#and like don’t get me wrong american queer history is extremely important to me personally but I also know it’s not every queer person’s

[cherry-pop-soda]

since its almost pride month im just coming to say if I see one more american acting like our queer history is universal I will be biting and killing. we are but a small fraction of all queer history and if people here dont get that thru their fucking heads i might go insane. this is not to say that our history is unimportant its just to say that it is not NEARLY all of queer history and I am tired of people here acting like that is the case. there is so much other queer history out there and even though I dont know a lot about all of it I do know that I dont want it to be erased.

source: i am also american

[olderthannetfic]

I'm a Chinese, nationally and racially. Racial projection seems to be a common practice in western fandom, doesn't it? I find it a bit... weird to witness the drama ignited upon shipping individuals with different races, or the tendency to separate characters into different "colors" even though the world setting doesn't divide races like that. Such practice isn't a thing here. Mind explaining a bit on this phenomenon?

--

Sure, I can try. But of course, fish aren’t very good at explaining the water they swim in.

Americans aren’t good at detecting our own Americanness, and a lot of what you’re seeing is very much culturally American rather than Western in general. (In much of Europe, “race” is a concept used by racists, or so I’m told, unlike in the US where it’s seen more neutrally.) Majority group members (i.e. me, a white girl) aren’t usually the savviest about minority issues, but I’ll give it a shot.

The big picture is that most US race stuff boils down to our attempts to justify and maintain slavery and that dynamic being applied, awkwardly, to everyone else too, even years after we abolished slavery.

There’s a concept called the “one drop rule” where a person is “black” if they have even one drop of black blood.

We used to outlaw “interracial” marriage until quite recently. (That meant marriage between black people and white people with Asians and Hispanic people and others wedged in awkwardly.) Here’s the Wikipedia article on this, which contains the following map showing when we legalized interracial marriage. The red states are 1967.

That’s within living memory for a ton of people! Yellow is 1948 to 1967. This is just not very long ago at all. (Hell, we only fully banned slavery in 1865, which is also just not that long ago when it comes to human culture.)

Why did we have this bananas-crazy set of laws and this idiotic notion that one remote ancestor defines who you are? It boils down to slavery requiring a constant reaffirming that black people are all the same (and subhuman) while white people are all this completely separate category. The minute you start intermarrying, all of that breaks down. This was particularly important in our history because our system of slavery involved the kids of slaves being slaves and nobody really buying their way out. Globally, historically, there are other systems of slavery where there was more mobility or where enslaved people were debtors with a similar background to owners, and thus the people in power were less threatened by ambiguity in identity.

Post-slavery, this shit hung around because it was in the interests of the people in power to maintain a similar status quo where black people are fundamentally Other.

A lot of our obsession with who counts as what is simply a legacy of our racist past that produced our racist present.

--

The other big factor in American concepts of identity is that we see ourselves as a nation of immigrants (ignoring our indigenous peoples, as usual). A lot of people’s families arrived here relatively recently, and we often don’t have good records of exactly where they were from, even aside from enslaved people who obviously wouldn’t have those records. Plenty of people still identify with a general nationality (”Italian-American” and such), but the nuance the family might once have had (specific region of Italy, specific hometown) is often lost. Yeah, I know every place has immigrants, and lots of people don’t have good records, but the US is one of those countries where families have on average moved around a lot more and a lot more recently than some, and it affects our concepts of identity. I think some of the willingness to buy into the idea of “races” rather than “ethnicities” has to do with this flattening of identity.

New immigrant groups were often seen as Other and lesser, but over time, the ones who could manage it got added to our concept of “whiteness”, which gave them access to those same social and economic privileges.

Skin color is a big part of this. In a system that is founded on there being two categories, white owners and black slaves, skin color is obviously going to be about that rather than being more of a class marker like it is in a lot of the world.

But it’s not all about skin color since we have plenty of Europeans with somewhat darker skin who are seen as generically white here, while very pale Asians are not. I’m not super familiar with all of the history of anti-Asian racism in the US, but I think this persistent Otherness probably boils down to Western powers trying to justify colonial activities in Asia plus a bunch of religious bullshit about predominantly Christian nations vs. ones that are predominantly Buddhist or some other religion.

In fact, a lot of racist archetypes in English can be traced back to England’s earliest colonial efforts in Ireland. Justifying colonizing Those People because they’re subhuman and/or ignorant and in need of paternalistic rulers or religious conversion is at the bottom of a lot of racist notions. Ironic that we now see Irish people as clearly “white”.

--

There are a lot of racist porn tropes and racist cultural baggage here around the idea of black people being animalistic. Racist white people think black men want to rape/steal white women from white men. Black women get seen as hypersexual and aggressive. If this sounds like white people projecting in order to justify murder and rape... well, it is.

Similar tropes get applied to a lot of groups, often including Hispanic and Middle Eastern people, though East Asians come in more for creepy fantasies about endlessly submissive and promiscuous women. This nonsense already existed, but it was certainly not helped by WWII servicemen from here and their experiences in Asia. Again, it’s a projection to justify shitty behavior as what the party with less power was “asking for”.

In porn and even romance novels, this tends to turn up as a white character the audience is supposed to identify with paired with an exotic, mysterious Other or an animalistic sexy rapist Other.

A lot of fandoms are based on US media, so all of our racist bullshit does apply to the casting and writing of those, whether or not the fic is by Americans or replicating our racist porn tropes.

(Obviously, things get pretty hilarious and infuriating once Americans get into c-dramas and try to apply the exact same ideas unchanged to mainstream media about the majority group made by a huge and powerful country.)

--

Politically, within the US, white people have had most of the power most of the time. We also make up a big chunk of the population. (This is starting to change in some areas, which has assholes scared shitless.) This means that other groups tend to band together to accomplish shared political goals. They’re minorities here, so they get lumped together.

A lot of Americans become used to seeing the world in terms of “white people” who are powerful oppressors and “people of color” who are oppressed minorities. They’re trying to be progressive and help people with less power, and that’s good, but it obviously becomes awkward when it’s over-applied to looking at, say, China.

--

Now... fandom...

I find that fandom, in general, has a bad habit of holding things to double standards: queer things must be Good Representation™ even when they’re not being produced for that purpose. Same for ethnic minorities or any other minority. US-influenced parts of fandom (which includes a lot of English-speaking fandom) tend to not be very good at accepting that things are just fantasy. This has gotten worse in recent years.

As fandom has gotten more mainstream here, general media criticism about better representation (both in terms of number of characters and in terms of how they’re portrayed) has turned into fanfic criticism (not enough fics about ship X, too many about ship Y, problematic tropes that should not be applied to ship X, etc.). I find this extremely misguided considering the smaller reach of fandom but, more importantly, the lack of barriers to entry. If you think my AO3 fic sucks, you can make an account and post other fic that will be just as findable. You don’t need money or industry connections or to pass any particular hurdle to get your work out there too.

People also (understandably) tend to be hypersensitive to anything that looks like a racist porn trope. My feeling is that many of these are general porn tropes and people are reaching. There are specific tropes where black guys are given a huge dick as part of showing that they’re animalistic and hypersexual, but big dicks are really common in porn in general. The latter doesn’t automatically mean you’re doing the former unless there are other elements present. A/B/O or dubcon doesn’t mean it’s this racist trope either, not unless certain cliched elements are present. OTOH, it’s not hard for a/b/o tropes to feel close to “animalistic guy is rapey”, so I can see why it often bothers people.

A huge, huge, huge proportion of wank is “all rape fantasies are bad” crap too, which muddies the waters. I think a lot of people use “it’s racist” as an easy way to force others to agree with their incorrect claims that dubcon, noncon, a/b/o, etc. are fundamentally bad. Many fans, especially white fans, feel like they don’t know enough to refute claims of racism, so they cave to such arguments even when they’re transparently disingenuous.

--

Not everyone here thinks this way. I know plenty of people offline, particularly a lot of nonwhite people, who think fandom discourse is idiotic and that the people “protecting” people or characters of color are far more racist than the people writing “bad” fic or shipping the wrong thing.

But in general, I’d say that the stuff above is why a lot of us see the world as white people in power vs. everyone else as oppressed victims, interracial relationships as fraught, and porn about them as suspect. Basically, it’s people trying to be more progressive and aware but sometimes causing more harm than good when those attempts go awry.

[just-an-enby-lemon]

I may or may not have be waiting for this moment my whole life (and yeah that is a hiberbole) but I finally got the oportunity to talk about two of my favorite subjects: Brazil and Julie e os Fantasmas, not Julie and the Phanthoms, the original brasiliam version of the show. 

So, my jorney started when I was talking online with my cousin and we got on the discussion about the differences of the two series what ended with us looking through american articles about the show and talking/discuting and ocasionaly laughting at them.  There wasn’t many articles, but there was enough to make the conversation flow and them my catalisys happened - kindda of - I found an Screen Rant article about the diferences between them.

It was a short article and most of it was pretty basic stuff, I didn’t agree wth everything and honestly found the way they made some comparissons unecessary - they didn’t need to drag the brazilian version down to put the american up! both are already great shows - but like whathever. Them... them it came a sentence that annoyed me a lot : the figurine talk.

Now I don’t think it was on purpose or anything like that but it had some misinformation. It started pretty solid with the article stating that since the bands (Apolo 81 and Sunset Curve) were from diferent timelines (the first from the 80′s and the former from the 90′s) they dressed diferentely. What yeah. It’s a good point. 

Even the picture about the cd and the disco show it perfectly. They are not the same band. They are not from the same era nor from the same country and as so they are not so similar in most ways. It is a extremely good point on a comparison.

So why it bothered me so much?

Well, cause what came after it. 

After conquering my respect with a really good point the article managed to lose it and make me angry on the next sentence. For absolutely no reason the Screen Rant people decided that it was important to coment that the figurine in Julie e os Fantasmas was “strange” and a mere “ early 00′s view on the 80′s without real proximity”. None coment was made about Julie and the Phantoms figurine at all.  And of course it was wrong in three points.

 The exclusion of Julie and the Phantons in the text. Don’t get me wrong while nostalgia and the fact that I identify myself more in the original for cultural reasons make me preffer the brazilian version, I like the american one and find it really weel made. But the phatoms don’t dress 100% like the 90′s. And no. This is not a mistake. Doesn’t matter how acurate it tries to be any portrait of a diferent era will still have touches of the vision that our era has of it and that is just how it is. Yeah, the brazilian figures have some inspirational on the emo culture and bands like MCR and Green Day (alongside with some brazilian bands who were popular in the 00′’s) but it’s natural that it happens just like it’s natural that Julie and the Phatons have some inspiration on 20′s culture.

