have both parents, and even research has proven that there is damage to children due to a lack of fathers.”

He states the biggest hinderance to fathers is: • They are not a consideration • They have to“jump thru hoops” to qualify which is not done with mothers.

• Laws are not enforced with mothers.

His advice to fathers seeking custody is to: • Be prepared for an“intake”,which is required of fathers, only. • Get information - know what the requirements are before you go to one.

• Be employed, have a residence, etc. • Have a willingness to fight for their child(ren).

He also said there is a program called “NCP-Choices” which assist fathers with “back child support” however there may be a qualification that the fathers have a “good” relationship with the mother. He also receives referrals from Child Support Services.

I must say that I did note that each person stated some sort of “appeasing of the mother” as a prerequisite to any possibility of getting joint custody, and even a service. This speaks directly to the bias-ness of that system.

In my research I noted several situations, these included the:

Bias-ness of Judicial Systems in Texas, [and in most states]:

-Fathers have to “appease” the mother in order to get visitation.

-Fathers have to “appease” the mother in order to get joint custody, even when he is qualified.

There are NO rules, requirements, regulations, or qualifications for mothers

Unfairness of the “System”:

• If a woman births a baby, and is unable to take care of it, she gets free

“Government assistance/subsidies” in the form of:

• Medical Care • Food Stamps • Finances Aid

• Housing – Section 8 vouchers/certificate • Free, or Subsidized Daycare • Earned Income Credit on tax returns

However, if a father creates a baby, and he is unable to support it he gets:

• Excessive child support payments, and if he is unable to pay then:

-He loses his driver’s license -He is put in jail. -His income tax is garnisheed.

-He is stigmatized, and alienated from his child.

My question is, “Shouldn’t the one chosen to be the CUSTODIAL PARENT be the ONE who is most capable of, and the most responsible in caring for the child with the LEAST amount of assistance from the government”?

Then there is the case(s) of:

There are REQUIREMENTS which the fathers have to achieve, and which have to be PROVEN in order to have visitation, and/or to be “custodial” parent, when the mothers do not.

If mothers do not allow the fathers to see their child on the appointed days, the courts do not enforce his rights, or penalize her behavior. The father’s are sent to a different court for that.

Fathers are required to take “fathering classes/counseling” and to pay for them, while this is never required of the mother.

In my reviewing the “Standard Possession Order and Parenting Time” on the TXACCESS. ORG website I found the “visitation schedule” that is given to fathers, (yearly time given to spend with their child(ren)):

The schedule of time assigned to fathers in order to see their children are “every first and third weekend, every fifth weekend, 2 hours on Weds. or Thurs. each week”, every other holiday week, and 30 days in the summer. This amount to, (yearly-2020):

Regular Weekends = 48 days

Fifth Weekends = 8 days

Thursdays - 2 hours = 4.3 days

Alternate Hours

• Sub-Total is: 60.3 days a year

Holidays Weeks - alternate between odd/even years (additional 7 days when it is his year).

Summer Vacation - 30 days • Total of 90.3 to 97.3 days a year! That is not even 1/3 of the year!!!

As I began to look at the negative impact on fathers when the mothers are the “custodial parent” I realized something. As a mother of 4 adult children, and 18 grandchildren I realize that women learn how to be “good mothers” by being with their child(ren) on consistent, daily, hands-on basis. When fathers only have “visitation rights” that is minimal access. They do not get the opportunity to properly develop “fathering abilities”, to learn and grow with their child(ren), and/or to actually experience being a “father”. Also, if they aren’t as good at it as mom, then they are penalized for not being “good” at something they were not allowed to do by the court systems, and the mothers, who didn’t allow it.

Finally, there is another challenge to this...according to the US Department of Human Services/Child Protection Resources Online, mothers were more likely to abuse their children than fathers at a percentage of 70.6% vs 29.4%.

According to Allie Morris, of the San Antonio Express-News, it is reported that in 2018, 211 children had died from child abuse in Texas. It is also noted that in half of those deaths, CPS- Child Protection Services had been investigating the cases. If the statistics are true, (from CPS), then in most of those cases the mothers had custody. I have to wonder how many of those cases were because the children were allowed to remain with the mothers, instead of being given to the fathers.

