#but one is about perceived gender superiority and the other is about comparison and perceived competition | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

noshitshakespeare · 4 years

Note

I would be interested in knowing more of how to understand/approach early modern dramas, Shakespeare especially, but other writers from his time too if you know more about them, fron the angle of race/other. Do you have resources/references on how to approach early modern drama this way? I do realise this might be a broad topic, I'm looking to expand my readings and the way I approach/read Shakespeare as a non-black POC who is very fond of his works.

As you’ve said yourself, this is a really huge topic. And as you may imagine, it’s one that’s been getting more focus now than ever (though it has existed as a topic of interest since at least the 1980s). I don’t think I could do justice to the topic in just Shakespeare, let alone in all early modern drama. But let’s see if I can make a reasonable start.

Because the term ‘race’ didn’t signify what it does now, and because Shakespeare was living in a time before England established itself as a major centre for slave trade, the first thing to be aware of is the difference of understanding. We can’t unproblematically apply modern standards and notions of race and other any more than we can talk about Shakespeare in terms of our modern understandings of sexuality and sexual identity. This isn’t to say that people didn’t notice colour, as can be seen from the terms like ‘blackamoor’ that were being used, but the question of otherness was, then as now, caught up in the more complex issue of religion, and colonisation. Because the Ottoman empire was one of the greatest powers in the world at the time, and Islam was perceived as a major threat to the European countries, difference in skin colour could also denote a difference in ideology (I talked about this a little in relation to Othello once). But sometimes an equal threat was perceived in those who didn’t look different, but who didn’t hold similar beliefs.

Given that your question is about otherness in general, this is very relevant, and broadly speaking, we can categorise otherness in terms of

Those who come from abroad

Those who look different (black, brown, even a slightly different shade of white)

Those who have different belief systems (Jewish people, Islamic people, Catholic people)

Those who look different and have a different belief system.

What to make of early modern treatments of this difference is very difficult, because there isn’t a homogenous viewpoint. There’s never been a time when everybody thought the same thing, and so one can find all sorts of perspectives on race and otherness in early modern writings. Some are missionary perspectives, seeing difference as a mark of heathenism, and wishing to ‘help’ them by converting them, which went hand in hand with those who considered them subjects to be colonised and ‘civilised’ (see for instance Richard Hakluyt, Reasons for Colonisation, 1585). But there were people even at the time who saw the colonial project for what it was, and denounced the cruelty of the conquistadores (Bartolomé de las Casas’ The Spanish Colonie, translated into English in 1583 is a very interesting read), and even people like Michel de Montaigne, who admired what seemed to be a state of prelapsarian paradise in the people of the new world (see ‘Of Cannibals’). In the other direction, looking from Europe towards the East, the great and far superior power of the Ottoman empire manifests itself in a kind of awe, fear, and Islamophobia, but less in a desire to civilise or convert. Often you’ll even find in military and conduct guides a favourable description of the Ottoman nations to the detriment of European cultures. Part of this might have something to do with the fact that Elizabethan England had treaties with the Ottoman empire, but it might be a tactic to shame to west into better practices too.

Many scholars now attribute the notion of ‘otherness’ in the early modern period as part of the creation of ideas of ‘nationhood’ in a time when nationalism was really beginning to take shape. It’s an age-old notion and one that Shakespeare points out in Henry V that patriotism and national unity is made stronger by demonisation of others. By contrasting themselves with the Catholics, the Protestants could define their own faithfulness, by contrasting themselves with Jewish and Islam religions, the Christian nations could achieve a more unified identity, and by comparing themselves to the less ‘civilised’. In that sense, sometimes more fears are expressed in relation to those one can’t differentiate easily by physical characteristics, like Jewish people, or, for that matter, Irish people. In fact, there are some very interesting depictions, for instance in The Merchant of Venice or Marlowe’s Jew of Malta in which the so-called Christians condemn the ‘other’ (Barabas, Shylock) for things they do themselves. Barabas, while playing the stereotypical bogeyman of a Jew, will criticise the Christians for their hypocrisy in the way they quote the bible to steal his money: ‘Will you steal my goods? / Is theft the ground of your religion?’ (I.ii.95-96). Shylock is accused of cruelty for essentially buying Antonio’s flesh, even though the Christians have ‘many a purchased slave / Which, like your asses and your dogs and mules, / You use in abject and in slavish parts’ (4.1.89-91). The same applies to more physically different characters. Aaron from Titus Andronicus is a problematic character, almost a cardboard cutout of an evil villain, but though he’s undeniably cruel, so are so many other characters in Titus, and strangely, while internalising the idea that black = moral blackness, he nevertheless shows more love for his child than Titus (who kills his own son), and questions ‘is black so base a hue?’ (4.2.73)

This is all to say that there’s no single approach to studying race and otherness in Shakespeare and other early modern writers. The treatment of the other will differ depending on the writer, the play, and even between characters in the plays, because it wasn’t a straightforward topic then any more than it is now. So the best thing you could do would be to familiarise yourself with the discourse that surrounds the subject without committing yourself too much to one view as being more correct than another (it’s a good scholarly approach to avoid bias as much as possible). Unfortunately, the books on the subject tend to be quite hardcore academic. But here’s a short list if you want to get started on something.

Miranda Kaufmann, Black Tudors: The Untold Story

This is great for a more general readership and helps to break preconceptions about what the early modern period in England was like, but it’s not strictly about Shakespeare or drama

Catherine Alexander and Stanley Wells, Shakespeare and Race

An essay collection, which is academic, but gives a broader scope than a monograph

Jonathan Gill Harris, Foreign Bodies

Quite hard, but very good for a wider approach to ‘otherness’ rather than being limited to skin colour. Does focus on drama alongside history.

Ania Loomba, Shakespeare, Race, and Colonialism

A classic. Again quite hard, and somewhat inflected by modern notions, but very useful.

Miranda Virginia Mason Vaughan, Performing Blackness on English Stages, 1500-1800

Good if you’re interested in performance history and the actual presentation of blackness on stage, including blacking up.

Kim Hall, Things of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England

Hardcore academic stuff, and more history-based about the beginnings of the colonial project and slavery.

Patricia Akhimie, Shakespeare and the Cultivation of Difference: Race Conduct and the Early Modern World

Covers that question of building national identity and deliberate emphasis of race or difference.

Mary Floyd-Wilson, English Ethnicity and Race in Early Modern Drama

Like the one above, this is broadly about the way English ethnicity is created by othering.

Sujata Iyengar, Shades of Difference: Mythologies of Skin Color in Early Modern England

Deals with the ways early modern people understood colour in comparison to our own notions.

Nabil Matar, Turks, Moors, and Englishmen in the Age of Discovery

Looking eastward and southward at the relationship between Europe and the Ottoman empire as well as Africa

Daniel Vitkus, Turning Turk: English Theater and the Multicultural Mediterranean

Another work on the relation between England and Islam, and deals very well with the British sense of inadequacy in comparison to the Ottoman Empire, as well as their fears about others who don’t have distinctly racial characteristics.

Jerry Brotton, This Orient Isle: Elizabethan England and the Islamic World

A history book that charts the incredible trade and political relationship the court of Elizabeth had with the Ottoman Empire.

Ayanna Thompson, Passing Strange: Shakespeare, Race, and Contemporary America

Jumping to the present, this is more about how Shakespeare is used in America now, especially focusing on pop culture and the representation of racial issues.

For a more casual approach, and one that’s about as up-to-date as can be, you could check out the #ShakesRace hashtag on Twitter. All the scholars and theatres are using it for discussion, or for advertising new books, new conferences, talks and podcasts on this subject, though the focus is, as you may imagine, more on colour than otherness more generally.

#anon anon sir!#asks #long post #very long #oops #reading recommendations #race #other #Aaron #Othello #Blackness #Barabas #Marlowe #Shakesrace #this question was asked at a really timely moment in our current history #but I'm less timely in replying #POC

47 notes · View notes

casmoments · 4 years

Text

Marriage of Convenience; part 7

Prompt: “Arranged Marriage” - Certain factions of heaven are on your tail, the consequence of your death a trigger to greater destruction. In order to protect your life and others, you agree to an old custom that prevents any heavenly agent from harming you. The basic ritual? You have to marry an angel. Final part in the series. Reader Gender: female Word Count: 5640 Warnings: technically reader death but only the aftermath, not the process (cause/time of death is ambiguous). flashbacks to when the reader was first captured by angels, though. some true form!castiel as well.

part one ; part two ; part three ; part four ; part five ; part six

“Oh my god,” you say, mere moments after dying—sitting in heaven and you already blaspheme. Something like fondness curls in the film of his being, slithering down every wisping stem of his essence. The sensation tickles the underside of two faces, a curl of a smile on one head.

“No,” he says, the sound on the tips of his wings as he brushes them over you, “just me.”

You’re very small next to him. A human soul is no bigger than the human that was, but yours is blown wide, augmented by his grace. It has melded into your being like something that always belonged there. Your soul is thus small and not miniscule in comparison. If he was human and you a subject, you’d look like a doll in his hand.

But neither of you are either thing. He’s chaos and light and sound, rendered to something tangible in this odd dimension, with three heads and two arms and two legs, and blinking eyes running the length of every limb. Two vast wings stretch behind him, greater versions of what he showed you long ago on earth. The winding blue flames which circled ivory wings now cover the expanse of his back. It licks around him and sometimes looks more like water than fire, and you might swear it reflects starlight like quiet waters under open sky.

You are warmth and sound, golden and soft next to his whirling blue fire and white light. You best resemble a single flame, yellow and flickering, but your own being slowly bleeds through, even in this divine place. Your soul begins to manifest to a human face.

You’re perched before him in a garden which revolves underfoot. You sit on a branch—it’s the only thing that sits still.

“Oh, Castiel,” you say, “there is nothing just about you.”

Golden colours slip around you like a translucent gown as your body takes shape where you sit. You tip your head and look at him quizzically, glowing gold eyes roaming his form. You look directly at his middle head. “Is there a face under there?”

“No,” he replies, that same fondness slipping through him. “That is my face.”

“Oh.”

His middle face appears to have a veil draped over it, a vague shape of a human head beneath it. Of course, there is no beneath or atop, that is simply his entire face. On its left sits the face of a bird. It’s no specific bird as it seemingly changes at every angle. On the right sits the head of some wild cat, something like a panther with thicker and coarser hair, though coloured brightly as the rest of him, and likely softer than it looks. Other than the endless eyes, his arms and legs extend as a human’s might, albeit connected to a much bigger and stronger body shape. It must be to support those wings.

“Do I please you?” he asks. He moves onto one knee in genuflection, and even though you sit at a very high vantage, it only just puts you at eye level.

Your body has taken its full shape now, its outward age the same as the day you married. The translucent gold sheet still wraps around you and the iris of your eyes remain gold in colour. Other than that, you are familiar where he knows he is not.

But you smile and lean forward, looking him over.

“Yes,” you say, “very much.”

He lifts a hand to where you sit, placing it against the tree and not you. It’s a timid offering for you to touch him if you like. Considering he could easily crush something your size in one hand, he knows better than to suddenly grab at you like a plaything. He won’t hurt you, but it could startle you.

You stare at his fingers for a moment. His hands are somewhat human-shaped, and the eyes running down his arm end at his wrist, but something fiery seems to run over his knuckles, and his nails are more claw-like than any human. For a moment, you just stare, then tentatively reach out and lay your whole palm against him. When you make contact, wires of gold shoot up beneath your hand, running along his form like veins. You snatch your hand back with a yelp, looking at him in concern.

“It is all right,” he says, inching his hand closer. “That is how we are.”

He sees your understanding. As his grace fills you, so does your soul fill him, bound from the celestial consummation which marked you as husband and wife.