The relation of the figurines with the plot. In the brazilian show the way the phatons died it’s super diferent. They had they first important contract and would make a debut album soon. The four (yeap four) members of the band decided to take the photografy to the album cover by themselfs and to made it be just like the Abbey Road cover, as they get ready the newest member of the band decided to go take his shoes (so he could look like Paul McCartney) and while he did that a truck lost control (probably trying to stop after seeing the boys on the road) and kill the three of them.  Why is it important for the figurine discussion? As you probably know the clothes you die on will be your only clothes as a gosth. That means that the Apolo 81 died dressed up for an album cover and not in “casual day to day 80′s clothes”. 

The cultural diferences. And here is the most important point. The 80′s in U.S and latin america - especially Brazil - were very diferent times. Now it’s time for a brief history lesson: the 80′s on Brazil was a very important era marked by a huge economic crise, the end of a 30 years ditatorial regime and a cultural clash. While it only ended oficially in 1985 the brazilian militar regime started to decay a little early with new laws being aproved to garantee forgiviness to the political prisioners, the people who were forced to get out of the country, the rebels and the dictators (yeah, a bunch of torturers, rapists and murderes were forgiven too). Also was in the 80′s that the censorship started to disapear and as consequence a lot of movies, music and litature (beside other cultural and entertament forms) from the 60′s and 70′s was only now getting in the country.

On the other hand the end of the regime showed a sad reality: the economic “miracle” that the country was living was a facade based on a bunch of loans with foreing countries in a tentative of promove the ditatorship and as consequence Brazil was full of debt and pretty broke (we only finish paying the debt in the 00′’). This crise made the young members of the middle class - who were already a strong force against the ditartoship cause of the abuses they suffered on ditactors hands for dooing teenage things - even angrier. They were sinking. And so the punk rock came to Brazil. Well more less, brazilian punk rock has influence of other genres like pop, classic rock, some brazilian moviments like tropicalia and bossa nova and even jazz, so not so punk, but still pretty punk. After all Brazil was finally reciving the news. 

Thanks to this whole background the brazilian bands were pretty unique - they still are - and so had they own dress style with a lot of foreing influences and honestly a lot of diferent options (also the queer liberation and the AIDS crises came almost the same time to Brazil giving the bands, most made by queer (some closeted) people even more reason to be angsty and mad about).  So the style, the personality and the figurines of Apolo 81 members are actually mostly accurate, having similar references.  

Yeah, the references. In the show besides the obvius influence brazilian pop rock band NX0  had on Julie’s band, the influences of the Apolo 81 boys are more implicit (though the lider Daniel is a clear fan of Beatles and The Doors and the other members also talk about the Stones and The Who) but it’s preaty easy to see the similaritys with some brazilian big rock bands of the time. I will show some pictures of them and for last the fictional band of the phatoms.

Titans (1981- now)

Kid Abelha (1981-2016)

Barão Vermelho ( original  members1981-1985)

Zero (1983 - now  )

Biquini Cavadão (1983- now)

Apolo 81  (fictional band, colorized [cause as you can see for their album cover up there and most of this band photos black on whithe in album covers were the THING back them])

And with it I end my rant/history lesson. Uwu. It was kindda fun... hope someone enjoy it as weell

[romolite]

*Important FAQ*

Aka questions that pertain to what I usually post about or stuff I don’t like getting asks about but continue to get asks about regardless.

[Insert any invasive question about my ethnicity/race]

I’m Ghanaian American. My parents were born in Ghana and I was born here in the US. I’ve seen it more on twitter and tumblr, but Black Africans don’t like me because I’m American, and black Americans don’t like me because I’m African. So I’m stuck in the middle lmao. I’m what you’d consider a First-Generation African, my parents are Continental Africans, and if I have children, they will be considered Generational African Americans.

First Generation African: A black person born in the US to parents who were born in Africa

Generational African American: A black person born in the US to US-born black parent(s)

Continental African: A black person born in Africa to parents who were also born in Africa

Non is just a prefix, black people don’t have a monopoly on the term! I suppose you think nonbinary people are racist huh?

Yeah sure it wasnt coined by black people but the context it’s currently used as was predominantly used by black people. ALL people who are not black benefit from and contribute to antiblackness, even if they are marginalized themselves. That kind of dynamic doesnt exist in other contexts (unless we’re talking about transfem + transmisogyny, but that’s something you’d have to talk to someone who is transfem about. Plus they have their own word for  “non-transfem”). Using it in contexts outside of antiblackness is appropriative (Yall are annoying as fuck with the “non-aspec” “non-lesbian”(this term also has anti-bi roots btw) “non-bi” shit etc, stop it. You also can’t complain about the “replacement terms” lumping yall with oppressors when “non-x” does the exact same thing you’re so worried about. “Cis” puts cis gays with cis hets, cis disabled people with cis abled people, cis white people with cis poc, I could go on.) 

Plus we’re talking about marginalized groups here. Black people are a marginalized group. Binary people as a whole are not so the term nonbinary isn’t appropriate at all.  I dont take issue with terms like “nonamerican” or “nonwhite” because (obviously) whites + americans as a whole aren’t oppressed for being white or american.

Basically using "non-x” in contexts to talk about oppression bad, everything else good.

Follow up: If we can’t use non-[marginalized group], what can we use instead?

There are other words to describe the people you’re talking about

non-transfem- TME

non-LGBT- cishet, or people who aren’t LGBT

non-trans - cis

Black people don’t have a monopoly on the acronym nb! I’ll call myself nb if I want to!

At this point I dont really care, go on your antiblack crusade elsewhere and out of my inbox, I’m always gonna mean nonblack when I use the acronym nb. 

And yes, you’re antiblack as fuck if you think black people telling you “nb” stands for “nonblack” is the same as exclusionists claiming “aspec” is for autistic people.

Is x AAVE?

I have a tag dedicated to what is and is not aave and how harmful it is for nonblacks to use aave given its history. I know some things overlap with southern culture but others are specifically for black people. A lot of “stan twitter” language/slang is just repackaged AAVE. No, I can’t tell you how to stop using AAVE. Don’t tell me you’re going to try to stop using AAVE, I don’t want to hear it.

Why don’t you like the n-word being compared to LGBT slurs?

Race and Sexuality/Gender aren’t comparable topics because each deals with a different history of oppression. I don’t care about slur discourse that much because I don’t even use/reclaim any myself except the n-word.

I have a problem with nonblack LGBT people co-opting black culture and struggle(like they always do), especially for trivial online discourse.

And to be honest it goes deeper than slur discourse. Every other day someone is weaponizing the oppression of black trans women, or comparing “cishet aces/aros” in the LGBT community to white/nonblack people invading black spaces (you know, something that ACTUALLY takes resources away from the people who need it, see the cultural appropriation of Black African and Blac American culture in literally any nonblack community while black people get demonized for said culture), or tokenizing their black friends to get away with something blatantly racist. And that’s not even getting into how a lot of gay slang/stan culture is just repurposed AAVE/black culture.

And I’m not gonna lie, I’ve seen this more with exclusionist accounts than inclus accounts, but it’s still not excusable for inclus to do that either. We get erased as black gay/trans/queer/aspec people up until it’s time for discourse accounts to bring us up to one-up each other

Can you give me advice on x?

Most likely not, because I’m not an expert or an advice blog. I’ll try, but don't take my word for it. I’m also tme, able-bodied, not Jewish, singlet, etc, so I’m not able to accurately answer questions about transmisogyny, (physical?) ableism, antisemitism, “sycourse”, etc.

I might be able to give advice on school-related stuff since I just graduated high school, but remember that students are not a monolith, and what worked for me may not work for someone else.

Can I follow if I’m nonblack/a minor/cishet?

Nonblack and/or cishet can follow but watch your step, minors blacklist the #minors dni tag before following

Why do you hate Ao3?

*long sigh*

I don't, I have a problem with the fact that it allows racist and (frankly voyeuristic) pedophilic/abusive/incestuous content to exist on its platform. It’s a good concept overall, but the devs are complicit in allowing “underage” and “noncon/dubcon” fics on their platform.

And there's the fact that they somehow need donations every year despite exceeding their goal several times over each year?

What’s wrong with Hazbin Hotel/The Ships/Vivziepop?

[WIP, as I have to go into extensive detail about this and I currently don’t have the energy for it]

TLDR: Viv made a half-assed apology for supporting racists (one of whom did blackface [yes the mask was used to do blackface shut up] to mock black activist) and drawing gross content. Her current projects including Hazbin Hotel are full of anti-gay/trans/aspec (Angel Dust, Vaggie, Alastor), antisemetic (Mimzy), and racist (Vaggie again, that yellow cyclops character that I’ve forgotten the name of) content under the guise of humor. If you’re into that shit, whatever, just don’t follow me and don’t whine when I make posts criticizing it.

What’s wrong with Hamilton?

Aside from the fact that it’s very obviously glorifying slave owners and made people worldwide believe the founding fathers were good people, LMM, the creator, is nonblack. This isn't his story to tell at all. 

Can you tag x?

I have a list of things I usually tag because they come upon this blog a lot. I cannot do catch all tags, as I have way too many followers for that. The closest thing to that is the “ask to tag” tag when there’s something potentially triggering but I’m not sure what it is. Everything is tagged as “x tw”. If something is extremely triggering, I’ll tag it as “major tw”

Do you tag slurs?

I tag slurs I’m not able to reclaim at all (i.e., d slur, f slur, t slur) or slurs I can reclaim but are being used as a slurs. I don’t tag the n-word, as I reclaim that one. I always tag the r slur

Can I message you about something/someone?

Unless you’re a mutual, most likely no. My DMs are only open to mutuals.

Do you want to be mutuals?

I don’t usually follow back people who follow me, especially if you’re under 16 or post things I’m not interested in.

Why is it important to have byf or about?

1) So I know gross people aren’t following me. This is not up for discussion

2) So I know someone’s not speaking out of their lane, which tends to happen a lot. (i.e, someone refusing to disclose that they are tme when discussing transmisogyny, someone not having their race listed when discussing racism)

3) Some people don’t want to interact with people under 18 or over like 30 or something.

Yeah, yeah, people aren’t entitled to personal information and all that crap but I have a serious problem with people speaking on topics from a place of privilege. Not to say they can’t talk about those things, just perhaps add a disclaimer that you’re privileged when talking about these things and be open to criticism, and NOT blocking people of the said marginalized group when they tell you something you’ve said was problematic.

I also have a problem with people who are intentionally vague about their age. There’s a difference between interacting with someone who’s 20 and someone who’s 29. I don’t want to say it’s the opposite for minors but at the same time there’s a difference for saying something racist at 13 and doing so at 17, and keeping your age vague makes it harder to determine how to deal with something like that. (Not that 13-year-olds shouldn’t know better, it’s just I don’t feel whole ass callout posts and receipt blogs are necessary for someone of that age).