Also, why are courts, and CPS, ignoring this information instead of making it a consideration when determining who would be in the “best interest of the child”?

As you can see, there is a need for legislation to be put in place not only to “protect” fathers from the bias-ness of what is already in place, but children as well. There needs to be a revision of the Judicial System on the behalf of fathers and their children for the future.

#child support #father's rights #children #family

1 note · View note

paulinemartins · 4 years

Text

Music Education and Feminsim

For this post I wanted to talk about a report from the 2018 Ohio Music Education Professional Development Conference Graduate Research Forum.

Dr Roberta Lamb made a presentation she entitled: My life, your life, our life: Glimpses into pas, present and future in Feminist Music Education Research.

Dr Lamb began as a self proclaimed radical feminist who wanted to investigate women in music teaching and learning. She used a number of questions to follow her analysis.

1. What does it matter to a feminist teaching music that gender is not a factor in aesthetic education/music education theory?

2. If music reflects the culture in which it is created, is it possible that elements of power, dominance and violence appear in the music we teach? And if so, how does one address these issues within music?

3. Does the patriarchal music we teach have the capacity to be harmful to human well-being?

4. Can we reconcile the beauty of the learned music we teach with its elitist, racist and hetero sexist message?

She divided her analysis in three parts, first: the past. She starts her argumentation stating her personal experience and the difference in her labels as a school teacher in the United States and Canada.

She pointed out the historical challenges that women faced, she used the example of in the 1970′s being refused a loan to buy a flute if she didn’t have a male signature to grant the loan. These are early feminist experiences that have been erased of historical accounts as she adds “the grand narrative traditionally written by White, Anglophone, Heterosexual men who systematically ignore individuals who wrote a different narrative.”

She continues with the present. For this part she uses an example of the 1990′s when women started to gain a voice in professional music organisation. She stated that despite her place as the founding chair of gender in music education, a number of times she had to whisper to make sure no one was hearing a feminist conversation or when someone walked away mid-conversation

She links the 1970′s to the current #MeToo movement. Movement that had according to her yet to touch the musical fiels at a colegial level, but she says that there is always more to do in the field of music education to diversify practices.

(I have included just above a picture for a NYTimes article entitled “Women Fighting Sexism in Jazz Have a Voice)

She the speaks about the future. She asked the audience to participate and discuss in group on how they could relate to her experience and messages.

Topic of discussion varied from stereotyped by teaching specialization, or by instrument,... Some women shared their experience and some men asked “what can we do?” Dr. Lamb gave them advice like consider what being a woman is through the lens of their mother, sisters, or daughters.

She also advised the whole audience to step out of the field of music, and music education box by presenting at conferences outside of the field of music, she also suggested to look for pedagogical practices to be as inclusive as possible in the music classroom.

To finish she expresses a continuity in feminist research. Feminist research put women in the center, Dr Lamb spoke about the difference between equality and equity. She used a metaphor I am sure you are familiar with (I have included a picture below)

As she said “ Many silent music teachers continue to teach as they were taught, to uncomfortably ignore those who outburst dare interrupt the myths, to appear to believe that all is well that sounds harmonious.”

To conclude she proclaimed that feminist research should continue to better understand, analyse and describe this oppression.

Here is a link to the article I used, plus the New York Times one from which I took the picture:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26478006

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/arts/music/we-have-voice-jazz-women-metoo.html

11 notes · View notes

lady-raziel · 5 years

Note

Plz don’t attack me, I’m genuinely asking: Why do people hate pewdiepie so much?

It’s ok, I think this is a valid question to ask, especially if you’re not familiar with the subject. This is somewhat of a complicated issue, as there are a lot of factors that tie into this, and there are a lot of different reasons that people have problems with him. Below I’ve complied the top several reasons that stand out to me as to why people hate him. I’ll try to make it brief, but just know this is in no way a complete list, nor am I going super in depth here. If you’d like to know more, I suggest doing some research on your own as a lot has been written about all of these.