The golden threads fade and you place your hand to him again. There is a faint pulse where they show again, but it disappears even as your hand remains. You smile, running your hand back and forth.

“You sound different here,” you say, looking up at him. “But it’s pretty.”

Pretty is probably an understatement. He shifts so he kneels completely before your tree, each head fixated on you.

“This is how Enochian should sound,” he says. You look bemused again.

“Are you speaking Enochian? It just sounds like—” You don’t continue; you can’t continue. Sound is just sound, as redundant as that thought is. You shrug. “Am I speaking Enochian?”

“No. You can if you wish.”

“That’s good to know. I guess.” You are not capable of blushing here. There is no blood in your body-like form to alter it. But he wraps his second hand beneath the branch you sit on, and there is open affection in his many gazes.

“Your cheeks pinken often,” he says. You touch your face as if a blush sits there.

“What? No, they don’t!” You smile before the protest ends. “Yes, they do,” you confess. You’re thoughtful for a moment, looking away. You look at him when you speak again. “You told me I would be scared of your true form.”

“I thought it might frighten,” he says. “I am pleased it does not.”

“Me too,” you say with a warm smile. “But I don’t think I could ever be scared of you.”

“I thought you were,” he says, one of his head ducking in shame, “once.”

“What?” You have never heard this story and you look at him confusedly. There are traces of amusement on your face, however, as you see him recoiling with embarrassment. Angels should not feel embarrassment—but then, they should not feel many things he does. “What do you mean you thought I was scared of you? When?”

“In the beginning.”

“Tell me.”

He does.

He remembers the warehouse where he first found you. Until that night, he had not even realized a new prophet existed. A gang of corrupted seraphim must have activated one, their dark purpose immediately clear as Castiel followed their trail.

Though he never received a clear explanation of how he came upon their trail at all. They had quieted your prayers, preventing you from reaching anyone no matter your efforts. But a whisper somehow reached him, transferred across cosmic wavelengths without explanation, planted right in his head so he might find you.

Castiel set on the mission by himself. He would not burden the Winchesters with an endeavour beyond them. They were already crippled by an obvious misery, memories of past failures. Castiel felt much of that, feeling it beneath the skin of his vessel as it bled into his very being. Responsibility, disappointment, heartbreak, and a terrifying despair if he failed that day.

Such unending chaos, unending hurt.

Only two angels held you in captivity, awaiting a summons from their superiors. Castiel easily vanquished one but released the second, not wishing for more bloodshed. The angel taunted him for his sentimentalities, but even then Castiel ignored him. Only when he saw how you had been treated did he reel. When the angel came at him again, he finished the mutilated shadow of divinity. He mentally recited but one lament, that for the human vessels not spared.

Then he was at your side, helping you from your frightened position. You had curled in on yourself, protecting your body from further injury. The damage done looked worse than it was, though the shock of it all had broken you. Castiel touched you very carefully, even then you cried out in protest and tried to break from his arms.

“I won’t hurt you,” he promised, though his gruff voice may have startled you. He slid his hands past your protesting fists and cupped your cheeks, allowing a remedy to spread through your body.

Your panic settled, bliss falling with the physical relief. When he touched his hand to your mouth, healing the sensitive injuries more directly, you groaned into his palm—a very pleased moan that rumbled down an unfamiliar nerve.

“Is that better?” he asked when it was completed.

You slumped against him, all but collapsing in his arms. He remained on his knees, your body slanted against his, but he looked down when you looked up.

“Thank you,” you said, spoken with such sincerity. He felt a thrum of something like affection. You had placed unabashed trust in his presence. It felt good to feel the embrace of someone who thought him unremittingly pure of character, a protector as he should have been. He had failed in many regards but your gaze perceived someone who had not.

But it did not last.

Time saw these sentiments flitter away. And for the best. It was wrong of him to indulge in good feelings for the sake of their simplicity. Nor did he deserve it, anyway.

Castiel observed your nature in the bunker, your demure character giving way to someone more boisterous once you were comfortable. But you were never comfortable around him. While you welcomed Sam and Dean into your circle, Castiel read your distance as fear. A wall stood between you and him so he remained dutifully behind it, even if a bitter and jealous sting affected him. He had found you and helped you, had been the first to hold you, but it was others who reaped the benefit. But he quickly quelled those thoughts; you were an individual and deserved greater respect than such crude thinking. It was not his place to gain anything.

And, truly, it pleased him to see you so happy. To see the Winchesters so happy.

He recalled a particular visit to the bunker, early in your stay. He materialized in the library but found it empty. There was a scuffle echoing down the corridor, laughter and shouting and iron clattering. Curious, Castiel ventured forth. He followed the sounds to the kitchen where he stopped in the doorway. His eyebrows lifted as he looked on in surprise.

The room was completely upside down. Pots and pans were littered across the floor while dishcloths were suspended from lighting rigs. Vials of food colouring stained the floor in multi-coloured patterns and it looked as though a bakery had exploded at the centre table.

You were in the middle of it, the Winchesters as well. You were hurling flour at one another, forgotten dough sitting on a cutting board. All three of you were washed in white flour. Castiel turned the corner just in time to witness Dean pouring a bowl of chocolate mix over Sam’s head.

“Dean!” Sam hollered.

You were beside yourself in hysterics, draped over the table and laughing. The brothers became occupied with wrestling each other, smacking one another with flour and bits of dough while you watched and laughed to your heart’s content.

Though Sam and Dean were vastly amusing, Castiel found his gaze straying. He looked at you though you had yet to notice him. Your smiles always compelled him to watch longer.

He admitted there was a race to his bloodstream, albeit beyond control. A warmth spread across his chest and for a moment he remained there, standing in the doorway and looking at you. Your hair fell from its messy up-do, caked in sugar and flour, your cheeks powdered white and a streak of pink icing across your forehead.

It was incredible to think you were the same girl once curled on a basement floor, a stranger to all three of them. How much had changed and yet how much had not. You were still more stranger than friend despite the growing desire to change that completely. He wished to speak with you, wished to make you laugh as you laughed now, and because he was an unfettered excuse for angel, a patchwork creature felted of heaven and human, he could not help but admire your smiling lips and kicking legs, the wiggle of your hips and curve of your figure as you bent over the table.

It was the first time his thoughts of you wandered to carnality—but not the last.

As he relates this chapter of his story, you slide to the edge of your branch to look at him better. His wings have wrapped completely around the tree, one hand gripping your branch and the other holding the trunk. He pauses in his account to asses you, wondering of your intentions. You look at the ever-changing ground and then at him.

“Can you hold me?” you ask.

He eagerly offers his hand, having been waiting for you to ask such a thing. You drop into his hold, not even blinking as you let yourself fall. He catches you then sits back, allowing you to walk over his hands. You move onto your hands and knees, bending over to look at the eyes on his arm. Then you sit back in his palm and look up at him, smiling.

“Continue,” you say.

He does so, perhaps with a greater strain now that you are in proximity. And, of course, his story unfolds with more decadence than any angel should hold.

One day he happened to appear in the kitchen just as you bent right over, unwittingly flashing him a sudden view up your dress. He didn’t move for a moment, taken back. He hadn’t braced himself for that. When he realized what was happening, he panicked, flying from the room. He aimed for the library and succeeded—at the cost of smashing right into the table. He toppled a chair and almost took himself down.

You came running into the room, the skirt of your dress billowing.

“Castiel,” you said, already flushed. You seemed embarrassed. Did you know? Did you know that he invaded your space and then remained there while you unknowingly revealed your more private attributes?

“Y/N,” he said after a moment. “Are Sam and Dean here?”

He knew they were not. He meant to check on you. You had been alone in the bunker for over a week.

You shook your head, looking at him a bit strangely. You were too polite to question his odd behaviour.

“No, they’re—”

“Oh,” he said quickly, “I apologize.”

He promptly fled the scene.

He fought to return to his previous state, a simpler state. He liked to hear about you. He liked to see you. He liked the things he learned, your stories and habits, and there were other things he wished to discover. Granted, he learned these things second-hand, through Sam and Dean. But he enjoyed them nonetheless. It was a fond acknowledgement, a tender affection. An innocent curiosity. Nothing more.

And then he joined the Winchesters on a hunt, waiting in their motel room while they dined elsewhere. He turned on the television, idly flipping stations. He momentarily thought of you, wondering if he should check on you. Perhaps not. He continued surfing the television instead, always a bit curious to see what he might find.

He froze after flicking to a pornographic channel, blinking at the screen. His usual reactions were absent, a derisive glance or quirked eyebrow. His first foray into pornography had been baffling, to say the least. He understood the concept of intercourse but the details of certain partnerships escaped him. Those details were clarified but didn’t make particular sense. After that, he had a low regard for most of it.

It was still quite farcical but his vessel grew taut, human senses overpowering his angelic ones. It was a faint sensation, gradually evolving. It was difficult to reverse. Especially with his eyes locked on the screen.

It just—it so happened to be that this particular actress resembled you in a certain fashion. His thoughts would not have strayed had the scenario been different. But this unfortunate coincidence was very difficult to shake.

The woman tossed her head back, a cry of ecstasy on her lips. Castiel thought of laughter, another human response, and suddenly matched the two expressions. A poor development, honestly. He could now imagine such an expression on your face, lips pink and upturned with a delirious smile. Ecstasy—

He turned off the television when the Winchesters stumbled back in. They didn’t notice anything but Castiel excused himself, reappearing a block away. He felt the evening breeze, his vessel alerting him to every sensation. He peered through a narrowed perception, down at his own body. This was not the appropriate time to become aroused. And certainly not the appropriate reason.

After that night, it did occur him that he should better understand these responses and ideas if he wanted to overcome them. And he really needed to overcome them.

The next time he visited, he recalled his previous thoughts and felt something like shame. You would be appalled if you could hear his musings. Not only did every thought once exist but they lingered.

He may have tuckered through a moment with you, had you not wandered into the library wearing nothing but a long t-shirt. You clearly just rose from sleep, something so natural and human, your body rolling through its cycles. A body which made him very aware.

Needless to say, a whole slew of thoughts piled on him at that one moment—your skirt lifting as you bent over, a breathless moan on your lips, your head thrown back in ecstasy, and you nestled in your bed with a simple garment wrapped around your body.

“Castiel?” you asked. “What are you doing here?”

“Looking for Sam and Dean,” he lied, careful to stand behind a chair. The last thing he needed was you seeing was his traitorous cock protesting at its material confines. He stood very still, breathing. Not breathing in any particular fashion, but breathing.

“They went out,” you replied.

“Oh,” he said. “I’m sorry if I disturbed you. Goodbye.”

“Uh, bye—”

He tried to detach you from his thoughts as he researched humans and their oh-so vast sexual escapades. You may have inadvertently encouraged this venture, but he only embarked upon it so he could better understand it. The more he knew, the easier it would be to divest himself of it.

He actually thought himself a decent success, not once debasing himself to any human level. His vessel didn’t enjoy his purposeful avoidance, but he learned to control its urges.

At least until visiting yet another day. Sam and Dean were gone and he was checking in, but he couldn’t find you anywhere. He strolled the halls and paused as he neared your bedroom. He would not just waltz in, obviously, though he did freeze when he heard noise inside. He stepped a bit closer to the door, brow furrowed. For a moment it sounded like you were in pain and he almost knocked.

Then he realized.

He stood still, feeling a physical drop as his vessel tightened around him. You were moaning in pleasure, bedsheets rustling beneath your moving body as you so clearly pleased yourself on the other side of that door. Castiel leaned against the wall, suddenly feeling very heavy. He furrowed his brow and looked down, almost groaning at how quickly his vessel had hardened. Was he so weak a creature after all?