Also anyone under 16, I can't stop you from following, but keep your interaction limited, please. This isnt an 18+ blog but I do rb suggestive jokes from time to time

I sent you an ask and you never answered it!

It’s likely that

I never got it

You were blocked

I’ve already answered this or it’s been answered in my faq

It’s a random positivity ask (which I appreciate but not sure how to respond to those)

You were rude in your ask and I didn’t feel like answering

I forgot until it was too late, which happens when my inbox gets a lot of asks at a time.

You sent it to the wrong blog (I.e, sending asks about my ocs to this blog instead of @ochood )

Hey, the op is [insert post] is [someone on my dni]! I usually double-check myself, just to be sure.

Have you heard about [someone who is mutuals with someone I’m loosely connected with]?

Most likely, no. And unless they’re an immediate danger to someone or they’ve got my name in their mouth, I don’t care.

Do you know who [x person/group/thing] is?Most likely no. Not to sound like a hipster but I don't usually keep up to date with trends. If I do hear about something, it’s most likely from twitter or Instagram.

Why am I blocked? Check here.

Why do you continuously move mains/change URLs/update themes?

I’m inconsistent. And sometimes there are posts on my blog that I no longer stand by.

Can I tag you in posts I think I’d like?Of course! 

[mortuarybees]

What books do you recommend me to read?

I’m not sure what your tastes are but I’ll tell you some of my favorites! To be quite honest, I mainly return to the same books over and over again so the list is rather short and I doubt I have anything to recommend that you won’t have heard of already. I’ll recommend my favorites. It consists mainly of my usual rotation of things i read over and over or books that left an impression on me and I refer back to them often.

When it comes to the non-fiction section just like….keep in mind that most academic texts have many, many problems and I’m not presenting any of the texts I list as The Quintessential Must Read Best Flawless Overview of a topic, I’m mainly listing the books I have found to be approachable and reasonable introductions to topics. Read everything critically, always (and that includes everything else on this list, not just the non-fiction).

Plays:

An Oresteia, translated by Anne Carson (Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, Sophocles’ Elektra, Euripides’ Orestes)

Iphigenia in Tauris by Euripides

I mean like. Shakespeare, obviously; my personal favorites are Hamlet, Twelfth Night, As You Like It, Julius Caesar, and Macbeth; recently, thanks to the productions starring David Tennant, Much Ado About Nothing and Richard II have been added to the list

Doctor Faustus, Edward II, and Dido by Christopher Marlowe

Antigone, particularly Anne Carson’s translation, and after you’ve read Antigone, I’d recommend reading Antigonick, but not before

Lysistrata by Aristophanes

The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde (I feel like Lady Windermere’s Fan is also kind of necessary reading and I do love it of course but I’ve only read it the once, for the sake of it, whereas I’ve come back to the Importance of Being Earnest a million times and the 2002 movie is one of the things I watch when I’m down)

Novels (and Epics)

Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett if you haven’t yet, obviously

Maurice by E. M. Forster

The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde

The Secret History by Donna Tartt

VIRGINIA WOOLF. everything but particularly the Waves, Orlando, and Mrs. Dalloway. The Waves is my favorite, followed closely by Orlando, but I’d start with the Mrs. Dalloway because it gets you accustomed to Woolf’s writing style and the way she approaches her characters if you haven’t read her before.

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (If you haven’t read it yet and you have seen 2005 P&P and love it and you’re opening the novel with the expectation that it’s similar to the 2005 film in tone and feel, you’ll be disappointed. If you’ve seen the 1995 miniseries, that reflects it very well. So just approach it with an open mind with 2005 on the back burner and you’ll find it an amazing and very repressed love story)

Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe by Benjamin Alire Sáenz

Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh

When the Moon Was Ours by Anna-Marie McLemore

The Iliad (the translation I own is Lombardo. It’s extremely approachable and colloquial and I enjoy it, and if you’ve never read the Iliad and you find it intimidating, I would very much recommend it, but my high opinion is not universal. Fagles and Lattimore are very popular translations and I like them both well enough)

I’m dying to get a copy of Emily Wilson’s Odyssey translation. I don’t love the Odyssey personally but I am a big fan of Wilson and from what I’ve read about her translation and what she’s said about it, if anything could make me enjoy the Odyssey, it would be that translation.

Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë

The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller. I would personally recommend reading the Iliad first just because Miller takes…….liberties with it, but I also don’t think there’s a problem with that at all, so if you’re not interested in the Iliad, or you think tsoa would get you interested in it, there’s nothing at all wrong with reading it on its own or reading it first. I just think it’s a genuinely more enjoyable experience to read the Iliad first and then see what Miller does with it. And regardless of what order you read them in, if you read them both you will understand how very different tsoa and the Iliad are from one another and you will not be one of those people who talks about the Iliad when what they mean is tsoa. Again, there’s nothing wrong with tsoa, it’s one of my favorite novels, but it’s just a very separate thing and it gets just a little maddening.

Autobiography of Red by Anne Carson. It’s both poetry and a novel but it’s got to go somewhere so

When I was 14 I got very into Les Mis and i will recommend it. I genuinely love it and it will always have a special place in my heart. I have read the entire brick only once however because as much as i love it. as much as i Relate to the infamous off-topic tangents. there is a limit to my patience.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is just like. extremely good. I really don’t know enough about it to recommend any specific translations; in high school I was given a stapled copy of the whole thing and I read that til I lost it and now if I want to reread it or refer back I just look it up online. I’m a fake fan.

Poetry

If Not, Winter: Fragments of Sappho translated by Anne Carson

The Beauty of the Husband by Anne Carson

Devotions, Felicity, and Winter Hours by Mary Oliver. Those are the anthologies that I have read and I adore them. I imagine that all of her anthologies are also amazing and all of them are on my to-read list. I don’t think you could possibly go wrong

I do not have the singular published collection of Elizabeth Siddal’s poetry (My Ladys Soul) but I have read all of her poetry and she is an amazing poet and I hold her very near and dear to my heart

Crush by Richard Siken

Useless Magic by Florence Welch……..yall knew what you came here for

Songs of Innocence and Experience by William Blake

Non-fiction and Essay Collections (again. None of these are recommended as the definitive, end all, be all, all-you-need book on any given subject, they’re just some of my favorites). I have limited myself to collection specifically because this is long enough already and if I start just adding essays it’ll never end. All of these were either purchased online for under $10, are available somewhere on the internet as pdfs, or were at my library, so if you look, you can probably find them somewhere (I say this bc while trying to find the authors of some of these I have been stunned by their retail prices and I’m assuring you, don’t be scared off by your initial search bc I sure as fuck did not pay $30):

Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution by Simon Schama

Marie Antoinette: the Journey by Antonia Fraser (controversial but well-researched and approachable and I love it. I would recommend reading like. almost anything else first because Fraser does obviously focus on Marie Antoinette and her life and experiences; and while she does talk about the revolution, it isn’t the focus of this biography, and you won’t understand why it was necessary if you don’t come to it with a good grasp on the broader events outside Marie Antoinette).

A Day with Marie Antoinette by Hélène Delalex

Robespierre: a Revolutionary Life and Liberty or Death: the French Revolution by Peter McPhee

The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution by C.L.R. James

If you’re at all interested in 18th century art, I recommend Rococo to Revolution:Major Trends in Eighteenth-Century Painting by Michael Levey

A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn is controversial. But it’s approachable and well-researched and if you don’t know a lot about American history, I recommend it highly (especially for Americans).

Eros, the Bittersweet by Anne Carson (okay literally everything by Anne Carson. All her essays, her poetry, her translations, her weird mashups, all of it. There are a few things I haven’t read yet but. I very much doubt you’re going to be able to go wrong, so just take what I’ve listed as my favorites)

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate and the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein

Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party by Joshua Bloom

Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: and Other Lessons from the Crematory and From Here to Eternity: Traveling the World to Find the Good Death by Caitlin Doughty (also the illustrations by Landis Blair are absolutely phenomenal. Look at this. I love it so much I pulled it out of the book to hang in my momento mori corner because it’s so beautiful.)

The Worst Hard Time by Timothy Egan

Alexander of Macedon by Peter Green is. okay we have a love-hate relationship, me and this biography; me, and peter green, but I have major issues with every single Alexander biography I’ve read and this was the first so if you want to start somewhere, I guess go for it.

The Empathy Exams by Leslie Jamison

The Honey Bee by James L. Gould. It’s out of date in some respects but a good, simple introduction into honeybee biology and behavior

Before the Deluge: A Portrait of Berlin in the 1920s by Otto Friedrich

Vanishing Bees: Science, Politics, and Honeybee Health by Sainath Suryanarayanan and Daniel Kleinman

Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present by Neil Miller

Holy Madness by Adam Zamoyski isn’t by any means perfect, but it’s a alright introduction to the Age of Revolution. Just don’t let it be the only thing you read. It’s here because it has a special place in my heart as my introduction to it.

Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates

Erotic Exchanges: the World of Elite Prostitution in 18th Century Paris by Nina Kushner

Radical Love: Introduction to Queer Theology by Patrick S. Cheng

Our Lives Matter: A Womanist queer Theology by Pamela R. Lightsey

Our Native Bees: North America’s Endangered Pollinators and the Fight to Save Them by Paige Embry

At the Existentialist Café by Sarah Bakewell (I really do not know that much about philosophy or existentialism specifically or this subject generally, so I have no idea where the faults of this book are, but I really enjoyed reading it and it made me think a lot. I have a feeling it’s very simplified so take it with a grain of salt as I did?)

Walden by Henry David Thoreau (just. just. it’s enjoyable but don’t get too into it please for the love of God). My copy (and I think most copies?) includes his essay Civil Disobedience as well which is very good.

Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave by Ona Judge

The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells

The Diaries of Virginia Woolf: I’m currently in the midst of volume 2 (1920-1924). They’re very enjoyable, but they’re something of an undertaking as all diaries are if you aren’t already very familiar with the biography of the person in question, so like. If you find yourself moving slowly don’t worry about it.

Gay Berlin: Birthplace of a Modern Identity by Robert Beachy

To Be Broken and Tender: A Quaker Theology for Today by Margery Post Abbott

The New Jim Crow byMichelle Alexander

The Environmental Case: Translating Values into Policy by Judith A. Layzer is a textbook that was assigned to me in my Enviornmental Policy class last semester and I really fkcing enjoyed it. It’s a book of case studies in environmental policy and it’s dense at times, but really interesting and enjoyable.