1) The N-word incident: at the time (September 2017), this was a major issue, although it’s been somewhat shadowed by many other things at this point. During a livestream of Pubg, he used the n-word as an insult during a moment of frustration. It’s unlikely that he intended to say it, but the fact that that slip of the tongue occured suggests that it’s part of his private vernacular. (To touch on the topic of why Keemstar is also awful, Keem defended Felix’s use of the word) Articles about this: x x x

2) Antisemitism: There’s a lot of parts that tie into this one. Let’s start with one of the first, which was also at the time the largest controversy to shock YouTube. In January 2017 in a video focusing on the website Fiverr, he paid two individuals to hold up a sign with an antisemitic statement on it, as a “joke.” The offensive statement and his decision to still post the video caused a lot of harm to him personally and was a hugely tumultuous event on YouTube. And there have been several more antisemitic incidents since then– he once shouted out a channel filled with it as well as homophobia and racism. And another big one– during a terrorist attack in New Zealand last spring, the “subscribe to pewdiepie” phrase was used by the alt-right shooter. Articles about this and related: x x x x x

3) Sexism, Homophobia, etc.: He’s frequently made statements and jokes that can easily be interpreted as sexist. He’s referred to certain female streamers as “twitch thots” before as well as questioned the validity of gender equality. He also associates with Ben Shapiro, a conservative pundit who is highly transphobic and homophobic. Articles about this and related: x x x

4) T-Series and racism: I don’t have the energy to explain this one as it’s kinda long, but the short of it is he and an Indian music channel were competing to be the most subscribed channel on Youtube, and he said some offensive things about India in the process. Additionally, the “subscribe to pewdiepie” meme got out of control to the point where people were commiting acts of vandalism and hacking and whatnot. Articles about this and related: x x x

Of course this is just a basic overview; there’s a lot more, but I’d be going for quite a while if I continued. I think if you were to ask me what the main problem with Pewdiepie is, I’d say it’s not just about him (although he’s clearly a major part), it’s about the attitudes he emboldens. A lot of the views he holds are similar to and/or dogwhistles for very dangerous and hateful ideologies– the incels, the “red pill” movement, alt-right extremists, neo-nazis, and others. He has done many problematic things, but ultimately it’s about the 100 million people he has an impact on. And obviously a creator cannot control the actions of all their fans, but they do have an influence on them. They do embolden them. And Pewdiepie’s frequent controversial statements and actions endear him to people of dangerous ideologies and make them more confident in spreading their hatred. The particular brand of harsh and edgy humor he uses and inspires, especially in communities like his subreddit, creates an atmosphere of hate and can easily expose a person, particularly young white males, to toxic ideas and dangerous environments. Pewdiepie may be the face of his channel, but there are 100 million people behind him and not all of them have good intentions.

There’s more I could say about this, but this is all I have energy for right now. It’s a complicated issue and I’ve tried to be brief but I still ended up writing a frickin essay. But once again I urge you to Google things and do some research about these issues whether or not you agree with how I’ve interpreted them here, because Pewdiepie has an impact on the Youtube community as a whole no matter what you think about him.

#asks #pewdiepie cw #pewdiepie #antisemitism #antisemetism tw #racism tw #please let me know if there is anything else you want me to tag for #homophobia mention #homophobia tw

83 notes · View notes

portraitofadumbassonfire · 4 years

Text

On Biphobia

I’m an empathetic person, there’s good & bad things that come with it. When it comes to why people (especially those in the LGBTQ+ community) are biphobic, I think there are different factors to why they are other than plain ignorance.

Those factors? Jealousy, Insecurity, & “Passing”

Dating and finding love is difficult but being in the queer community dating is an uphill battle, and it’s even harder for those who identify as bisexual. I identify as gay so I know how strong the loneliness can get, I also know how strong the jealousy can get as well. (I can be the jealous type i will admit) A lot of biphobes say they don’t want to date someone who is bisexual because they think they’ll cheat, despite the fact that there are a LOT of gays who cheat pretty much for fun, they feel like they will have to compete with the rest of the world if they like someone who is bisexual because their dating pool is bigger and they’ve probably dealt with people who have played games with their emotions while at the same time making a bad name for actual bi people. But the thing is....from what I’ve from many bisexuals, dating isn’t easier, some don’t even disclose their sexuality or just say they’re gay so they don’t have to explain themselves because I’m sure at this point they’re tired of having doing that.