He pushed away from the wall, moving to the other end of the corridor. He leaned back, flexing his fingers. He contemplated leaving, perhaps going to heaven, but he couldn’t find the willpower. His blood was pumping hotly and it all moved south, his cock almost hurting with how desperately hard it was, trapped in his clothes. He did eventually manage to fly, but he only made it to a bathroom on the other side of the bunker.

He all but collapsed against the counter, with a ragged groan submitting himself to the habits of humans. He opened his belt and then his pants, breathing out in relief when he pushed his hand down and freed the frustratingly needy erection which waited there. He clutched the edge of the counter, panting but otherwise keeping his volume down. He made a few half-hearted attempts to clear his mind, moving his hand over his cock in the appropriate fashion.

It was no use. When he came, your image was plastered everywhere in his mind. He recalled you moaning into his hand that day you met—morphing into a mental image of you sprawled beneath him, similar noises tumbling from your lips as you spread your legs and called him to you.

After cleaning up, he simply flew from the bunker and did not return. He didn’t visit you when you were alone anymore. Clearly, he had to keep his distance.

“I can’t believe you never told me that,” you say now, sprawled across his hand and looking up at him. His heads have turned aside but he directs them to you, eyes likewise blinking in your direction.

“I thought it might embarrass you,” he says, a cord of blue flame twining from his wing, teasing at your body. You laugh, squirming as you roll away. He holds you carefully.

“It would have then,” you admit, “but I think I would have liked it.”

“I know,” he says, a second strand of his grace dancing over you. This time you lean toward it, humming contently as it caresses you. “I know very well the things you like.”

You would be blushing again if you could.

“What about when we married then?” you ask, laying on your stomach. You prop your chin in your hand and kick your legs, tipping your head as you look at him. “Were you happy when you found out we had to get married?”

“If I ever was, it caused guilt.”

“Guilt! Why?”

“I thought you disliked me,” he replies. “I thought you feared me. It would be selfish to feel happiness at the arrangement if it would upset you.”

“It made me happy,” you say softly. You rest your head when more of his grace rolls over you, covering you sweetly.

“A fact I soon realized,” he says.

He remembers your wedding night very well. He had been so concerned with hurting you, and then you revealed you were a virgin he felt even worse for intruding on your potential life. It was not until he had you beneath his hands did he begin to wonder if he had been a fool. Your body responded keenly to his touch, and he saw you fighting to stifle your gasps. It could not be contained for long, your hips lifting so he would slide his hand beneath you, a tremble in your body as he touched you and felt how you desired him.

Then you were on your back, willingly spreading your legs as you encouraged his advance. He settled over you and wondered. He recalled your reactions the first day you met. You were rattled from your ordeal so he never blamed you for your hesitancy. But as he looked at you then, pink-cheeked and shy and embarrassed, unable to meet his eye as you shifted beneath him, he wondered if that held true once before. Perhaps you did not move away in fear, perhaps you did not avoid his gaze in worry. Perhaps his own infatuation had commenced that day. Perhaps you reciprocated.

Perhaps was a heavy word, saturated with so much possibility, yet he found its use persistent. For perhaps it was preposterous to imagine any sort of infatuation rooting so early in a story, yet he supposed everything had to start somewhere.

He was so used to chaos and catastrophe, to the sinister and ugly. He knew all about small problems snowballing into cataclysms of unmatched proportion. He never thought something which in itself was quiet and affectionate could begin somewhere even smaller and blossom softly. He wouldn’t know how to proceed much further. In heaven, there was only the Will and the Way. On earth, there was only pain and, if not pain, worry for the next mission. He was the perpetual soldier.

It was unusual to feel himself falling into something brighter.

As his body had almost entirely overcome his senses, he had mere scraps of grace on the surface of his being. The deeper levels would be breached at the celestial consummation, one that would bind you to him for eternity. Of the outermost remains, he used all of it to make the experience more comfortable for you. He carefully aligned his body to yours as he filled you for the first time. He offered to leave the consummation at that—but you brought an end to his wonderings and hooked your leg around him, with a smile inviting he continue.

He did, of course, thinking how happily he would continue for however so long you wanted him. And it seemed you did want him, as mere hours later you were rolling back into his arms, requesting he make love to you. He had lain behind you for hours, not sleeping but watching, touching your hair, your skin, careful not to wake you, content to be with you. And then he had you wrapped around him again.

It all felt so good until morning came. Uncertainty returned as you woke hazily, seeming almost frightened again. Instinct kicked in, the same which had always protected him, and he retreated with pitiful shame, thinking he had pushed himself to the outskirts of your affection again.

Until your emotional confession in the evening. When he had you in his arms again, he was certain to pry every secret from your lips, confirm your wanting of him, and swear to himself that he would love every inch of you and never again allow petty insecurities to stand between you.

“You did a very good job of loving me, you know,” you speak again now, sitting on the edge of his hand. You cling to him as he moves, laying on the spinning earth-like ground. Your feet touch the grass and he remains on his side, watching as you roam in a circle near to him. “Where are we?” you ask, looking up at his wing as it folds at his side, the tip reaching you. You stand on your toes and touch it.

“Your heaven,” he replies. “You have two. Prophets are blessed with an awareness of all heaven; you can come and go as you please. This is a place for you to roam, but you have a personal space which resembles an earthly memory.”

“Oh,” you say. A flash of gold moves through him when you sidle alongside him, pressing into his torso. His wing slides further over you, gently keeping you against him. You remain there for a moment, smoothing your hand over him as his grace likewise touches your hair. It’s difficult to measure time in this place, but you linger for quite a while. Then you sit up, touching his wing. “Can we see the other heaven?”

“Of course.”

He stands in mere seconds, lifting you off the ground and holding you in front of him. His wings seem to explode around him, flying up and spreading wide, so wild and bright it’s almost blinding—even here where you have nothing to properly blind.

You close your eyes anyway. When you open them, you feel something flat beneath your bare feet. You look around and realize you’re in your bedroom at the bunker.

“Home,” you murmur. You shiver when you hear the flap of wings, much smaller and very familiar. You turn around and see Castiel, standing in the shape of his vessel. The gold thread which draped over you before remains, but as material now. Likewise is he wrapped in something sheer and blue. Though you don’t think you have a beating heart, you swear it races as he approaches you.

He doesn’t say anything and you don’t need him to. He takes your face in his hands as he did the day you met and he kisses you. You feel the fabric fall from your body and then his. Every sensation is heightened to the extreme, a tremor running through your entire form as his hands slide down your body. You lean against him as he kisses down your neck, hands smoothing over your backside. You squeak, smacking his chest when he squeezes your bottom.

“Cas,” you giggle. He nips at your shoulder then lifts his head, smiling fondly. “Always such trouble,” you say in Enochian.

In reply, he lifts you off the ground. Thinking of his true form, all that strength makes sense. You wrap your arms around his shoulders, your legs his waist, and you hold onto him when he lays you back on the bed. His mouth moves down your body while his hands settle under your thighs. He pushes them apart, breaking your hold on his waist. You tremble and start to breathe when his lips scour your inner thigh, tracing familiar paths.

“Castiel,” you breathe his name, lifting your hips as he teases you. You moan with blissful relief when his mouth moves where you need it. He brings you to climax quickly and, as usual, you expect a breather. As usual, that doesn’t happen. You make a high-pitched noise as he continues his assault, your body bending as you partly lift off the bed with your second orgasm. “Cas,” you moan raggedly, because he isn’t stopping. He turns you over and lifts your hips, and then his mouth returns. “Ugh, this isn’t different—” you say, but you say it with a smile.

Your smile is broken with surprise when you feel him slide inside you, fingers still swirling over your throbbing and sensitive clit. You finish in seconds, pulsing around him and listening as he breathes and grunts with every thrust. He holds your hips with both hands, pitching almost erratically against you. You clench around him and he comes, fingers digging into your hips. You slump forward with hazy delight when he pulls away. You slide onto your stomach, laying there for a moment. You turn your head to look at him and you anticipate a tired, content look.

But it still blazes with desire, his hand running down your back.

Your body recovers quicker here. You suppose it does for him too. He rolls you onto your side and, still a bit delirious, you grab at him messily. He doesn’t seem to mind, hoisting your leg around his waist as his cock presses at your entrance. You take hold of him, aligning him, mimicking his low sound when he fills you again. You have each other in that position and then he rolls you onto your back. His thrusts fill you differently, almost better, but he swallows your sounds with a hard kiss.

He makes you come again, following moments after, and you swear you see white for a moment.

Then you’re settled in his arms. His wings, scaled to a reasonable proportion again, unfold around him as he lays on his side. He draws you against him and you nestle your head against his chest, breathing in as his wing slides over you.

“So how do you think you heard my prayer?” you ask, thinking to the beginning of his story, how he heard your prayer when you were taken captive.

He kisses the top of your head then breathes out.

“I don’t know,” he answers honestly, that familiar rough voice sounding in your ears.

“Can we go back to that other place for a bit?” you ask. As much as you adore this form, you’re almost starting to miss his other one.

No sooner has his wing moved do you feel yourself standing. Gold wraps around you again, a part of your essence here, and you stand while he waits on one knee before you. He still towers over you. You lift one hand and he takes that as indication, picking you up.

Before long, you’re sitting on his shoulder. You felt a bit ridiculous at first but you adjusted quickly. You touch one of his faces and he makes what must be a pleased sound.

“Do you think you were sent to save me?” you ask, sliding off his shoulder and into his hands as he lays down again. You curl up on his chest, his wings folding around you. The flame is bright blue, amplified by the white beneath it.

“Cherished wife,” he says, all his phrases a bit different in pure Enochian, but the compliment no less welcome. You shudder when you suddenly feel much more, a whirl of emotion beneath his chest as a thousand different feelings unfold beneath you. Most of them are unpleasant and you wonder why he shares them, but they soon bleed into something much warmer, and then it blisters hot in the most wonderful way. You think of his story, beginning with worries and fears, ending here. You understand, the essence of your soul almost completely bleeding into his grace. Gold flickers in his wings above you like stars in the blue. “You can see,” he says, “who was sent to save whom.”

castiel x reader masterpost

#castiel x reader #castiel imagine #castiel x y/n #casreader #castiel

20 notes · View notes

giddleford · 3 years

Note

A lot of trans women dealt with toxic masculinity before coming out, as it was a way to deal with feelings of being a failed man. Some incels took it too far, from brony to white supremacist. Others did a 180 and became communist catgirls. I didn't think Tumblr attracted the same former incel mtf types Reddit does, because of the 4chan/Reddit overlap. But it doesn't help anyone to demonize someone's past (terfs) or deny their journey (your mockery).

Anon I feel that if you’re sending asks to passerby commenters this must’ve hit a nerve, and honestly I am sorry for that. To be frank I could’ve worded that a lot better so I’ll take my opportunity now.

Now let’s dissect your ask here, shall we?

I agree with you. Some trans women are subject to toxic masculinity, in fact, I would even go as far as to say all of them are subject to it in some way or another given the traditionally misogynistic society we live in. I’m not going to dispute that. However I am going to point out a logical error in your ask, and I do get that it’s an ask so you don’t really have space or time to develop your ideas, but your definition of incels and their relationship with trans women is flawed.

While the statements “incels are subject to toxic masculinity” and “trans women are subject to toxic masculinity” are both true, your jump from idea to idea implies that “trans women who are subject to toxic masculinity are incels” which is not necessarily true. And I hate to reduce it to semantics but it is a case of semantics. Where do we define incel Anon? If incel is indeed defined as any person assigned male at birth who is subject to toxic masculinity then your implied statement is right, however, that’s not exactly how we define the word. It’s far too broad of a definition because it affects literally every person assigned male at birth, and we know that not all of them are incels.