The Second Amendment: a Biography by Michael Waldman

Michelangelo’s Notebooks: the Poetry, Letters, and Art of the Great Master by Carolyn Vaughan. Just like. Genuinely. Genuinely. unintentionally hilarious. but also sometimes very sad, and very gay. I just adore Michelangelo. Just a shy foul-tempered repressed disaster. Jesus Christ.

[droo216]

Hey Drew, do you think you could go into detail and explain your feelings on the recent Harry Potter debacles (The Cursed Child and also what Pottermore has become)? Your opinions usually mirror mine but I'm having a hard time putting it all together. Cheers! Hope you're doing alright (I think you live in Florida?) watch out for that nasty, nasty weather.

Hey there! Let me see here. I’ll try to express my feelings, I’ll be eager to hear from you to see if you agree!

So basically the current expansion of J. K. Rowling’s wizarding world breaks down into three categories: Pottermore, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, and the Fantastic Beasts series. I’ll take them one at a time.

Pottermore started out as this amazing addition to the Potter fandom. We were all so excited to be officially Sorted into our houses, learn what kind of wands we might receive, and delve deeper into the world of Harry Potter. Pottermore was excellent at the start when we were learning more about Jo’s writing process and fun facts. Why were Hufflepuff’s colors yellow and black, for example. Even the character biographies we got at the start were thoughtful and creative and felt like an extension of the universe that was already there. Pottermore has deteriorated as we’ve moved further and further away from what Jo already had written down and we’ve gone deeper and deeper into material invented for Pottermore. Ilvermorny is obviously the biggest example here. The American copy-and-paste version of Hogwarts is so clearly an afterthought developed for a quick name-drop in the Fantastic Beasts movie. It truly makes no sense as an actual American school for reasons that plenty of people smarter than me have expanded on – the trivialization of Native American culture, the absurdity that one school would suffice for the entire United States, the dismissal of the canonically established Salem Institute. The inclusion of “houses” is particularly frustrating for me. I’m sure we have private schools in the States that have houses but in general it’s an extremely British concept that doesn’t translate here. More importantly, the Hogwarts house system is so incredible. The house mascots and colors, the association with the four elements, and the values prescribed to each category all come together in a truly beautiful way. Our generation in particular has come to adopt the Hogwarts houses as core elements to our personality. It’s our way of discussing our values – the morality of ambition, the importance of loyalty, the discussion of mind versus heart or knowledge versus instinct. The Ilvermorny houses belittle the brilliance of the Hogwarts houses and it honestly infuriates me.

As a tangent to this, I think Jo also insults her own system by continuing to sort the “good guys” into Gryffindor and the “bad guys” into Slytherin. Celestina Warbeck would have been a great good-Slytherin but Jo says she’s a Gryffindor. Dolores Umbridge would have been a fascinating bad-Hufflepuff but Jo says she’s a Slytherin. Remember that meta about how Hagrid’s house is never identified in the books and how it makes way more sense for him to be a Slytherin than a Gryffindor? The houses have so much depth to them, Jo even talks about how Hufflepuff is her favorite house, but she treats them in such a superficial way.

My frustration with the Fantastic Beasts series is not dissimilar to my frustration with Pottermore. Mostly my feeling with Fantastic Beasts so far is a lot like my feelings for Pandora – The World of Avatar at Disney’s Animal Kingdom: it’s beautiful, it’s amazing, but who cares? I don’t care about Newt Scamander and I don’t care about Gellert Grindelwald, especially if we’re going to continue to avoid Albus Dumbledore’s sexuality in telling this story. I wouldn’t mind all of this extra history if I had the history I want. I want Marauders! I want Founders! We know more about the founding of Ilvermorny than the founding of the school we actually care about! If we already had the stories that we’re all deeply fascinated by, I think we’d be more invested in these additional stories. Instead, the Fantastic Beasts series feels like a distraction so that Jo doesn’t have to tell the Marauders and Founders stories. Plus, including the abuser Johnny Depp in the cast is disgusting and infuriating.

Now we come to the ultimate insult to the Potter fandom: Cursed Child. I almost don’t know where to begin with this one. It is unfathomable to me that Jo, who cares so much about her characters, signed off on this and said it can be considered canon. There is just so much wrong here. The characterization of our existing characters, particular the Golden Trio, is so off. Hermione is a shadow of her former self; Ron seems to be based on the film interpretation rather than the book; and while portraying Harry as a misguided father is certainly an interesting choice and could be argued as a plausibility given the fact that he grew up without James and with Vernon, it is certainly the sadder choice, especially considering the wonderful father figures he’s had in Lupin, Sirius, Hagrid, Arthur, and even Dumbledore. It seems like this character choice is only there to serve up drama with Albus.

Next up, perhaps the most absurd piece of the Cursed Child puzzle, is Delphini Diggory. She might as well be named Ebony Darkness Dementia Raven Way. Delphi is the worst part of the entire Harry Potter universe. Her very existence makes no sense - not only would Voldemort have absolutely no need or want for a child and no need or want to have sex with Bellatrix, it also doesn’t fit into the timeline as far as I know. On top of that, she is so illogical as a character, underdeveloped in every way and uncompelling as a villain.

The story itself is aggravating because it seems to be entirely manufactured as fan service while simultaneously letting the fans down. The time turner storyline is clearly all about allowing the play to show us scenes and characters from the original books, yet the scenes we go to are the Triwizard challenges where very little actually happens to advance the Potter story. It’s such an odd choice. And so much centers around the Diggory family, who we hardly know anything about and it’s not like we really learn any new information about them except that apparently if Cedric hadn’t died he would have become a Death Eater, which is so absolutely ridiculous. They clearly just wanted to show us some of the old characters and that’s where this story came from. Even in the present story we see how fan service affected the writing - Jo has said the McGonagall wouldn’t be headmistress by the time Albus got there, and yet here she is. I haven’t even touched on the concept of returning to the night James and Lily died and forcing Harry to watch this trauma or the various stupidities of the alternate timelines like Ron and Hermione’s loveless fates if they aren’t married to one another. 

Also, I have to mention that Jo establishes some very clear laws of magic that this story just decides do not apply. If we all just believe hard enough, we can make Harry look like Voldemort! I know there were other cases of this, but it’s been a while since I’ve read the play so I can’t quite remember them off the top of my head. I could say though that this is probably the aspect that makes the whole thing feel so much like fanfiction (along with Delphi). The Potter world has rules and Jo sticks to them very carefully. The play’s disregard for these rules is sloppy.

The final issue I have to discuss regarding Cursed Child is, obviously, the relationship between Scorpius and Albus. It's been discussed to death, I know, but any criticism of the play is incomplete without mentioning it. These two boys are great characters on their own. Albus living in his father's shadow is compelling. Scorpius in particular is a wonderful character. I also have to applaud the choice to sort these two protagonists into Slytherin, finally breaking the mold I talked about earlier. But the queer baiting in this play is blatant and painful. Honestly, it wouldn't be so bad if we hadn't forced Scorpius into asking out Rose at the end of the play. I get it, fourteen-year-olds don't always understand their sexuality, and maybe you could even say attaching Rose to Scorpius is part of that, but the play certainly doesn't imply it that way at all. It's particularly hurtful because Jo is amazingly progressive in her politics and actively talks about LGBT rights, feminism, Black Lives Matter, and so on, but she does not demonstrate all of these powerful values in her books, especially when it comes to LGBT characters. The only character she has identified as anything other than straight is Dumbledore, and even that is never mentioned in the literature, and if you know it's there it's still  only implied as a tragic barely-there subplot. The wizarding world struggles with diversity across the board. Jo's made steps. Casting black actresses as Hermione and Rose is absolutely incredible. We're starting to see characters of color appear in the Fantastic Beasts series, although way too slowly in my opinion. But despite all of her politics, Jo is dragging her feet when it comes to LGBT representation, and denying us even an implied future relationship between Albus and Scorpius is just... frustrating. I could go on and on about the details of their relationship throughout the play and how the writing clearly indicates feelings between them, but others who know the text more thoroughly have already been there and done that.

Basically it all boils down to this: Jo is giving us an overload of information that we either don’t want or don’t care about and denying us the stuff that we do. Maybe she should have quit while she was ahead. Goodness knows the Potter fans have enough creativity to fill in their own blanks. I can only hope that as Pottermore and the Fantastic Beasts series continue to grow, maybe she can do better. 

[acsversace-news]

You finally need two hands to count all the current TV shows with Asian American protagonists. Fresh Off the Boat (ABC) and Master of None(Netflix) arrived with fanfare for breaking ground (though a third season of Aziz Ansari’s romantic comedy was uncertain even before the star’s current scandal), while Quantico (ABC) and Into the Badlands (AMC) keeping chugging along, and the comedy Brown Nation (Netflix) and children’s melodrama Andi Mack (Disney Channel) have yet to become blips on the mainstream pop cultural radar. So it’s a bit strange, and off-putting, that the latest series with an Asian lead—one of the most anticipated shows of the year, it so happens—isn’t being described as such. In fact, its network—once a standard-bearer for prestige TV’s lack of diversity—is highlighting the drama’s focus on queerness and homophobia—and by doing so largely erasing its main character’s racial identity, especially in the first half of his story.

The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story isn’t about the titular victim but his killer: Andrew Cunanan, a San Diego native born to a Filipino father and an Italian American mother. Writer Tom Rob Smith adapted journalist Maureen Orth’s nonfiction account Vulgar Favors, structuring the episodes in reverse chronological order so we work backward from Versace’s murder. In a recent interview, Smith said of his source material that it “reads very much like an outsider commenting on a world of which they’re not part, and sometimes that can make you seem quite removed from it.” I agree with his assessment; Orth’s book includes lengthy and salacious discussions of Versace’s HIV status and the popularity of meth among gay communities. But Smith’s description could also be turned on The Assassination of Gianni Versace, which is a white writer’s dramatization of another white writer’s interpretation. American Crime Story’s first season, The People v. O.J. Simpson, tackled issues of both race and gender skillfully; there’s no reason why we should accept any less from its second.

The show’s Andrew, played by Darren Criss, does mention his father’s plantation in the Philippines early on. But between his pathological lying and that country’s colonial past, his race isn’t confirmed till about midway through the nine-hour season. A few character details here and there suggest Andrew’s racial self-hatred and the prevalence of anti-Asian racism within the gay community, but the relative sparseness of these implications is all the more noteworthy in contrast with the richly developed portrait of the decade’s homophobia.