That jealousy bleeds into the argument that Bi people whom are with someone of the opposite sex can pass as straight in public much easier than the rest of the community. Personally....I feel like Bi people can, but that’s only when they’re around straight people, when they come to their own community where they SHOULD feel safe and yet... here they are being ostracized by people who they thought would be more accepting of their sexuality, because yes they can blend in easier but that doesn’t mean straight people can’t be biphobic. (And i’m gonna go on a small tangent and say y’all kill me with this “gold star” shit, we’re not in a fucking kindergarten class)

I will admit, I have been that kind of person and will slip up sometimes, I can be jealous and selfish when I like a guy and pretty much just want him to pay attention to me only (Ik i sound insane), but I have to remind myself of what I dealt with eternally with figuring out my sexuality (even as a virgin) and how I HATED having it be invalidated or even judged for not being “gay enough” because I’ve never been with a woman, so how can I know I’m gay? I DON’T HAVE THE DESIRE FOR WOMEN SEXUALLY that’s how I know. No one, especially in the queer community likes to have their sexuality or their gender to judged by someone else’s standards, I know i don’t like that, why should I do that to someone else, especially someone form my own community?

On insecurity.... I’m gonna on another tangent but it’s related to insecurity(This is gonna sound pathetic) I’m a big Harry Styles fan (yeah no shit) and I’ve loved how over the past few years he’s been expressing his sexuality, but being in his fanbase, or even being in the 1D fanbase can poke at my insecurity at times, it’s not really anyone’s fault, it’s just how I feel about it. Most of H’s fanbase is consistent of str8 girls/bi girls/and lesbians, which is not a negative thing, but as a gay man, I can feel like a fish out of water at times. It kind of goes back to why I previously thought I’d never fawn over a boyband member because I thought “I’m not gonna play with my own emotions like that” I’d see millions of female fans lose their minds over these guys and some of them hope they have a chance to date any of them, I thought if I joined in on their fawning, I’d look and feel stupid because none of us would have a chance with them and if we did, I’d have a MUCH lesser chance than they did, so I vowed I’d never lose my mind over a boyband member. That’s until I found out about a certain green-eyed MF and the rest is history. It’s part of why I’ve been secretly dreading his upcoming music video after seeing the filming of it because it reminds me all too much of that insecurity; That I have no chance at all with the men I’m attracted to. (Not to mention the song where it’s suggested he’s talking about sucking dick is unreleased and only sung on tour, yet the song that’s suggestively about eating pussy is a single and has a music video) I know that’s a very negative thing to think about, but it’s something that’s been stuck in the back of my head for years and I know there are other gay male fans of Harry but let’s be real the last time I’ve seen some acknowledgement was that gay vodka moment & the “yes daddy I will” moment (A black gay male fan yelled that at him and he repeated it and I saw so many pretend as if he wasn’t responding to a guyor straight up say a female fan said that even though there is video footage of the dude saying it) I’m not gonna get on the topic of H’s fans who disregard his attraction to men, I’ll be here all day unsurprisingly the queer fans are the ones whom I’ve seen call out that bullshit. That’s my own personal insecurity, but I know I’m not the only one who feels or has felt that way. That’s at least one place, I’m sure some people’s biphobia stems from, personal insecurity.

I think a lot of biphobia comes from ignorance, but I think it also comes from hurt or the fear of being hurt even more. I can understand that fear all too well, I’ve been hurt by other people, not romantically (yet) and honestly I have and feel that fear strongly, but so do Bi people, we’re all humans with emotions that don’t have an off switch, and I also know that being oppressive toward someone else in an already oppressed community won’t help in any way, no matter how much you convince yourself it can. I know i’m not saying anything brand new or ground-breaking I just felt like airing that out.

I hope I don’t cussed out for this post.

#bisexuality

23 notes · View notes