So right, what is an incel? I’m going to go off from the Reddit type of incel because that’s the one I know more of and because they are the ones with the clearest ideology. So essentially what I’m doing here is telling you, Anon, and I suppose all of my followers too, what I think an incel is. Now, the incel phenomenon is a biossentialist and misogynist phenomenon. It is the result of the abuse of toxic masculinity on people assigned male at birth that shapes their worldview to believe that “males” are entitled to a female partner and that the entire possibility of getting what they feel are entitled to is reduced to appearance. Now, of course, there are degrees of incel thinking, like everything else really. There are people who take it as far as to have masculinization surgery to achieve the look that they perceive to be the superior male look. And then there are incels that think that doing that is ridiculous. But my point here is that I don’t think that people assigned male at birth who moan about not getting laid or are sexist are incels. I believe that there must be some degree of apocalyptic thinking and despair in order to be labeled an incel. There must be a thought of societal inflexibility and hostility towards them, which is what causes the rampant sexism.

Now, notice how all throughout I have used “people assigned at birth” instead of “males.” That’s because I am not denying the possibility of an incel coming out as a trans woman. It is a possible event, however, how probable it is, that’s something different. The core of the incel ideology is that they feel like they are entitled to a female partner (note that the use of female here is being used as they use it and has no connection to my own personal beliefs) not their insecurity. Their insecurity is indeed what starts the chain of events that turns these people into incels, but not any man that is insecure about his masculinity is an incel. This leads me to the next point, future trans women being insecure about their masculinity because of societal pressure does not make them incels. A lot of incel ideology is about sexuality, not gender.

Now, I have decided to gloss over the middle of your ask because for the sake of the argument I am going to assume that those statements are true. I am not saying they are true or false, I’m just saying that I have nothing to refute them for they are presented as fact and I’m far more interested in the logic.

So that takes me to the closing statement, that my words demonized TERF’s past and that I denied their journey with my mockery.

Where do I begin with this, I did no such thing Anon, you’re putting words in my mouth. You’re also doing another logical jump here. My comment pointed out the improbability of a trans woman being an incel, and while I did say it in a mocking tone, and I have rectified that, it has nothing to do with TERFs. There is nothing about what I said that demonizes anyone as well. In fact, I would go out to say that I can feel sympathy for incels and TERFs, to a certain degree. Their worldview has been so radicalized that they’re hurting others and themselves, a loop of pain that just makes things worse. Now my intention isn’t to be condescending, and my apologies if it does come out that way, but you must admit that some people on the deep end of things are self-destructive.

With that said I do see how you got TERFs involved in this, after all the ask I commented on in a friend’s blog was saying that it is an offense to potential trans women to compare TERFs to incels. While I cannot refute whether it is an offense or not, after all, it is subjective to the reader, the main argument behind the ask was that incels are potential trans women which is something that as I have discussed here is improbable and a bit of a logical error and thus does not serve as a generalization. There’s also the fact that the Anon in that ask (which could be you Anon but I’m not one to assume) used an emotional argument to stop the comparison between incels and TERFs which leads me to believe that the other Anon indeed recognizes that they can be comparable in the way that my friend pointed out, which is the bioessentialist views.

#mari's mumbles #ask #anon

1 note · View note

crownonymous · 5 years

Text

Harry Potter Analysis Essays: General Worldbuilding

Because we all fucking know Rowling didn’t create this world with any sense of nuance or deep thought so here we fucking are, doing the work ourselves. Do keep in mind, though, that I haven’t touched a single Harry Potter book in almost a decade; all of these are mostly inferences, headcanons, and references pulled from other magic systems and worldbuilding tools found in other media.

This post will detail basic worldbuilding with the intent of fleshing out the Harry Potter universe. List of topics for easy navigation: Technology, Commerce, Education, Religion. Warnings for: gun mention (technology); death mention (religion)

The term “witch” will be used to describe practitioners of magic in this analysis regardless of sex or gender, because witch has always been a gender neutral term and I will never forgive Rowling for pulling the whole witch and wizard bullshit. Now. The analysis.

TECHNOLOGY

There are no phones in Hogwarts. There are no computers in Hogwarts. There are no guns in Hogwarts. And considering that witches from other schools (Durmstrang, Beauxbatons) don’t have these as well, it’s safe to assume that this is the norm for the witch community. There HAS to be a reason for this. Instead of a plot hole, let’s think of this as an obstacle for the magic world. There are no guns, no computers, no phones in Hogwarts not because of lack of thought, but of actual impossibility.

One way or another, complicated electronics and technology don’t work. The most complicated piece of technology that I can think of in canon are the train, the Weasley’s car, and the bus. I might be missing a few things, but that’s all that stands out to me. That’s how little magical technology plays a part in the canon storyline. That’s how little technology is talked about in the universe. Which, to me, is a fucking tragedy.

Address the kind of elitist view witches have in regards to their magic, especially in comparison to muggles. We, as actual people living in the real world, have seen this kind of behaviour many times before. Refusing to acknowledge the advancements made by other countries and cultures because we perceive our own to be superior, or we view that advancement as petty and useless. Remember the people who dunked on the first photograph of a black hole because it was blurry? It’s like that, but with a bigger population who all basically have the same “muggle technology? big pass” attitude. Arthur fucking Weasley didn’t understand how a train terminal worked and part of that is ignorance and the witchy upbringing.

Witches aren’t taught to appreciate muggle technology. Or really, muggle anything. And this lack of understanding and knowledge kind of drove home the superiority complex thing which again, further discourages muggle understanding, and the cycle continues on.

That’s the ideological reason for why there’s practically no muggle technology found in the magical world. Now, what about a different reason? What if the magical world does, indeed, have technology, but in a different way than how muggles perceive technology.

Take the internet for example. We have a wide collection of knowledge that we can access with a phone and wifi. What’s the witch equivalent of that? There are printed books of course, but what about something else? The pensieve is magical technology that can store memories, which is basically home videos and photos. What about several different pensieves connected to each other? Witches can store their memories inside their pensieves, connect it to other witches, and form a network of knowledge so that anyone can essentially dunk their heads in water and live through a step-by-step process on how to make a fucking cake. That counts as technology that intrinsically ties to magic.

So in theory, witches can invent technology tailored to and for them. Medicine that seeks out magical energy to ease the pain of curses and hexes. Bottles that can be filled up with raw, unfiltered magic to be used as bombs or accelerants for other forms of magic. Blank portraits hung in witch homes, where inhabitants can magic a picture of someone onto each other’s canvases to serve as video calls. So many fucking opportunities that weren’t taken.

But why not use muggle technology? It’s already been invented. Is elitism really so prevalent that witches would rather look like fucking idiots using quills and inkwells instead of a fucking pencil? Maybe there’s a reason for that too.

Forgive me for scientific inaccuracies but let’s suppose that witch magic can materialise as energy, able to be detected on the electro-magnetic spectrum. Basically, magic has the same effect on electronics as an EMP would. It shorts out wiring, makes electronic lights flicker, fucks up complicated pieces of technology just by being in magical presence. So, by that logic, if a witch holds a phone, their magical energy would make that goddamn phone go bust. Or worse, explode. And can you imagine what that kind of energy would do to firearms? There have been cases of firearms accidentally discharging because they were dropped. What will happen if the nature and construction of firearms react negatively to fucking magic? Yeah. There’s your reason as to why people didn’t just shoot each other in the head. Complicated technology and magic don’t mix.

But the Weasley car has fairly complicated technology. So, how does that work? In comes witch inventors whose passion and job is basically finding ways to make muggle technology work with the natural witch portable always-on EMP aura. In the PJO universe, Demigods don’t use phones very often because the waves make them more easily detectable. Same concept, but a little more violent. Arthur works for the Ministry which explains why he would have access to a car that doesn’t explode to fiery bits when it comes in contact with a witch’s magic. In fact, that car probably does what muggles did when inventing guns that can fire continuously. In the gun’s case, the recoil from the first shot is used to create energy for the second shot. Not a gun person so I don’t know how to explain it in more detail, but that’s basically it.

That “harnessing recoil” thing can be applied to the car as well. Instead of being shot dead with the all natural witch EMP, the car uses that constant discharge as fuel. Which presents a different challenge for magical inventors: create technology that doesn’t clash with natural magic. One way is to use pre-existing magical tools like the pensieve and improve upon it. Another is the recoil thing, which is finding ways where the constant ambient magic doesn’t disrupt the technology in question.

This is the same reason I use for every fantasy AU I have to explain why characters don’t just shoot each other. And it works for the Harry Potter universe as well.

COMMERCE

You expect me to believe that the ONLY jobs are magical-related? Fuck that noise. There are bakers and architects and taxi drivers and teachers and authors and inventors and clerks and construction workers and hairdressers historians. Remember kids, the job itself doesn’t have to be magic, you just have to be creative with the application. There’s nothing magical about being a taxi driver. You have a vehicle, you pick people up, and you drop them off. The magic comes from how you do it.

Instead of trying to make the job magical (like Aurors, which are basically magic police officers) how about we focus instead on finding ways to apply magic to the job? Back to the taxi driver, how does a taxi driver compete with magical methods like apparition, the floo network, and straight up flight? Please remember that apparating is dangerous and that the floo network has to be connected with the Ministry to work (at least in Britain) and flight is, well, flight.

Taxi drivers in the magical world have to compete with that, so how do they do it? They can take the knight bus route, which is make travel speedy so witches can go from point a to point b relatively quick. Another is to make the ride as comfortable as possible. You have magic, pull a Tardis in the cab and make it so passengers open the door and find themselves in a goddamn hotel suite so they can relax during their commute.

Have your bakers make figures out of fondant and marshmallows that come to live as the candles are blown out. Imagine those little birthday cakes with cars and mermaids and other stuff on top. Now imagine those things coming to life as you blow out the candles. They’re like chocolate frogs without the stupid nonsensical time constraint. Can you imagine what it’ll be like if you have a cake topper that’s a car that can actually move around? Maybe zip through the air around you? Dunno bout y’all but I want that.

And how would trade between witch communities go? No matter how much you try to convince me, I refuse to fucking believe that the sickle/galleon thing is universal across ALL witching communities. Fucking impossible. So there has to be different witch currencies out there with their own exchange rate compared to the sickle/galleon system as well as their respective muggle currency in relation to where they are.

Because of the fact that muggle exchange rates will ALWAYS be present because of the numerous muggleborn and half-blood witches who don’t want to yeet an entire part of their life away just because they can levi someone’s corpus, there IS muggle trade. I refuse to fucking believe that the extent of witch and muggle commerce begins and ends with the exchange of currency. There HAS to be goods and/or services exchanged. Otherwise, how would witch banks even acquire muggle currency in the first place? Do they fucking steal it from the unsuspecting public? No, they gain muggle currency through trade.

Just because witches can make chocolate frogs and moving pictures on cards, doesn’t mean that it’s what they HAVE to make. Witches can easily make things that they can sell in the muggle world that have no magic. Notebooks, kitchen implements, etc. With magic, manufacturing these will be incredibly easy and could break the muggle economy. So I think only banks have clearance to sell witch-made mundane objects to muggles for the purpose of getting muggle currency so they can exchange that with magic currency. There are plenty of muggleborn and half-blood witches that may need muggle currency when they return to the muggle world, so the demand is reasonably high.

Basically, my point is, witch communities trade with each other because that’s what we as humans do. We find something we’re good at, find someone else who’s good at what we suck shit at doing, and we fucking trade. If, for example, British witches are good at making magical confectionery, they can then trade those confectioneries for things like self-writing quills or magical blankets that keep you at your preferred temperature. My point is that there is trade and communication between different witch communities that allow them to better their respective communities whilst simultaneously learning from others.