Credit where it’s due, even if the bar for praise here is laughably low because Hollywood’s institutional aversion toward Asian stories and characters remains so entrenched: In casting Glee’s Criss (who played Blaine Anderson), Ryan Murphy hired a half-Filipino (if white-passing) actor to play the half-Filipino role of Andrew Cunanan. Criss is excellent, and in later episodes, the Philippines-born Broadway performer Jon Jon Briones is electrifying as Andrew’s father, the sociopathic Modesto, who teaches his favorite child all the wrong lessons about the American dream.

If The Assassination of Gianni Versace feels urgent as it revisits the stifling homophobia of the ’90s, it’s far less successful in reimagining Cunanan from a racialized point of view, at least in the first eight episodes. (The season finale was not provided to critics in advance.) It’s certainly not as if those racial and ethnic depictions of Cunanan don’t exist. In his analysis of the divergent foci of the mainstream American and Filipino American media narratives about Cunanan, scholar Allan Punzalan Isaac notes that the former wagged its tongue about his “deviant” sexuality (Tom Brokaw infamously referred to the killer as a “homicidal homosexual”), while consumers of the latter looked on with a mixture of “pleasure and horror.” The horror is understandable enough. The pleasure, perhaps, is easier to grasp when you’re part of a group whose presence and history are constantly made invisible by the larger American culture. “Perhaps [the Filipino American fascination with Cunanan] stemmed from a longing to be reflected in the small screen in this American media sensation,” Isaac wrote several years after Cunanan’s death. Filipinos preferred participation, he conjectures, in “any American drama, even for the wrong reasons.”

Nearly all of the eight Filipino American scholars, activists, and advocates I talked to for this story say that Cunanan has fallen out of popular Filipino American lore, just as he’s been forgotten by American pop culture until now. Professor Christine Bacareza Balance told me in an email interview that when she polled 40 or so students in a recent Filipino American Studies course, only one or two knew who Cunanan was. But among gay Filipino Americans, he remains something of a cult figure and for a few Filipino American writers, a literary muse. Isaac begins his seminal book about Filipino American identity, American Tropics, with a meditation on Cunanan’s incarnation of many of the concepts central to his subject: the possibility of “assimilation gone wrong,” the fear of rejection and the eagerness to belong, the embodiment of Filipino/American “mestizo” beauty standards, the corresponding ethnic ambiguity. (Isaac quotes a New York Times article describing Cunanan’s face as “so nondescript that it appears vaguely familiar to just about everyone.”) Paul Ocampo, a co-chair of the Lacuna Giving Circle, a philanthropic group that fosters leadership in LGBTQ Asian American communities, offers a more cynical interpretation: “There’s an aspect of the glitter and glitz of Hollywood to this story that attracts many in the Filipino American community more than the macabre.”

It’s important to remember that Cunanan murdered five people, apparently in cold blood. His victims deserve to be mourned. But in the absence of other well-known personages (or the inconspicuousness of many successful celebrities’—e.g., Bruno Mars’— Filipino-ness,), it’s perhaps inevitable that some Filipino Americans see or project certain facets of themselves in one of the very few Filipino Americans to appear on TV and on page 1, especially during that era. Ben de Guzman, a policy advocate in D.C., saw Cunanan on the news and thought, There but for the grace of God go I. “As a young, gay Filipino American man who was around his age when he was in the news,” de Guzman recalls via email, “I was forced to look at how the same forces of homophobia and racism that informed my life must have affected him too.”

The former party boy and escort remains a symbol of queer defiance for some in the gay Filipino American community. “Here was a gay Filipino man who seemed unapologetic and daring in his acceptance of his sexuality,” says Ocampo. “In this, he seemed to exude a self-possession that many people struggle with.” Balance says that the image of Cunanan as a “queer Asian/Filipino American on the warpath” “truly goes against many dominant representations within ‘mainstream’ U.S. media.” Isaac contrasts Cunanan’s narrative with the gay/bi film Call Me by Your Name, which he observes is “set outside the U.S., outside the AIDS scare, outside any class conflict—all part of the Cunanan spectacle.” Isaac seems to anticipate a reckoning as Cunanan’s story unfurls on the series: “How is this story of intergenerational sex, wealth, casual prostitution, and reckless living in the gay demimonde of the ’90s to be received in this age of domesticated gay marriage?”

And if Cunanan’s messy and unpredictable life story seems ripe for fictional inspiration, The Assassination of Gianni Versace certainly didn’t get there first. A decade after Cunanan’s death, novelist and playwright Jessica Hagedorn (a canonical Filipino American writer), along with songwriter Mark Bennett, launched in the killer’s hometown a workshop production of their musical Most Wanted, a thinly fictionalized version of Cunanan’s story that explores media sensationalism and marginalized individuals’ desperation to belong. Smaller-scale works like Regie Cabico’s poem “Love Letter From Andrew Cunanan,” Gina Apostol’s short story “Cunanan’s Wake,” and Jason Luz’s erotic short story “Scherzo for Cunanan” likewise attempt to humanize a murderer who, while deplorable for his actions and indisputably extreme in personality, almost certainly had some desires and experiences common to many Filipino Americans. None of these works add up to a complete portrait, or could. But created from Filipino American perspectives, they explore the aspects of Cunanan’s life that white America still isn’t fully grappling with.

[classic-queeries]

Holden C*ace*field: Asexuality and Representation

Some background: At the end of my junior year of high school we read Catcher in the Rye in my American Lit class. A friend pointed out a quote to me and said “hey, Holden kinda seems asexual to me.” I hadn’t been particularly interested in the book before she pointed it out, but once I read the quote I saw what my friend saw. Further reading absolutely convinced me that Holden was demisexual.

My English teacher however, did not have the best history with queer coding. When we read The Great Gatsby many in my friend group were convinced that Nick Carraway was gay. When one friend brought it up in class, however, she got shot down almost immediately. The teacher only brought up queer coding once, in reference to The Scarlet Letter, saying that Chillingworth was gay because there was subtext that he sexually assaulted Dimmesdale. Which, if you’ve read the book? Not the conclusion I’d jump to. He kept using the words “homoerotic subtext” which also did not sit well with us. 

Needless to say, I did not bring up my demi-Holden theory in class. I did not want to deal with the teacher shutting me down like he had my friend. So instead, after AP tests and I’d handed in my last major paper for the year, I wrote an essay. Full semi-formal style, MLA formatting, definitions of everything, multiple sources and examples all correctly cited. Nothing he could fight me on.

And you know what he did? He fought me on it by throwing my argument back at me without the label. What followed was a few days of me stomping around, ranting to my friends that had helped me with this about how he wasn’t listening to me. I stopped the communication after a few back and forth exchanges. I was getting nowhere.

I’m still proud of the essay. I would classify it as one of the better things I’ve written, simply because it was an argument I actually cared about. So I’d like to share it, share why I relate to Holden even in a small way, because maybe it’ll help someone else.

–Mod Sherlock

When I first ran across the word asexual I didn’t think it applied to me. But it turns out whatever definition I had read was wrong. Asexual simply means that one does not experience sexual attraction. I’ve come to terms with that, and embrace my being asexual, or ace, proudly. You’ll see me down at Pride in June having fun with my friends, decked out in purple, black, and white. Problem is that not many people know about us. The last GLAAD survey had aces as about four percent of millennials (Accelerating Acceptance 2017). That is a bigger estimate than the last one we had at one percent back in 2004.

Of course, asexulaity is kinda an umbrella term. That GLAAD survey involves aces, demisexuals, and graces. I myself identify as asexual because I cannot conceive of what exactly sexual attraction is. People look at someone else and go, “I’d hit that,” or they appear in sexual fantasies? I literally cannot make sense of it. Many people have tried to help, none succeeded. I know a few people who identify as demisexual, which means that they only experience sexual attraction to someone once they form a deep emotional bond. They have to be dating the person, or close friends, or any other number of meaningful relationships, before they experience sexual attraction. There are others who identify as grey-asexual, grace, which means that they have only limited experience with sexual attraction. They may only experience it intermittently, maybe only once or twice in their life. This differs from demi in that they may experience it without the deep emotional bond. Asexuality is best thought of as a spectrum. The ace spectrum is from allosexuals, those who do feel sexual attraction, to aces, with demi and graces somewhere in the middle (AVEN).

The fact that we don’t experience sexual attraction doesn’t mean that we aces can’t have meaningful relationships. The split attraction model (SAM) is about the difference between sexual and romantic attraction. People can have two different orientations for different attractions. I have several panromantic asexual friends, who experience romantic attraction to all genders, yet no sexual attraction. There are homoromantics, biromantics, heteromantics, every sexuality has a romantic equivalent. This of course includes asexuality as well; those who don’t experience romantic attraction identify as aromantic. I identify as an aromantic asexual because romance is an enigma. Like, what the hell even is romance? Going out on a date with someone? Movies are more fun with more people, why not bring a couple friends? Ice cream or food? How is that a date? Romance is entirely dictated by societal norms and I, for one, am tired of it. Why should I be expected to date anyone if I don’t want to? And why is it that everytime I walk home with a male friend I get people asking me if we’re dating the next day and every time I think “oh my god no we’re neighbors he’s gay and I’m aroace what the flippity fuck people.” But I digress.

The SAM stems from the fact that there are many different types of attraction, some of which are easy to confuse with sexual attraction. Sexual and romantic attraction exist and are often conflated. A common attraction variation for aces to use is aesthetic attraction, which is simply thinking that someone looks nice. I can think that someone looks pretty in a military dress uniform without being sexually attracted to them. In addition there is sensual attraction, which means that someone experiencing it wants to interact in a tactile but non-sexual way. For instance, Carrie Fisher? Was very huggable. Both aesthetic and sensual attraction are extremely easy to confuse with sexual attraction and are often so intertwined that a person cannot tell them apart. Sensual has a sexual connotation for some people but i’ve never seen it used in a sexual way. In addition, I know that before I realized I was ace I would categorize who I considered ‘sexually attractive’ by who was aesthetically pleasing and just called that sexual attraction.

Enough with the SAM, though we’ll get back to it. A common misconception about asexuals is that we don’t have sex as a rule. That’s blatantly wrong, that’s the definition of celibacy. We have different levels of comfortability with sex. Some are sex-positive, which means that they enjoy or even want sex. Others are sex-ambivalent, meaning that they don’t particularly care either way. Still more are sex-repulsed, which means that they viscerally consider sex gross and do not want to participate in it or even talk about it depending on the extent of their repulsion. Like everything, this is a spectrum. Allos can also have these opinions on sex, they are not limited to aces.

The major problem that most asexuals face is ignorance. The estimated number of asexuals was so low in 2004 partly because there just isn’t wide enough knowledge about us. That number rose three percent in the past thirteen years in part because AVEN, the Asexual Visibility and Education Network, was formed and started to help spread word. Yet we are still ignored and pushed aside, even pathologized:

“….because sexuality is taken for granted as necessary to normalcy and normative bodies….asexuality is and has been historically diagnosed as a problem in need of medical reress and treatment….[the DSM has] “hypoactive sexual desire disorder” (DSM-III-R 1987)….”female sexual interest/arousal disorder” and “male hypoactive sexual desire disorder” (DSM-V 2013). Such labels indicate that low levels of sexual desire were seen by sexology and continue to be regarded by scientific medicine as ‘unhealthy’ and abnormal, reflecting more broadly on society’s negative attitiudes toward asexuality” (Przybylo 186).

Sexual attraction is so pervasive in our society that when someone doesn’t feel it they’re treated like they have a mental illness. I’m sure there are more examples of this, but I don’t have the stomach to go looking for more. I had to talk myself out of looking through the DSM for myself, I don’t need to find more examples of bigotry and prejudice.

Even so, I find unintentional (I hope) examples of aphobic attitudes in my own classroom. Calling sexual attraction “normal” hurts. That tends to imply that anything against the norm is bad, to be shunned and destroyed. I’m reminded of a song by my favorite band, called “We Are the Others,” which has the lyrics: “Normal is not the norm/ It’s just a uniform/ Forget about the norm/ Take off your uniform/ We are all beautiful”(Delain). “Normal” is not a thing. Everyone is weird to someone else, but that doesn’t give one reason to be a bigot.

On top of this ignorance is the fact that erasure is so common in what little media we have. There was a recent TV show based of a series of comic books from Archie called Riverdale. One character, Jughead Jones, was an aroace in the comics (Riseman). In the TV show they erased Jughead’s aromanticism by placing him in a clearly reciprocated relationship with Betty, and his asexuality is up in the air, but likely erased as well (Alexander). Riverdale is just one of a few that erase ace identities. Most a-spec characters are in obscure books that you would never hear of if you didn’t go looking for them, or in webcomics which are unlikely to gain a mainstream audience. There has not been a mainstream confirmed ace character. Ever. This erasure and ignorance is what makes headcanons so important. I headcanon many of my favorite characters as ace because I relate to them so well, so why shouldn’t they share my sexuality as well? That’s why when I find a character that has a wealth of canon evidence that they might be aspec, I find the bandwagon and start driving.

So when I realized that Holden Caulfield from Catcher in the Rye might be asexual I hopped right onto that bandwagon and hit the gas. It was actually one of my friends that pointed out that Holden might be asexual. I read the quote they sent me, and immediately poured myself into the book. I kept notes on everything that Holden did, everything he said, that seemed like he might be aspec to me. As I read I related more and more to Holden, and I am convinced that Holden is aspec. I propose that Holden is a heteromantic demisexual who, having never seen the terms, confuses sensual and aesthetic attraction for sexual.

Before I get into the meat of it, let’s clear up one thing: asexuals can still get aroused. I mean, it’s a little hard to have sex without that and some of us do have sex no matter what some people seem to think. There is an important distinction for aces, however. In her article “Introducing Asexuality, Unthinking Sex,” Ela Przybylo writes that “Scholars who study the physiology around asexuality suggest that people who are asexual are capable of genital arousal but may experience difficulty with so-called subjective arousal. So when the body become aroused, subjectively-at the level of the mind and emotions-one does not experience arousal”(183). This is a very important distinction. Aces may have general arousal, but we have nothing to direct it at. Our mind is separate from our body in this case. There’s one line in Catcher about Holden feeling horny: “After a while I sat down in a chair and smoked a couple of cigarettes. I was feeling pretty horny. I have to admit it” (Salinger 63). This is after he walks into the hotel and sees several indiscrete people doing rather sexual acts on the balcony. What strikes me about this is that, despite feeling some general arousal, he just sits down and smokes a cigarette. This may be just me misunderstanding, but people do not just sit down and have a smoke when horny? That doesn’t seem like something an allosexual would do. In addition to that, Holden does not seem to be reacting to a particular instance and has nowhere to direct his attentions. His body may be reacting to the ‘perverts’ on the balcony, but his mind is completely clear. Holen is not experiencing subjective arousal. As stated above, this is generally an ace thing.

Another very ace thing Holden does is hire a prostitute then ask her to talk with him, not have sex. In general, when one hires a prostitute, one does so for sex. Holden goes into the fiasco with the thought: “I figured if she was a prostitute and all, I could get in some practice on her, in case I ever get married or anything. I worry about that stuff sometimes”(Salinger 92). This on the surface seems like a typical thing for a young adult to worry about, but, really? Who the hell worries about sex? Holden goes into this so objectively, thinking about getting married in the future and getting practice on her. This is a typical thing for a confused ace who has no idea that they are ace to worry about. After he thinks this the prostitute, Sunny, shows up. They talk for a bit and then Holden is very surprised when Sunny just up and pulls her dress off: “…she stood up and pulled her dress over her head. I certainly felt peculiar when she did that. I mean she did it so sudden and all. I know you’re supposed to feel pretty sexy when somebody gets up and pulls their dress over their head, but I didn’t. Sexy was about the last thing I was feeling….Boy, was I feeling peculiar….All she had on was this pink slip. It was really quite embarrassing” (Salinger 94-95). Yes, Holden, according to societal conventions one will supposedly feel horny when met with a mostly-naked person of the opposite gender. But people go against those societal conventions all the time. Asexuals, for instance, would not feel ‘sexy’ when met with a naked girl. Holden’s peculiar feeling may be the fact that he doesn’t know Sunny, and thus has no chance of feeling sexual attraction towards her. It may also be caused by possible sex repulsion of some degree when faced with someone he doesn’t know. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that he hired a prostitute then proceeded to ask her to just have a conversation with him. That is such an ace thing to do I mean, come on, who would do that.

Even more critical beyond Holden’s uncomfortableness when faced with sex, is the fact that he self-admittedly doesn’t get what sex is all about. Contemplating the people doing ‘crumby’ stuff on the balcony of the hotel he’s staying in, Holden thinks:

“Sex is something I really don’t understand too hot. You never know where the hell you are. I keep making up these sex rules for myself, and then I break them right away. Last year I made a rule that I was going to quit horsing around with girls that, deep down, gave me a pain in the ass. I broke it, though, the same week I made it - the same night, as a matter of fact. I spent the whole night necking with a terrible phony named Anne Louise Sherman. Sex is something I just don’t understand. I swear to god I don't”(Salinger 63).

Holden’s opinion on sex is that it’s confusing. He just simply doesn’t understand how to go about it. He makes himself rules for gods’ sake. He doesn’t understand why people do the do, why people go beyond ‘necking.’ Sex is so centralized in our culture that for an ace person, navigating the world is a problem. Centralization of sex in culture includes the beliefs that sex is needed for romance, the act of sexual intercource is key to adulthood and maturation, and sex is important for a healthy life (Przybylo 181). The key bit here is that Holden seems to believe that he should want sex with people, but he doesn’t understand sex. The centralization of sex confuses him and he ends up reaching for ways to make sex make sense to him, like a set of rules that he immediately tosses aside. He ends up doing the same thing that many aces do before they realize their sexuality: pretending just to fit in. He hires the prostitute because he thinks that might help him with his sex game. He feigns a desire for sex as real life aces often do: “As one participant from a study on asexual masculinity discusses, as an adolescent he had to “play along” with his male friend who “were all into porn mags” and checking out girls, feigning a desire for sex in order to fit in but ultimately “los[ing] out socially because…. A lot of social activities seem to be … centered around sex (Przybylo 2014:229)”” (Przybylo 188). Holden doubts that everyone has these desires and questions people that have sex just for the hell of it. He tells Carl Luce during their conversation:  “[i regard sex as] a physical and spiritual experience and all. I really do. But it depends on who the hell I’m doing it with. If I’m doing it with somebody I don’t even-….This is what I mean though. I know it’s supposed to be physical and spiritual, and artistic and all. But what I mean is, you can’t do it with everybody-every girl you neck with and all-and make it come out that way. Can you?”(Salinger 146-147). Holden sees people like Stradlater going and having sex with basically random girls just because they want to. He sees them doing it with girls they’ve only known for a couple hours, and questions, “you can’t do it with everybody?” He simply doesn’t see how people can just essentially randomly hook up and have a desire for the other person. This is a very common thing for aces to question. How do people just hook up if they don’t even like the other person? What underlying attraction is there? Don’t you have to know the person? The concept of a one-night-stand doesn’t exist to many aces.

This brings me to my crowning jewel: Holden basically explicitly states that he is demisexual. Just after the previous quote, while he’s talking to Luce, Holden says this: “You know what the trouble with me is? I can never get really sexy- I mean really sexy- with a girl I don’t like a lot. I mean I have to like her alot. If I don’t, I sort of lose my goddamn desire for her and all. Boy, it really screws up my sex life something awful. My sex life stinks”(Salinger 148). Holy. Fucking. Crap. That is the definition of demisexuality. Holden only has desire for a girl when he “likes her alot.” Demisexuality is only experiencing sexual attraction when a deep emotional connection is formed. Holden just almost explicitly said he’s demi. To back me up even further, I sent this quote to a few ace friends with the caption “if this isn’t aspec then idk what is.” Their responses: “HECK U RIGHT,” “Wow that’s practically explicit,” “If you can’t see the ace-ness inherent in this you need to get your eyes checked,” and “That’s one of the most canon ace things I’ve ever read and [I’m] willing to throw down with both teacher and author in the parking lot over this” (Fuck Yeah Asexual). If I have friends, demi friends who know the definition and use it all the time, willing to freaking fight Salinger and my teacher over this, you know it’s good.

Part of the reason that my friends may be so willing to fight people for Holden to be demi is that we have basically no representation in popular media. I found a total of five major canon ace characters in pop culture when I went looking. Every single other character I found was minor or from something that hasn’t inundated pop culture yet. Of those five, only two explicitly used the word asexual. Luffy from One Piece is commonly believed to be asexual, as is Maya from Borderlands 2 (SBS Volume 54, W.). One of these is a manga, the other a video game. While they do have very large audiences, neither character is confirmed ace in their media, purely by the creators word. Todd from Bojack Horseman is asexual as well(season four ep 3). Raphael from Shadowhunters is ace in the TV show, and aroace in the books, and I already mentioned the fiasco with Jughead (“By the Light of Dawn”, Alexander). Because we have so little representation, interpretations of famous literary characters like Holden as aspec really helps with overall awareness of the ace community. Awareness is coming around, slowly but surely, but every little bit counts.