EDUCATION

Put aside the Hogwarts sorting thing because THAT shitshow deserves its own post. For now, we’ll just take a look at the education system itself. Particularly how the magic education system mirrors our own real world “muggle” system. We will ask and answer this question: Why do these schools exist?

To teach children how to use and control magic, obviously. But why? Why is it so important to enroll every magic user into a witching school and why is it important for these children to get their magic under control? And if learning how to control magic is so important, is tuition still necessary? While we’re at it, we also have to ask: What happens to the children who don’t get taught? Rowling can try to convince me that every witch child was brought under a magic school like Hogwarts as soon as their magic manifested all she wants but that’s fucking impossible.

You mean to tell me that there are no children who were homeschooled? You mean to tell me that there weren’t witch children who bounced from foster home to foster home so often that no matter how much they tried to be located, these children were never picked up? You mean to tell me that there weren’t any children who didn’t want to go to a strange magical boarding school? The fuck are they going to do? Arrest children for non-compliance with magic laws of a magic world that the child wants nothing to do with?

If the answer to that question is “no”, then what do they do with children who have no wish to learn anything about their magical powers? Are they excommunicated from the witch community? Do they send a witch guardian to follow the child around like an underpaid bodyguard with the added difficulty modifier of having to stay undetected? I think that in order to use magic, one must have either focus, or an extreme emotional reaction. The magic we see in Hogwarts is controlled; the students want to cast the spells they’re casting and are in the right headspace to do so. The magic we see Harry do when he traps Dudley behind glass is emotional; his magic reacts to his current mental space and altered reality because of Harry. So an untrained witch who suddenly experiences an emotional outburst could potentially cause trouble, which is why it is best to at least inform them about their situation so they can be aware.

If the answer is “yes” however, that begets the question of WHY untrained witches need to be found and contained if they can’t (or won’t) control their powers. Thankfully, canon answers this one for us with the introduction of Obscurials. Obscurials (or Obscuros but I like Obscurial better so that’s what we’ll use) are the manifestation of a witch’s energy when they repress it, whether by their own volition or by the coercion of their environment. And as we all know, Obscurials are dangerous if left unchecked, because their magic is wild and untamed and capable of causing mass destruction not only to muggles, but to witches as well. So in the interest of protecting both muggles and witches from rogue Obscurials in unfavourable environments, it’s more practical to yeet as many students into witch schools as possible. Or at least get them to a mentor who can teach them if they don’t want to go to magic boarding school.

I really, really, want to talk more about Obscurials and how/why trauma does and doesn’t make Obscurials but we’re not focusing on that today.

We’re focusing on the magic education system.

We’ve now understood and established why education young witches on their powers and the practical applications of it is so important. In order to avoid damage to both witch and muggle society, people with magical talents should be taught how to control their powers so they aren’t a danger to themselves and to others. That’s all fine and dandy. But what do the schools actually teach?

Hogwarts has a fucking crisis every damn year so it isn’t the best example but it’s all we’ve got, so let’s look at it.

We have classes about the magical creatures that exist in the world, some benign and some actively malicious. We have classes on different kinds of magic and their applications (more on this in a different essay) in day-to-day witch life. We have self-defense classes against potentially harmful entities, whether they be another witch or something else. We have classes about different forms of magical practise including but not limited to: arithmancy, divination and herbology.

With this in mind, we can infer that there are multiple kinds of magical practise that range from potion-making to cursing someone to speak only in riddles for a week. We can also infer that the magical world is fucking dangerous. There are animals that can rip you apart without a moment’s notice, and there is an actual literal fucking spell that is a straight up fucking insta-kill if it hits you. If a young witch is caught unawares and unprepared, they will likely die.

And as we’ve learned, if a witch with uncontrolled powers experiences extreme duress, their magic reacts and lashes out at anything and everything. If the witch is powerful enough, they could straight up nuke several buildings (and everyone in em) out of existence.

So, the reason magical schools exist, and the reason why young witches are pressured to attend them, is to protect both the muggle world and the magic world.

But again, Hogwarts has a fucking goddamn crisis every year so other witching cultures might handle wayward witches differently. But we’ll never know because the canon worldbuilding fucking su-

RELIGION

To be fair, witches can be a part of many religions around the world. Some might be Jewish, others Catholic, maybe there are witches who are even Wiccan or Pagan or polytheistic. All of these options are possible and plausible. We also have a few canon examples of real life and “muggle” religions practised by the characters. Fat Friar was Roman Catholic during his lifetime, and because Christmas is celebrated in canon, it’s safe to assume that there are witches who are Christian and that the magic world has at least a passing knowledge of these religions.

All of these religions are also, coincidentally, religions that normal people, that MUGGLES, are a part of. Why is that important? There are half-blood and muggleborn witches, and they might worship the same God(s) their muggle parent(s) do. But there are also pureblood witches who very likely don’t know a lick about most of these religions. There are also pureblood families who might worship their own God(s) and thus, would shun away religions that muggles also participate in. Witches have also existed for as long as humans existed. And witch history (real life witch history) is brimming with hatred and violence and distrust towards witches from normal people. From muggles. So it would make sense for witches (especially pureblood witches) to have their own religion.

The problem now, is that we literally have nothing about that supposed religion. Coupled with the fact that there are literally witches everywhere, a universal religion to witches cannot be applied. We must also consider other cultures removed from Britain where the canon takes place. There are cultures all over the world whose magical practises tie in closely with their religion. I am not an expert on theology. So for the purposes of this analysis, we will focus on the supposed “non-muggle” religion likely practised by pureblood old-timey British witches.

Not that non-pureblood witches can’t practise it, but the world moves on and the stigma against muggles is slowly dwindling. With the rise of half-blood and muggle-born witches, it’s likely that more modern religions are adopted by these new witches. So it’s safe to say that these religions practised by pure-blood families are slowly phasing out. Which would also lead to the whole “blood purity” plot point. The old, traditionalist witches want to be more selective with newer witches so they can preserve their own culture and religion. *cough* parallels *cough*

Onto possible religions that would make sense with the barebone canon universe.

How about the Deathly Hallows?

It’s a story about three brothers, the personification of Death, and the cycle of life. It’s also a story about the values represented by the different Hallows, and a warning about the importance of temperance and how easily these values could be corrupted. In the context of the magic world, temperance is something that is SORELY needed, but unfortunately never fucking seen. Let’s review.

The Elder Wand: asked for by the oldest brother, the strongest wand in existence, a symbol of power. it is strength, it is action, it is decisiveness. In relation to a real-life religion, the Elder Wand is like the flaming sword in the Bible, used as a deterrent to ward away any who would dare try to step inside Paradise. In the HP universe, the Elder Wand can easily be seen as protection from evil, as a way for a witch to protect themselves and the people they hold dear to their hearts. As the strongest wand in existence, the wielder would have immeasurable power and of course, with great power comes great temptation. Temptation which the First Brother in the story succumbed to, and is thus met an untimely and gruesome end. It is a moral about how power in the wrong hands leads to an unfortunate end, and how witches should be proud of their gifts, but they should never be arrogant about it. Homeboi would have lived if he kept his mouth shut about having the most powerful wand in existence.

The Resurrection Stone: asked for by the second brother, a way to bring the dead from their graves, a memory and love for the past. it is grief, it is remembrance, it is guidance. There are several religions around the world that place emphasis on respecting and honouring the dead like Dia de Los Muertos. When we lose someone, especially someone important to us, we mourn, we grieve, we feel as though the world is ending. We are lost. The Stone offers consolation, an opportunity to see those we have lost so that we might move on. It’s a way for us to look back at the past, at the people we have lost, parents and grandparents, teachers and mentors, and ask for their guidance and wisdom. But it’s also a call for us not to stare, not to linger, and not to miss the past so much that we lose sight of the present. The second brother did not understand that moral, and so he misused the stone, preferring to live in the past rather than cherish the life he has which led to his demise.

The Invisibility Cloak: asked for by the third brother, something that could elude Death yet was ultimately surrendered, a reminder that life is short and fleeting. it is longevity, it is acceptance, it is sacrifice. Again, I’m not a theological expert and thus, failed to find a fitting real world religion to compare this particular section, but maybe we can look to nature instead. Death comes for all of us. It’s an unfortunate truth. It takes our family, it takes our friends, and it will inevitably take us. As the third and final brother, the story of the Cloak teaches us to accept that inevitability, and to live life to the fullest because of it. The third brother did not keep the Cloak for himself, he gave it to his son, so that his son may also live a long and fulfilling life. The third brother tried to pave the way for those that will come after him, and that’s ultimately what the Cloak tries to teach. One must try to live life with as few regrets as possible, so that when the time comes, one can pass the Cloak to someone else, pass down knowledge and experience and love, and greet Death as an old friend.

The three stories of the Deathly Hallows are fundamentally good. When you have Power, don’t abuse it. It is important to love and cherish the past, but you must live in the present. Death is inevitable, so make the most out of your time while you have it. At its core, the Deathly Hallows would make a good religion, especially for witches.

And of course, the bit about how one becomes the Master of Death should they come into possession of all three Hallows. In a sense, becoming the Master of Death is finally and wholeheartedly understanding the meaning and lessons the Three Hallows are trying to teach. Accepting responsibility for one’s powers and not abusing it, learning from and cherishing the past but living in the present, and of course doing your best to pave the road for those that will come after you. Understanding these three fundamental things preserves the values exemplified by the Three Witch Brothers and is basically Enlightenment for this supposed religion. All of this essentially boils down to “appreciate life and don’t be a dick” which is a good code to live by.

But, like any other religion, these tenets and values can easily be corrupted and perverted. Ancient pureblood families can so easily twist these morals to benefit them and their agenda. The First story can be interpreted as the Brother being too weak to be worthy of the Wand. The love shown in the Second story can be viewed as weakness. The Third Brother giving the cloak to his son in the third story can be used to dissuade altruism.

Religion in real life is complicated. Religion in a fictional universe can be complicated too. And this is only one small region of the universe. Who knows what kind of stories and lore and possible religions other parts of the world may have.

In conclusion, I spent four (almost five) goddamn hours of my one human life tilling at land that isn’t fucking arable, but I have a fucking shovel and I’m prepared to dig deeper into this godsforsaken fandom. I was given a skeleton made of wet tissue paper and I turned that shit into a skeleton made of sturdier materials that will support the weight of heavier ideas. Ideas like what actual combat between two witches who can mold reality like fucking play-doh would look like. You think it’s the boring glorified laser tag team battle we get in the movies? Fuck that, I’m going to give you more. Want an analysis on the Hogwarts Houses that isn’t “good, bad, smart, miscellaneous”? It’s on its fucking way.

This is just bare fucking bones. I’ll be writing more essays in the future and I’m bringing in the heavy shit. So go get comfortable because I’m not done picking this world apart yet.

#ref #crowsas analysis #hp #harry potter #hp analysis #fandom ref

17 notes · View notes

alysharichardss · 5 years

Text

The Impact of Media Representation and Portrayal on Minorities

In the era we live in today, much of an individual’s knowledge comes from how they perceive what they view, and media plays a huge role in what is presented to individuals. The representation and portrayal of racial minorities in mass media has been and still is a pressing issue. These representations and portrayals are problematic as they promote stereotypes, stigmas, and ideas surrounding superiority and inferiority. All of which reinforce a divide between racial minorities and the majority.

Axel Aubrun et al.’s “Six Harmful Patterns in Newspaper Presentations of Race” is centered on the analysis of news media's influence on the lives of minority individuals. According to Aubrun et al. in media “minorities are portrayed as distinct from and unconnected to Whites, as the ‘Other...” (5). This can be done through various forms of media, from film to internet, television, as well as magazines. However, news media coverage in particular commonly associates minorities with dysfunction, delinquency, unemployment, poverty, and crime (Aubrun et al. 15). Although the depiction of problems and differences between races can be significant, the overarching effects of portraying one race as negative or inferior to another can be divisive. Aubrun et al. use the term “distancing effect” to describe the separation between the minority and the majority caused by media (14). Aubrun et al. state it can be challenging for white individuals to connect to minorities who are consistently depicted as inferior, or an “other” in comparison to them (ibid.). News media’s portrayal of minorities can make those individuals out to be “less than” their white counterparts. This divide can be especially harmful when negative depictions are common. However, the effects of media portrayal do not end with divide.