So I will fight for ace Holden. I will drive this bandwagon right over anyone who objects, throwing my heaps of evidence and definitions out the windows. Maybe I’ll wrap the definition of demisexuality around my little crowning jewel and lob it at anyone who wants to fight me. Y’all are entitled to your opinions, but if you come say I’m wrong and ‘ruining books with my queer characters’ you’re gonna get a great big ball of demi-Holden evidence thrown at you. And I’m gonna wrap it all up nice and pretty in the demi flag.

[chaotic-weevil]

Judy Ahrens is NOT our friend

So, the May special election is here, and chances are you’re not too worried about it. Most candidates are unopposed, there’s just one or two measures on the ballot, and all the positions seem to be fairly harmless.

Well, this is sadly not the case. Everyone living in the Three Rivers School District area (most of Josephine County except Grants Pass, and parts of Jackson County) gets to vote in one of the most important races for our community.

Likely the only contested race on your ballot, TRSD Board position two has incumbent Danny York going up against a Judy Ahrens.

Mr. York has my vote, and I beg you to give him yours. 

I’m sure you’ll want to know why.... but first, TL;DR:

this is a long post. basically, the gist is that Judy Ahrens is a terrible person and we need to make sure she cannot win this election. If you don’t want to read all my analysis, go ahead and skip to part 4. If you don’t want to read any of it, just go check out her website yourself. Make sure to read her bio page.

With that out of the way, let’s delve in: 

At first glance, Danny York seems the lesser option. York has an extremely brief statement in the voters’ pamphlet, and no college education, while Ahrens boasts an Associates, and has a long, detailed statement. And of course, Ahrens is a woman, and the conventional knowledge is that women are better in leadership positions.

But some parts of Judy Ahrens’ statement rubbed me wrong, so I did some research. And what I found terrified me.

To start, let’s analyze her statement in the voters’ pamphlet. I’ll go section by section and address each of the points.

Dear Voters:

While living in Southern California, I was heavily involved with the PTA, the Eastwood Site Council, and many other activities related to children. Then nine years ago I moved to Josephine County. It’s gorgeous scenery and friendly people still awe me and my passion for providing the best education for our children continues right here.

So far, so good. We learn she has experience with education and leadership positions, and a love for this community. But wait ‘til she gets to her platform:

Why I’m running:

1. To guarantee that Parents’ Rights come first. Parents currently are fighting against a bill in Salem which forces vaccinations on all children attending Oregon public schools. I back these parents 100%.

“Parents’ Rights” is a term you see thrown around here and there. Usually, this means parents’ rights to control the curriculum or content their children are exposed to, or to have medical & bodily control over their kids. And usually it comes from the Christian Right, which I’m a little wary of (that’s the folks with the sin signs that like to go to local events and yell on megaphones about how queer people are going to hell).

In this case, Ahrens is taking the medical side of the Parents’ Rights issue, cleverly appealing to anti-vaxxers on both ends of the political spectrum (the religious my-body-is-my-temple folks and the no-chemicals-for-me hippies alike). However, as we’ll see shortly, she quickly extends this into the more morally concerning social arena.

2. To protect traditional family values which are currently under attack. All sex education materials and instructions should be scrutinized for age appropriateness and content by a committee that includes parents.

Nothing makes this bisexual pro-LGBT-rights guy uncomfortable quite like the phrase “traditional family values.” It might as well be code for “homosexuality is a sin,” and is usually accompanied by extreme bigotry. Needless to say, we don’t want bigots on the school board. And phraseology like “currently under attack” means she sees gender and sexuality diversity as an organization or movement trying to attack a way of life. That’s not who we are, and that’s an extremely toxic, harmful mindset.

But wait.... there’s more! I don’t know how Ahrens crammed so many red flags into one bullet point, but her take on sex ed is also disastrous. Sex ed is crucial, especially in low-income rural communities like ours. Kids need to know about consent and sexual abuse, safe sex practices, how to get birth control, healthy and unhealthy relationships, hygiene and sexual health, safe/unsafe masturbation, gender and sexuality, and so many other things. Current curriculum isn’t perfect, but schools are getting better at this, especially in Oregon.

Parents simply do not know better than professional educators what their kids need to know about sex. Surveys have shown that parents tend to think their kids are less sexually active/aware than they are, at pretty much every age and development level, so parents likely won’t think a lesson is age appropriate until it’s too late for some kids. And many parents who view sex, or pre-marital sex, or maybe just teen sex, as a bad thing might want abstinence-only sex ed, which is highly ineffective.

But the biggest problem is that this ties directly into Ahrens’ other problematic views. Having already pegged her as a likely member of the Christian Right, I can already guess what “sex-education materials” she’ll want to get rid of: anything having to do with LGBT+ issues, abortion, masturbation, sex for pleasure, or birth control. And these are arguably some of the most important roles sex-ed plays, giving marginalized students or students who cannot ask at home access to valuable, impartial and trusted information.

At this point, I’m getting pretty uncomfortable with Judy Ahrens, but the worst is yet to come.

3. To make sure academic achievement is the No. 1 priority above all other programs in the Three Rivers School District.

Okay, so this isn’t so much a social justice or moral issue; but why? Yes academics should be a priority, but school should also focus on the arts, physical activity, extracurriculars, and (personally I think this should be #1) students’ mental health. But this isn’t too big of an issue, I can easily let it slide.

Our current statistics show:

     - Third Grade English Proficiency 43%      - Eighth Grade Math Proficiency 35%      - 12th Grade Tracking for Graduation 68%

Yeah, that’s pretty concerning. We should probably address that. But check out her “solutions”:

My solutions for such low results:

A. Have only the best phonics-based reading instructions used in the early grades. Also have rigorous teaching programs for mastering spelling, grammar, and writing skills.

B. Re-examine Common Core, the dubious government standard for math instruction. We need to get “back to basics” and teach fundamentals if we want our students’ math scores to improve.

This is just beyond me. I don’t have a degree in it (tho I will in a few years!) but I know a fair amount about linguistics and pedagogy. I also went to elementary school in our district. “Phonics” is an extremely broad and vague category that generally means teaching letter sounds. My teachers did this. I’m pretty sure most teachers do this. But guess what; they’re trained but professionals who literally study how to teach kids to read and write. “Only the best phonics” sounds vaguely Trump-esque to me. In any case, it wouldn’t be a huge shift from the current policy, and kinda sounds like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

Which only seems more likely when you get to the second paragraph. Common Core is far from perfect, yes. But calling it the “dubious government standard” is too reminiscent of the Parents’ Rights philosophy. I guarantee you the average parent doesn’t know a better way to teach math. Additionally, Common Core literally is an attempt to go back to the basics. And it was implemented because math scores were abysmally low. People criticize Common Core because it’s not what they’re used to, but all it’s really doing is teaching kids to connect abstract ideas with concrete scenarios. Which is what math is all about.

C. Provide programs that instill strong patriotism in our students, including having all classes begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Uh-oh. Okay, so I have no problem with patriotism. But this sounds.....fascist? America-centrist? America First-ish? Nationalistic?

I’ve never liked the pledge of Allegience. For one thing it goes directly against the establishment clause (”under god”, seriously? I’m religious but that still bothers me), but also, we should be teaching our kids to think openly, to make their own decisions, and to be their own agents. And definitely not to just repeat-after-me and sign-on-the-dotted-line. If we want our kids to be patriotic, we should show them the true face of this country, encourage them to get involved, tell the good and bad sides to our history. Make them patriotic by giving them reasons to be, not by having them memorize a pledge they don’t even understand all the words to. Which brings me to...

D. We need to provide teachers with honest and accurate instructional materials in order to give students a solid background in American History and the U.S. Constitution. 

Okay, so I actually completely agree with this. However, I suspect that my and Judy Ahrens’ ideas on what is “honest and accurate” may be more than a little different. For me, I think the key here is making sure to teach the bad as well as the good, and be frank about the ways that the US has violated and still does violate the very rights and liberties we strive to protect. Only by recognizing one’s faults can one grow stronger, and the same can be said of a society or nation. Given her love of patriotism, I suspect Ahrens wants more of a whitewashed, postitive portrayal of our history. But she’s unclear (perhaps on purpose) so I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Let’s make our schools great again.

This is an *obvious* echo of MAGA. Which should scare you.

I would appreciate your support and vote on May 21, 2019. 

So that’s that for her pamphlet statement. But it got me concerned enough that I decided to do a little more research. And found out just how disastrous she really is.

Part Two: Under the Surface

So I went to her campaign website. It’s not very well designed, or secure, but you can check it out if you want.

Most of the content there is pretty much verbatim what’s in the pamphlet, but there’s a few noteworthy additions:

Following the daily pledge of allegiance, she calls for “a minute of silence.” I don’t know why.

The sex-ed clause has grown: “We need to protect traditional family values which are currently under attack. All sex education materials including classroom videos, textbooks, and discussions should be scrutinized for age appropriateness and content by a committee that includes parents. AND....parents must have the final say if they want to OPT OUT of any such activity/instruction they feel inappropriate for their child.” She definitely wants to make sure children don’t have to get subjected to educational, important information about sex (because sex is evil?). Curious how discussions can be scrutinized by parents, I’m assuming ahead of time.

She mentions participation in Vacation Bible School and Right To Life March (an anti-choice organization), confirming my suspicions that she’s firmly within the Christian Right. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s definitely cause for concern.

She has a list of “patriotic holidays” she wants to instill in students. One of them is Columbus Day, an extremely problematic and racist holiday.

Finally, there are two  aspects of her website that led me to dig deeper.

Part Three: Silencing Abuse Victims

So, in her bio on her website, Ahrens brags about banning a book:

Promoting traditional family values, helped to stop a certain controversial book (with heavy sexual content) form getting into Ocean View School District school libraries.

I was curious, so I investigated. Wanna know what the book was?

I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou

Apparently her complaint was that it had sex scenes that were inappropriate for children. If you’re unfamiliar, the novel is semi-autobiographical, and includes descriptions of the sexual abuse Angelou faced as a child. It’s heavy stuff for sure, but also extremely important. It’s widely regarded as one of the most important pieces of feminist literature, and it tilts white male dominant America on its head. I read it when I was 12. It was disturbing. But it’s a book that is meant to disturb, and I’m very glad I read it when I did.

Now, I wouldn’t recommend that book to an eight year old. But this was in a middle school environment (read: kids aged 11-14). In fact, there was already a limitation: only eighth graders could check the book out. So we’re talking 13-14-year-olds. Now that may still seem young, but by age 12 most girls are already used to sexual harassment, and one in four will have been sexually assaulted by age 16. So reading the story of a survivor could be very helpful.