In addition, Aubrun et al. suggest that by characterizing minorities and their communities as problematic and needy, those who consume these portrayals can begin to view situations regarding minorities as “permanent and unchanging” (14). As a result, problems persist in minority communities and nothing is done to combat them (ibid.). When what is being viewed on a large scale influences the way individuals view other races in reality, it can lead to an abundance of problems that go unsolved. A cycle between portrayal and problems presents itself in real life. Moreover, news media is not the only form of mass media that has the capability to do so.

In a survey conducted in November 2019, 86% of respondents said media (TV/Film or News Media) has an influence on their own views pertaining to their race or other races (See Appendix A). All respondents answered that there is somewhat, or a definite correlation between media portrayals and stereotypes associated with race. Moreover, 93% of respondents believe minority groups in race are portrayed more negatively than non-people of color in media (Appendix A). The survey conveyed that the views of most individuals are influenced by what is presented in mass media. All respondents were between the ages of 17 and 50. However, media consumption and its influence on the lives and beliefs of minorities begins far before adolescent and adulthood.

Lack of representation in media of minorities can be impact children negatively. Neal Lester’s “Disney's the princess and the frog: The pride, the pressure, and the politics of being a first," explores Disney’s first inclusion of an animated black princess. Disney is a “globally dominant producer of cultural constructs related to gender, race, ethnicity, class and sexuality” (Lester 294). Because the franchise is largely viewed by children (of all races), author Dorothy L. Hurley speaks of how depictions of different individuals are, “translated into beliefs children hold about status in particular group membership, in relation to notions of good, bad, pretty, and ugly as reflected in the films” (qtd. in Lester 295). This conveys the power media has on one’s mind. For children, portrayals of individuals in media are often internalized and held as true.

Before the arrival of Princess Tiana a black royalty in Disney’s Princess and The Frog, the representation for African American princesses was at a low. Lester refers to the overwhelming presence of Disney’s white princesses, and the questionable historical portrayal of animated characters of color (Lester 295). Disney’s lack of representation of black individuals, and positive portrayal of white royalty sent a message to minority children through Disney’s association of “beauty, fame, fortune, and desire with whiteness” (Lester 295). Donna Brown Guillame, television producer, shares the message Disney films sent her when she states, “when I was young, all the fairytale princesses had long blond hair. When you are black, you just don't feel like it could be you”(qtd. In Lester 294). Lack of representation of minorities in media networks such as Disney, can have a harmful influence on youth of color. Particularly when those who are frequently represented are associated with positive characteristics and are of the majority race. They may feel inferior to the majority. It can make minorities believe things such as “beauty, fame, fortune, and desire” are unattainable if they are not white (Lester 295). Princess Tiana in the Princess and The Frog was a step towards inclusion. However, many children did not grow up with that representation in media. Portrayals and representation of African American females on TV specifically are problematic as they are often negative and have influenced young girls and women alike.

Media consumption has the ability to affect how African American youth views themselves. Gholnescar Muhammad and Sherell McArthur’s “Styled by Their Perceptions’: Black Adolescent Girls Interpret Representations of Black Females in Popular Culture,” is centered on black girls and their internalization of media portrayal. Muhammad and McArthur assert that current representation for black women in media is flawed and current media portrayals make it harder for young black girls to develop their identities (133). The authors conducted interviews with black female adolescents ages 12-17. Nine percent of respondents spoke of positive portrayals in music and on TV (Muhammad & McArthur 136). However, 64% respondents stated they viewed media representation of black girls as negative, with depiction of “exaggerated characters, objectification, and belligerence”(ibid.). The result of these portrayals Muhammad et al. states, is that many African American women may feel the need to act a certain way to not play into negative stereotypes in media, even if it is warranted (138). Being forced to suppress emotions to not play into stereotypes associated with race can have a damaging impact on an individual, especially at a young age. Media’s influence on how individuals are perceived were discussed by numerous black girls who took part in Muhammad and McArthur’s study.

Violet, an interviewee, wrote about being judged based on preconceived notions about black girls surrounding ignorance and confrontation. She speaks of how although she embodies “cleverness, mannerism, gentleness,” people make their minds up about her at first glance and are unwilling to see anything else (qtd. in Muhammad & McArthur). Therefore, media portrayal and representation, can promote negative and racially stereotypical stigmas widely associated with a singular race. In the case of black adolescent girls who took part in this study, media portrayal and representation presented the capability to make forming their identity’s difficult. In addition to the promotion of stigmas, and racial stereotypes, the over sexualization of minority women in media can have dangerous consequences.

Media depiction in media can put women at risk in the reality. Debra Merkin’s “Three Faces of Eva: Perpetuation of The Hot-Latina Stereotype in Desperate Housewives” is centered on common portrayals of Latina women on television. Merskin claims that mass media, more specifically, TV is used today as a means for majority (white male) beliefs about sex, race, and gender to be spread (134). Merskin argues that by conveying stereotypes that depict certain races as the “other,” media enables “racial superiority” to continue (ibid.).The power of stereotypes in media can be have a negative influence on the lives of Latina women in particular, whom in mass media are frequently portrayed as "exotic, sexual, and available, and as more in touch with their bodies and motivated by physical and sexual pleasure than white women” (Merskin 136).The constant exploitative portrayal of minority women in media has the ability to alter their value and worth in a general sense in reality. In the interviews conducted by Muhammad and McArthur a respondent stated that the over sexualization of minority women in media makes them,“ vulnerable to mistreatment by others and susceptible to violent acts such as rape or abuse” (qtd. in Muhammad & McArthur 138). When an individuals value is constantly depicted as less than, and they’re over-sexualized frequently, it can put them in harms-way in reality. Not every individual’s portrayal in media is accurate. When these portrayals are frequent, the impacts are more damaging than anything else.

In essence, mass media’s representation and portrayal of minorities is a fairly significant issue. Media has the tendency to overlook minorities, and when they are represented, the portrayals are commonly misleading. The impacts of media representation on minorities, and all races as a whole are more harmful than anything else. Although the issue of lack of media representation minorities is resolving, stigmas and a divide still result from the presence of racial stereotypes portrayed in media. Will the minority ever be represented equally or portrayed equally to the majority in forms of mass media? Does the inclusion of one African American princess dismiss decades of absence? Overall, one step towards change, is better than no step at all. And informing oneself about issues otherwise overlooked, is the first step towards making a difference.

3 notes · View notes

nerdygaymormon · 6 years

Link

Of all sexual orientations, the bisexual population experiences the highest rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.Bisexual females exhibit the highest suicide scores. Bisexual girls are the most vulnerable, with nearly 48 percent saying they had considered taking their own lives...Bisexual individuals also reported higher rates of mental illness...Only about 28% of bisexuals say all or most of the important people in their life know they are bisexual. By comparison 70-80% of gay and lesbian participants say all or most of the important people in their life know they are homosexual.

————————————————————

Media

Representation matters. It sounds trite, but it’s true...Bisexuals are often portrayed as greedy, selfish, hypersexualized people due to the fact our sexual orientations are not exclusive to one gender.

————————————————————

Passing Privilege

Passing privilege is the idea that when people interact with you on a regular basis they assume you are either heterosexual or homosexual—heterosexual being the more privileged of the two. Passing privilege, like the trans experience of passing privilege, is a two-edged sword. Passing privilege also comes with erasure...

Bisexuality comes with the trauma of being homosexual with the bonus of being told that because you have “hetero-passing privilege” your trauma isn’t worth acknowledgment or treatment... The reality is my “passing privilege” is not my privilege—it’s my bi erasure.

————————————————————

Friendships

I cannot tell you how many friends I have lost over the years due to being openly queer...If our friendship was contingent on my staying in the closet, perhaps it’s not a friendship I should want to continue. However, that doesn’t change the fact that it hurts deeply to lose friends I’ve had for years.

————————————————————

Sexual Assault and Consent

According to the findings in Victimization by Sexual Orientation Survey, in comparison to heterosexual women, bisexual women are 2x’s as likely to experience sexual assault and 3x’s as likely to be raped. Bisexual women have a 46.1% chance of being forcibly raped. This rate is 2.6x’s higher than straight women and 3.5x’s higher than lesbian women.

————————————————————

Never Queer Enough

Bisexuals are often perceived as not being “queer enough”...Bisexuals are only “half queer”...

I’m not 50% straight and 50% gay. This assumption causes a lot of stress to bisexuals because it assumes we don’t fully belong in either category... This is why bisexuals are often perceived as never “gay enough” and never “straight enough”... In fact, it leads many bisexuals to believe we don’t belong anywhere. Our hetero-privilege keeps us feeling just enough guilt to refrain from expressing the trauma induced by homophobia, biphobia, and monosexism...

We bear the burden of homophobia, biphobia, oppositional sexism, monosexism, misogyny, and traditional sexism. On top of that, because many of us are attracted to trans, non-binary, and intersex folks, we aren’t trusted or taken seriously because our orientation doesn't exclude any gender. This is monosexism. It means that persons sexually attracted to only one gender are somehow superior to persons attracted to multiple or all genders.

————————————————————

Sexual Fluidity

I’m not certain as to where this attitude came from, but there is a notion that sexuality is fixed because you were “born that way”...

There have been times in my life I thought I was exclusively homosexual, and other times I thought I was exclusively heterosexual. During these times I wasn’t confused about what I wanted sexually. I knew quite well what I wanted. My wants simply changed. While I certainly don’t presume sexual fluidity as a universal phenomenon or a reason to impose conversion therapy onto fixed homosexuals, I do think sexually fluid bisexuality is just as legitimate of an orientation as fixed monosexuality...

I like what I like, when I like it. That doesn’t mean I always get what I want, but it also doesn’t mean I’m confused about what I want. It means my sexuality is fluid. I’m adaptable and my sexual attraction is not limited to a fixed type of genitalia. Granted, some bisexuals are more fluid than others. It is not my intention to suggest that all bisexuals are as fluid as myself. I also do not intend to convey that I think sexual fluidity is better than sexually fixed orientations.

————————————————————

Sexism

There have been many books written on sexism, misogyny, gender supremacy, and patriarchy, so I will not elaborate much here. However, it is worth noting that sexism and misogyny is a lived experience queer women face in addition to the queerphobia we are confronted with.

————————————————————

Religion and Theology

Asking me to choose between my Mormonism and sexual orientation is to strip me of essential aspects of my sense of self. It is quite literally an existential death. If I cannot be queer and Mormon here on earth, nor in the eternities, what I’m really hearing is there is no way for me to authentically exist...Furthermore, if there is such a thing as being Mormon and queer on earth it has been made clear by ecclesiastical authority that I cannot be queer and sealed to my loved ones in the highest degree of celestial glory.

It hurts. It hurts deeply...

My LDS community has taught me that the words “I love you” are often followed by a kick to the ribs. They kindly whisper “We all have trials” as the back of their hand bruises my cheek... Jesus said to turn the other cheek and I do my best to follow that teaching, but at some point a girl must move out of the line of fire. I never knew the words “I love you” could cause so much pain, trauma, and PTS... I no longer want to hear the words “I love you” from a general authority—those words are poison. They would love us to death.

The prevailing message is “You don’t exist in this world or in the next. Your best option is to die and hope to be greeted by a merciful God who will change you into something you’re not. Suicide will only be your first death, God’s transfiguration of your body and soul into a ‘perfected celestial being’ will be your second death. Then you will truly no longer exist.”