My biggest issue with this, though, is the way Judy Ahrens portrays it. “A certain controversial book”, she calls it, “with heavy sexual content.” It sounds meritless, obscene, pornographic. Instead, it is a renowned work of literature. Banning this book is not just removing some uncomfortable sex or disturbing abuse from the shelves; it is silencing the voices of victims and of women of color, voices which we should be raising.

This tale is a warning: Judy Ahrens favors censorship. This is scary. We already know she doesn’t like sex ed; will she fight to have educational books removed from libraries. Will she try to ban books that have gender and sexuality diverse characters? Given the next and final story in our saga, I’d not be at all surprised.

Part Four: Homophobic and Proud of It

It stands to reason that I, being a member of the LGBT+ community, would be most bothered by this. But I think, anyone would be bothered by this. Any decent, non-bigoted person, that is.

Right in the middle of her bio page, is this lovely gem:

I was elected in 2002 to the Westminster School Board with my continued theme of "Back to Basics." While in office, I, with the help of two other board members, lead the controversial fight against the homo-sexual issue.

WE WON ! [sic]

So, hopefully y’all can see exactly waht’s wrong with this, and I don’t have to say. But it’s obvious as can be. Blatant homophobic bigotry. “The controversial fight against the homo-sexual issue” is such a hurtful way to say that, too. So anyways, she’s shown herself to be a gross homophobe.

But I was curious, so I dug deeper, and boy did I find a story. In 1999, the State of California passed a law adding gender identity and sexuality to the list of things on the basis of which students could report discrimination. By 2004, every school district in California except Westminster had incorporated this new language into their policy. Westminster refused to modify their anti-discrimination policy language protecting trans students. Press at the time (and this became a national story) described Judy Ahrens as the board member most opposed to protections for trans kids. She was quoted as saying that the state law promotes homosexuality and that she’s “really sad that the moral compass isn’t out there” and “disappointed that economics is trying to outweigh morality and protecting our kids in this district.”

This was in 2004. It’s 2019 now. Much has changed. Maybe she could have changed; I would have been maybe willing to accept that. But she’s literally proud of this. She is using it as a campaign point.

If Judy Ahrens wins this election, it will send the message to lgbt+ kids in our district and everywhere that voters don’t care about them or their safety. If Ahrens wins, it will send the message that bigotry is a viable way to run a campaign. If Ahrens wins, it will send the message that hate wins.

So please, join me in voting AGAINST Judy Ahrens.

Vote for Danny York, who is neither particularly qualified nor severely unqualified, but is infinitely better than the hateful, bigoted, religious-extremest Ahrens. Keep our district welcoming and accepting of diversity.

And don’t only vote. This matters. Tell everybody. Make noise. Write letters to the editor. Share this, on facebook. We can defeat evil, but only if we join and rise to face it. So join, and rise. Please.

Ballots must be received by May 21. Probably for the best to return it by the 19th or 20th at least.

[mightbedamian]

#TMIishTuesday #46 - The Trumpet - But why?

Hey there mighty people of the internet! And welcome to issue #46 of #TMIishTuesday - my weekly Tumblr post about what goes through my weird mind and what you guys want to know more about. It can be something very personal, it can be something political, it can be completely pointless - but in 99.9 % of the cases, it involves opinions. And mine as well. // Last week I talked about make-up. On girls, but more about it on guys: Society's general perception of it, some male YouTubers who look ACE with make-up, and my opinion on whether or not men should or should not wear make-up. Not telling you to read it, but… YOU SHOULD! // Disclaimer: I can't treat certain people the same as everyone else. People who just disrespect of groups of people for one, and only one, reason: Belonging to this group. And by saying this, I do exactly that, I know... And I’m still gonna do it. You know, if they were at least a little bit open-minded or didn't treat people like they're sh*t, I'd respect that. I wouldn't cheer for them, but everyone has different opinions - and that's awesome! But I won't respect people who hate on others for having one attribute that the haters don't like: Gender, sexuality, race, color of skin, this list goes on and on. Okay, so if you're not living on the Moon (and even then), you'll most definitely have noticed that the U. S. have a new president. For the reasons stated above, I will not call him by his name, but rather refer to this person as "the Trumpet". Not much of a difference anyway, right? And now you know who I'm talking about, we can start this post. Did I mention that it's about reasons why this person could even become president? Oh, I didn't? Well… Now you know! There are obviously lots of reasons why the Americans eligible to vote voted like they did. I pick three that seem most important to me.  1. The devil vs. the deep blue sea With the elections coming up one thing that I read a lot in polls and assessments of the candidates is: "I can't possibly choose between two inacceptable candidates." As expected, Democrats and Republicans had voted two extremely opposing candidates to go for president - Clinton: the impersonated establishment who still lives on her father's achievements as president and who is rather conservative for a Democrats candidate. And - the Trumpet: the impersonated American dream: business man, self-made millionaire, the exact opposite of the establishment, who bluntly told his opinions on basically everything, even when not asked about it. And I had the impression that people didn't feel that ANY of the two would be a good president. But given the American political situation, with only these two parties standing a real chance to win the election, most people did choose to distribute their votes between the devil and the deep blue sea - or simply didn't turn up to the polling stations. 2. Jobs vs. trade There is a common misconception that many Europeans might have fallen for: The Trumpet's only focus seemed to be on immigration politics. Constructing a wall at the U. S.-Mexican border and getting rid of TPP* and TTIP* trade agreements, before the latter was even signed. These seemed to be the Trumpet's only political goals. At least if you believed European media. Oh my, were we wrong! The Trumpet actually got lots of votes in the Mid West states promising people to get jobs. Of course that's part of the getting-rid-of-TPP-and-TTIP deal. But that's not what was the most important aspect of this issue. The U. S. still suffer from the global economic crisis that was sparked by the failure of the banking industry in the late 2000s. The most important promise of the Trumpet was jobs. Jobs, jobs, and more jobs. And, please correct me, if I'm wrong, dear Americans, but to me it looks like most Americans don't bother too much about what is going on in the world, if the U. S. is not involved. Am I wrong in assuming that? And to be honest, it's looked to me like that over the last few years/decades. Rather, you guys are more focussed on your own country. You know, I'm not a big fan of overly demonstrated patriotism. But it makes sense that you voted the Trumpet then: He promises to get you all into jobs again. Sure, that will work. But there'll also be massive inflation, if he basically closes down foreign trade and goes back to producing everything domestically. But people don't seem to see that. Or they ignore it. Well, if you don't see it, let me give you a quick tour, okay? The Trumpet wants to put import tariffs into place again against any country out there. Sure, most still have import tariffs - the EU certainly isn’t the norm - but over the last couple decades there has been worldwide understanding that we should thrive for lower tariffs and less trade restrictions. In 1947 32 nations signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which wanted to "reduce tariffs and other trade barriers" among the signing countries. Over the years, with globalisation hitting in more and more, more nations joined the agreement and tariffs and trade restrictions got less and less. Based on the work that had been done under the GATT framework, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was established by 123 nations in 1995. A huge part of this hard work is at stake now that one of the biggest economies of the world threatens to leave the WTO. As I'm typing this, the Trumpet has just announced that the U. S. will not ratify TPP. A small step for a Trumpet, but a huge one for humankind. Anyway, I'm drifting off. And the effects of the U. S. leaving the WTO and other international trade policies could fill another #TMIishTuesday. Let me know, if you are interested in that! * TPP - Trans-Pacific Partnership * TTIP - Transatlatic Trade & Investment Partnership 3. Ego vs. opinions This might even be the most important factor that got him the crucial votes in the swing states* which ultimately led to the Trumpet winning the entire election. All the way during his candidacy - in the internal Rep duels as well - he has been very straightforward about basically anything he represented. He made clear his goals basically on day 1 of the Rep internal campaign and, from what I can tell, he sticked to them. All this "The U. S. don't need any foreign trade" thing, all this "I don't give a f*ck about minorities" hatred, all this "I'm the king of the world" behaviour - it was there from the very beginning. And even if Clinton didn't change her campaign too much, too - just by not letting anyone exert ANY influence on his campaign, the Trumpet really presented the "I am me, I won't change for others" attitude. When most candidates try to take on some viewpoints of the other candidates of their party to rule out competitors, he didn't do that. Cause he didn't need to. The whole "I won't change for others" thing was already bearing fruit. Many Americans are apparently still looking for a father figure to look up to. And that's EXACTLY what they got. ...Although you might argue that someone, who is as bold as the Trumpet, is not exactly a father figure… Granted, but he's definitely "the strong man" the people were looking for. And I guess the Americans just thought Obama didn't take measures drastic enough to cope with the (perceived as well as existing) problems the U. S. were faced with. * swing state = "a state that could reasonably be won be either the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate" Finally: Judging from the younger history, it just made sense that a Republican was elected president: The last three presidents all took two terms in office - and after each 8 year period a president of the other "big" party - Democrats and Republicans - was elected into office. Right, I'll leave you with that. This post turned out way more subjective than I planned to. But I never promised that. And remember how I started this post? "Disclaimer: I can't treat certain people the same as everyone else." I guess, that's exactly what's happened now. Sorry not sorry! :P Before I go, please let me know what you thought of this post and what your thoughts on the new president are. Do you hate him, do you respect him, do you like him? Place a comment, tweet me, dm me, or do anything else you can think of to get to me. Oh and today's TMIish Queer Shoutout goes to: Anyway Köln TV, the queer YouTube channel of youth centre Anyway in Cologne. I stumbled across the their YouTube channel last week and really liked the videos in which the team took to the streets to interview the people of Cologne on queer topics: Can they tell who identifies as straight, lesbian, or bi just by appearance? Does it work better when the choices are straight, gay, and pansexual? What do you imagine gay sex to look like? And the one that I liked best: How do people react when they are asked to film two guys for a minute and suddenly one proposes to the other right in front of the Cologne Dom cathedrale? Their videos are well thought of and, most of the times, involve strangers they meet on the street. If understand German, check them out and drop a sub! As always: Next #TMIishTuesday next Tuesday. If you have any questions in the meantime, just ask away. Whatever you’re curious about - I don’t bite. :) Until then: Stay mighty! Linkage: - Wikipedia on TPP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership - Wikipedia on TTIP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership - Wikipedia on swing states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state - Anyway Köln TV channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/AnywayKoelnTV - Anyway Köln website: http://www.anyway-koeln.de/ Oh, and here’s some self-promo: - Last #TMIishTuesday: http://mightbedamian.tumblr.com/post/156001271441/tmiishtuesday-45-guys-cant-wear-make-up - More #TMIishTuesdays: mightbedamian.tumblr.com/tagged/tmi - Poll to decide next week's topic and more very cool stuff: www.twitter.com/mightbedamian - Even more very cool stuff: mightbedamian.tumblr.com