————————————————————

Community

Identity is a symbiotic formation. We are intimately bound to our perceptions of each other and we are shaping and being shaped in a reciprocal process of becoming...

In short, bisexual women do not see themselves reflected in their community. If humans are social creatures, which I believe we are, this problem is more than an existential threat of her identity. It is the existential death of her identity.

————————————————————

Hope

I have a family. The acceptance I receive from my family, particularly my husband and my sister, is life-saving... “Am I willing to live for my children?” For me, the answer is “yes.”

I have friends. While some of them don’t really understand what I’m experiencing, they are willing to listen. They aren’t perfect, but neither am I.

I have activism...My voice. My journal. My experience. My pen. The continuation of my existence is my activism. Activism need not be epic to be influential. Existing is a good start. They will never accept us if they don’t have to look at us.

I have God. Others are free to mock me for my belief in God, but God is useful and powerful for me. God, even as a fiction, can be inspiring. If you don’t love your God, consider telling yourself a new story, a better fiction... No one knows a damn thing about God, so if your God isn’t bringing you joy and happiness, give yourself permission to liken the scriptures to yourself.

I have hope...I hope for change. Even if it is a false hope, it’s a hope that keeps me living.

————————————————————

As members of the queer community, we can change the statistics. Be the author of your story. Defy the statistics by flourishing.

#tw suicide #bisexual #queer mormon #queerstake #blaire ostler

47 notes · View notes

transgenderteensurvivalguide · 6 years

Note

(1) Hi, I’m not asking this question to offend anyone, this is a genuine question I have. If I offend anyone for being insensitive I am very sorry. So I've been thinking a lot of the differences between transracial vs. transgender and the more research and opinions I find on it the more I get confused. The main argument against being transracial is that a transracial person hasn't gotten the full experience of the specific gender they are identifying due to them living as birth gender. continued

(2) Like Rachel Dolezal being told she is not allowed to identify as black because she hasn’t gotten the true experience of being a black woman in America due to her living the her life as a white woman. However, can’t the same thing be said, for example, a MTF transgender person? It is undeniable that there is a specific woman experience. And for people (especially who realize they are trans late) live their lives passing as a man and don’t get this experience. (continued)(3) Being a woman is being catcalled, is being objectified, and is being paid less than their male counterparts. A MTF trans person doesn’t experience those for most of their life until they begin to live their lives true to their real selves. Why does this ‘experience’ argument work to discount transracial but doesn’t discount transgender? Again I’m very sorry for this question, I will admit myself it is very ignorant. But I just really want an answer to this and I hope I can get that.Harper says:Hi there, I’m going to assume you are asking this in good faith but to be quite honest the phrasing of some of your questions seriously makes me doubt that. Before I start, I want to clarify as Kii does in this ask that transracial is a term that actually describes someone who has been adopted by someone to a family of a different race, rather than the racist stuff Dolezal is doing.First off I’m going to address some assumptions about being a woman that you make in your question: “there is a specific woman experience” and that that experience “is being catcalled, is being objectified, and is being paid less than their male counterparts.” It’s curious to me that you claim there is an “undeniable… specific woman experience” and then only cite moments that we can see other people who are not women experience. For example, homophobic catcalling, i.e. verbal sexual harassment can and does happen to effeminate gay men on the streets; black men are a site of sexual objectification in much of media, consider pornography for example; gay men, men of colour are also paid less than their male counterparts and have been for some time historically. If you base your understanding of what makes a woman entirely on something like misogyny, you have to be open to the fact that other oppressive forces will coalesce in the same way to recreate similar experiences in similar liberation groups. You should also acknowledge that gendered discrimination doesn’t operate on a basis purely targeting women. I think you should broaden your understanding on how such forces work. I recommend reading Julia Serano’s Whipping Girl:

While often different in practice, cissexism, transphobia, and homophobia are all rooted in oppositional sexism, which is the belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories, each possessing a unique and non overlapping set of attributes, aptitudes, abilities, and desires. Oppositional sexists attempt to punish or dismiss those of us who fall outside of gender or sexual norms because our existence threatens the idea that women and men are “opposite” sexes. This explains why bisexuals, lesbians, gays, transsexuals, and other transgender people — who may experience their genders and sexualities in very different ways — are so often confused or lumped into the same category (i.e., queer) by society at large. Our natural inclinations to be attracted to the same sex, to identify as the other sex, and/or to express ourselves in ways typically associated with the other sex blur the boundaries required to maintain the male-centered gender hierarchy that exists in our culture today.In addition to the rigid, mutually exclusive gender categories established by oppositional sexism, the other requirement for maintaining a male-centered gender hierarchy is to enforce traditional sexism — the belief that maleness and masculinity are superior to femaleness and femininity. Traditional and oppositional sexism work hand in hand to ensure that those who are masculine have power over those who are feminine, and that only those born male will be seen as authentically masculine. For the purposes of this manifesto, the word misogyny will be used to describe this tendency to dismiss and deride femaleness and femininity.

I’d also like to turn your attention to Jacob Hale’s essay Are Lesbians Women? in which he lays out a list of factors of what makes a woman. He does so in such a way where each individual item on the list is not necessary nor sufficient in order to be a woman. For example, although he lists ‘presence of breasts’ as one such condition that is often correlated with being a woman, there are plenty of women without breasts in the world: trans women without breasts, cis women who have had double mastectomies, and so on. Hale also notes that his list is not entirely exhaustive: there’s always the possibility that this list will be added to in future. I’d highly recommend you look at it if you’re after your “undeniable” “woman’s experience”.Next I’m going to look at your claim that “an MTF trans person doesn’t experience those for most of their life.” This entirely constructs a similar narrative for trans women and entirely disregards the possibility that such a person was raised by understanding and supportive parents from a young age and grew up as a girl from an early age. Whatever your argument about ‘transracial’, it’s clear that you already have a reductive understanding of womanhood and a transgender experience. Such forces and experiences that play into gender interact in ways far more complex than what you’ve detailed above. I also want to point out here that you’ve failed to describe how the arguments above apply to trans men: that is to say a trans man who transitions in his late twenties in the western world will probably experience all of what you label as the “woman experience”, and yet they are men. The argument you present is typical of the considerations ‘transracial’ arguments operate with. They are often circulated by people with a vested transmisogynistic interest as a “gotcha!” designed to portray trans women as either dangerous or ridiculous. As a result they are designed to eliminate any shred of transgender voices. What is implicit in the argument you’ve laid out is that 1. trans women aren’t women and 2. trans men are. The argument fails completely to consider how a trans person articulates their own understandings which often run contrary to the line of argument. I urge you to consider how this argument is made and what purposes it serves. Is it an honest exploration of the workings of gender and race or is there a bias or a motive driving the ‘logic’ of the argument.On to the ‘transracial’ aspect of your argument. I hope so far I have managed to draw your attention to the implicit biases given in the argument, as well as the levels of complexities you have yet to acknowledge. Much of the same can be said about how you present race in the argument.First of all, I’d like to draw your attention that considerations of being perceived as a different race is a reality faced by many white-passing people of colour and many mixed-race people who live through this daily. It is a consideration that has been often articulated and is still often articulated. If the argument was an earnest exploration of the shifting and transitory nature of the perception of people of colour in a racist society, would it not rather look at this aspect? If the argument was an honest exploration of the similarities and differences a construction of both racialised and gendered experiences, would it not center trans women of colour’s voices as they are best situated at this intersection of race and gender to experience this? Is it not suspicious that such an argument doesn’t do this? In fact, go read Franchesca Ramsey’s article on this for a black trans woman talking about it, and Riley’s arcticle, a black non-binary person who highlights:

Rachel Dolezal flat out lied about her life and her experiences, and not to protect herself, but to protect the benefits she received and the space she acquired through those lies. She lied to protect her privilege, a trait of white people and all privileged groups. Her life could have been the same had she merely remained the white woman she was. White people already devour space in Black communities as a bonus of their whiteness, but she chose to take her farce further, becoming a “Black” woman who happened to be indistinguishable from the party in power.There is no benefit to being transgender, and there is no harm, but there is every benefit and harm to a white person picking a less privileged race to join because white features are privileged in every race and identification has no effect on that.

(my emphasis added.)In addition to the points raised by Riley and Ramsey, I’d point out that the move to make a blind comparison between race and gender on the basis of “they are both experienced by people” or “they are both social constructs” “so why can’t x” is just so materially and historically off. There is no consideration in your given argument over the differences between race and gender. There is no consideration that racism was founded by a white ruling colonial class to dominate a colonised and enslaved population. Such a population had within it differently gendered and transgendered people. There is no consideration that this domination was a product of hundreds of years of a capitalism that needed a large white working class to carry out a sustained colonial project: a colonial project that is still in action across the world today. There is no consideration of the formation of gender and the nuclear family as a product of the division of labour enforced by capitalism and the ruling classes on the working classes.In effect, gender and race are two different things. They of course intersect, but the ways in which they operate are distinct and different. Reducing both down to a level that strips them of their actual effects and lived realities in order to further either a justification for a racist white woman exploiting black people or to further a ridicule and strawmanning of the transgender community is a shameful act of bigotry posing under a guise of logic and inquiry.

Check out our /tagged/transracial for more commentary.

#Anonymous #harper says #transracial #racism #transmisogyny #transphobia #hale #serano #caps #im not going to tag this mtf because it'll just be noise in that tag #misogyny #mtf /

89 notes · View notes

weightlossfitness2 · 5 years

Text

You Need More Than a Training Template

Buy my template, and also you’ll not solely get stronger, nevertheless it’s all you’ll ever want. Have you ever heard a preferred coach or coach say this?

Templates are on the market, often as an e book or a PDF downloadable file with illustrated directions. The pitch contains that it’s straightforward to grasp, to do, and promotes consistency. It’s usually a twelve, sixteen, or twenty-four-week program that you would be able to repeatedly do with out a lot change.

And that’s the large promoting level—that it is easy, subsequently you are able to do it time and again. The coach will make supporting arguments akin to in the event you give attention to the fundamentals, that they think about obligatory in a coaching program, anybody can maintain progressing indefinitely. You solely have to have sufficient self-discipline and pious obedience to the doctrine.

Why Training Programs?

There’s nothing fallacious with a coaching template. Some are very properly designed and useful to a overwhelming majority. This is as a result of individuals match into certainly one of only a handful of physiological classes from a coaching standpoint, and the necessity for particular person variation is far lower than most suppose.

But when the creators of those packages insist that their twelve-week program is all anybody ever wants to extend power, and a few of them do declare this, issues get bizarre. Claiming that is deceptive, and it may possibly stunt the expansion and long-term growth of younger, simply influenced lifters. It additionally hinders their psychological perception into the coaching course of.

There’s the unstated drawback with coaching packages being written by coaches who solely have expertise lifting on medication and training athletes who’ve persistently used them. I’m no idealist considering that a coach like this doesn’t have good concepts to convey to drug-free lifters. You can acquire perception from watching and dealing with the fringes of any sport or follow.

But a coaching program must be thought of from the attitude of the coach. If the coach isn’t upfront and claims, a exercise plan will be repeated for the pure lifter with little change or variation over time, significantly with coaching volumes, it creates confusion.

To perceive why a template can’t be repeated endlessly, we have to find out about modifications that include a growing lifter with advancing chronological and cumulative coaching ages. We’ll begin with sequential.

Changes As We Age

Physiology modifications with bodily age. This signifies that the kind of coaching you do must be modified annually. There’s one other candle in your birthday cake. How a lot of every element of coaching and the way a lot work you are able to do will have to be adjusted? But the diploma of change depends upon if you began coaching and the way constant it has been. A forty-year-old lifter who’s been at it since adolescence will want the next degree of labor to maintain power than somebody the identical age who began of their mid-thirties.

The effectiveness by which we buffer stress as we age modifications whatever the workload to which we’ve tailored. You can see this with how usually a youthful particular person can carry weights near their max in comparison with somebody older.

Someone of their early twenties can’t solely max out and do extra quantity above 90% of their one-rep max than somebody of their forties, however they’ll additionally recuperate higher and profit from it extra. The functionality to do that diminishes with age. The coaching you do shouldn’t solely mirror how outdated you might be if you begin coaching and the volumes you’ve constructed as much as, but in addition how outdated you at the moment are.

Changes In Content the Longer You Train

Training packages can have an inexpensive diploma of inventive enter from the person writing it. Still, there are unnegotiable requirements that each coaching system and the plan has to fulfill to be efficient.

Variation is certainly one of these foundational elements. Some put far an excessive amount of emphasis on change and consider it inaccurately. But the distinction in quantity over months, coaching cycles, and years of coaching are essential. Varying workouts and modes of coaching for inexperienced athletes too ceaselessly will be considerably detrimental to progress. But coaching volumes and even workouts do have to ultimately be switched, modified, and rotated via to make sure growth because the athlete matures.

Total coaching volumes additionally usually want to extend over time. The longer you’ve been coaching, the extra work you should get stronger and construct extra muscle. As coaching age (how lengthy you’ve been persistently coaching) will increase, so should the entire quantity of labor you do. Total volumes require us to have a look at coaching from a macro view, which accumulates the general volumes that want to extend with every block of coaching.

Increase Over Similar Phases

When phases of coaching, we have to think about them over a number of months. You can consider a part of coaching because the time devoted to emphasizing the event of bodily high quality. Adequately designed coaching will embody intervals of hypertrophy cycles with excessive quantity supposed to construct muscle, and work capability adopted by power cycles with decrease volumes. However, heavier weights adopted by a peaking cycle consist of even decrease volumes however plenty of follow lifting close to maximal hundreds. Volumes and depth have to fluctuate throughout every of those cycles. But, the extra skilled the lifter turns into, the extra the typical quantity she or he might want to add to those hypertrophy and power cycles to retain power and push farther.

Typically yearly, the lifter must do extra quantity in every of the phases of coaching to maintain seeing enchancment. This signifies that in the event you have been to maintain detailed information of your follow, the hypertrophy and power cycles you deliberate for this yr would have extra complete quantity in most important lifts than the respective coaching cycles from two years in the past.

Even as your maxes enhance and with it the day by day weight you utilize in coaching, the entire quantity of labor might want to enhance over time as a result of you’ll turn into more adept and higher at absorbing the stress from this work. Training plans should account for this, and any template that doesn’t clearly outline how quantity ought to enhance is incomplete and ultimately ineffective. Don’t use it as a long-term coaching information.

Change in Qualification of the Lifter

Although the entire minimal quantity that a lifter might want to use in coaching will regularly enhance over time, the qualifications of the weightlifter affect the diploma of change. These qualifications are based mostly on physique weight, gender, and skill. While, in idea, every lifter will be capable of and require larger common volumes as years of constant, arduous coaching, the diploma to which this will increase can differ from teams in every qualification degree.

The common quantity a lifter will want, in idea, has to extend through the years of coaching. But as a lifter advances to the next qualification, volumes might lower in sure phases of coaching as in comparison with somebody with related expertise however who’s smaller and weaker.

The clearest instance can be of a younger male powerlifter who frequently good points physique weight over years of competitors. Let’s say this younger man began competing in powerlifting in his early twenties and weighed below 200 kilos. He started as a powerful child who shortly squatted over 4 hundred kilos. As he superior in age and expertise, he started gaining physique weight and transferring up a number of weight lessons. His power and skill skyrocketed, and through this intermediate interval, as he improved, he began to calculate the rise in his volumes whilst he dealt with heavier weights.

Fast ahead ten years, and he turned an elite degree powerlifter. He now weighed properly over 300 kilos and will squat over 900 kilos. He started to regularly cut back the volumes he utilized in sure coaching phases just because he was unable to recuperate. Yes, he had constructed a really excessive particular work capability, however the weights he now had to make use of in day by day coaching have been simply too excessive to finish the identical measure of quantity.

Eighty-five % of 400 kilos doesn’t break the physique down the identical as 85% of 900 kilos, regardless of the way you slice it. Eventually, absolutely the weight that you’re coping with turns into probably the most vital figuring out issue. This is particularly true in a peaking part for competitors when you’re coaching with 90% or extra of a really excessive 1RM. At this degree, with these sorts of weights, volumes will have to be decreased so that you could recuperate and profit from working towards close to maximal hundreds. The coaching plan must take this into consideration.

I’m utilizing an excessive instance, nevertheless it doesn’t discredit the purpose. With consistency in coaching, lifters can attain a degree the place they should alter and even cut back the quantity in related coaching phases merely as a result of they’ll’t recuperate and develop stronger from the stress of such heavyweights. Training plans have to remain dynamic and account for these modifications.

Why Are Templates Like These So Popular?

Most customers make purchases based mostly on emotion, impulse, or a connection they really feel they’ve with the corporate or the person who created the product. It’s additionally prevalent for these within the health group to get very hooked up and dependable to a selected coach, coach, or coaching technique.

Many individuals follow a private coach, even with doubts about their schooling and skill, as a result of they really feel like they’ve a connection. Similarly, individuals follow strategies and programs of coaching as a result of it was the very first thing that labored for them. These programs and packages are well-liked, and luck performs a giant half in who’s packages and providers we see first.

Consumers kind connections with the coaches who create these packages by listening to them communicate and following them on social media. They really feel like they know them, nevertheless foolish which may be, and as a power and health character turns into extra prevalent, the extra their merchandise promote.

With this reputation, they join and appeal to different circles of high-influence coaches and kind a group. This group then insulates and helps one another. And actually, why wouldn’t they? Being related on this method is useful each financially and socially.

But the shadowy half about this group is when one of many energy members start promoting a template with the kind of false claims I’ve described. Maybe it’s hubris, or maybe they haven’t the knowledge and schooling but to know they’re doing a disservice. If they stand behind their creation, their associates will go on the offensive to anybody difficult the long-term efficacy of the product.

This will usually digress right into a battle of standing relatively than an goal discourse of the fabric in query. The group of authorities will say one thing like: Who are these upstarts within the crowd that will dare problem us? Who do they suppose they’re?

And so the issue by no means will get resolved, and customers can’t sift via what’s useful for his or her long-term success and what’s not.

Fitness professionals may even argue that the templates they design are for the typical one that doesn’t compete and doesn’t have to give attention to setting new maxes in barbell lifts.

What does it imply to be a mean particular person? The demographic must be higher outlined if the coach is promoting a product for common use.

If this system contains barbell lifts and an individual devoted themselves to this power coaching program, the applying ought to enhance power. And to trace this, the lifter will ultimately need to set a max. To do that, as soon as once more, you want coaching volumes to alter as you method the part the place you purpose to do that. Maybe not at first, however ultimately, as the person will get extra skilled. And that is true for any common particular person.

For Beginners Only

I’ve additionally heard coaches say their coaching packages are for newcomers solely. They insist their template can stay unchanged and by no means up to date as a result of it’s a useful resource for the regular inflow of newcomers to power coaching. That’s effective if that was their sincere intention. But I’ve listened rigorously to their message and their pitch, and it appears they by no means inform their viewers how they might want to alter their quantity and depth as they turn into extra skilled or that that is even obligatory.

If they have been upfront, they’d clarify to their prospects that they’re packages are nice for newcomers however lack the development to develop lifters handed the newbie’s stage. Keeping quiet about that is simply as dishonest and complicated as promoting this system as one thing to repeat without end.

Take a have a look at the coaching template you’re about to start out. See if it would assist you to proper now and if it would use it. But do not forget that proper now isn’t without end.

Jesse competes within the sport of Olympic weightlifting, and he was additionally previously a aggressive powerlifter. He was featured in most important power and health publications. You can learn extra of his work on his web site.

The post You Need More Than a Training Template appeared first on Weight Loss Fitness.

from Weight Loss Fitness https://weightlossfitnesss.info/you-need-more-than-a-training-template-2/

0 notes

motherhenna · 7 years

Text

The Power of the ‘Boy with the Bread’: Gender Roles and Defiance in the Hunger Games

Most, if not all, fans of the Hunger Games trilogy can unanimously agree that Peeta Mellark is a polarizing character in any discourse: some adore him with the same intensity that he adores our narrator, while others wish that he had stayed dead after his run-in with the arena forcefield in Catching Fire. Regardless of one’s personal affection for him, however, Peeta Mellark is still incredibly crucial to the series as a whole: he stands as a foil to the toxic brand of masculinity that tends to plague the heroes of young adult media, and his partnership with Katniss challenges many of the traditional gender roles that are so often thought to be absolute and unconditional. Moreover, he is instrumental to both Katniss’ physical survival and emotional growth, as well as to the flow and coherence of the entire narrative in and of itself. Though many readers accuse him of emotional or physical weakness in comparison to both Katniss and Gale, the truth of the matter is so much more complicated than that.

From the first moment of his introduction, Peeta Mellark is defined by his kindness, a trait that seems to be difficult to find in the dog-eat-dog world of Panem. When his name is drawn for the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss’ first response is distress, as she is intimately aware that he is the one person to whom she owes everything. “Oh no [...]. Not him,” she thinks during the Reaping. “To this day, I can never shake the connection between this boy [...] and the bread that gave me hope, and the dandelion that reminded me that I was not doomed” (Hunger Games, 25-32). From this point on, it is constantly emphasized how unusual and out of place much of Peeta’s behavior is, especially when compared to the more self-sufficient survivors of District 12 and the gluttonous, apathetic denizens of the Capitol. Indeed, this sort of compassion is so out of place that our narrator spends almost the entirety of the first book trying to analyze and decode his actions, as she is unable to believe that such behavior could possibly be genuine, even though “when young Peeta first gave the scavenging Katniss a loaf of burned bread, he was assuming a great personal risk. Katniss was bewildered. ‘He didn’t even know me,’ she reflects” (Foy, 214). As Katniss is defined by her acute ability to endure and carry on, Peeta is similarly identified by his willingness to sacrifice—not simply for the sake of family and friends, but rather for the greater good. Since this concept is much discussed throughout the series, Abigail Mann reflects upon it in her essay, Competition and Kindness: on the odd phenomena of altruism and how this developed among the human species as a whole. “The fact that some people do give to beggars [...] demonstrates that we don’t always take the easy way out; rather, we choose actions that we think will best benefit others who are in need,” she explains. “Peeta burned the bread and endured a beating because [Katniss] and her family were badly in need of that sustenance at the time, and he cared enough to help” (Mann, 117).

Peeta’s personality also exists in sharp contrast to his harsh and often-violent mother, who regularly berates him, belittles him and even goes so far as to physically abuse him on several occasions. The only positive role model depicted in his life seems to be his father, who extends acts of generosity to Katniss that are quite similar to that of his son’s. For example, Mr. Mellark buys Katniss’ game for unnecessarily high prices, gives her cookies after the Reaping, and even promises to watch out for her beloved sister during her absence. –But the interesting thing about the Mellarks is how they deviate from traditional familial norms. In most iterations of media, the authoritative and controlling head of the household is almost always the man, while the woman is generally the sympathetic yet passive nurturer. In spite of this, said gender dynamics are completely flipped within the Mellark family: rather, the domineering mother is clearly in charge, while Mr. Mellark is described as being meek and soft-spoken: “We always wait to trade with him when his witch of a wife isn’t around because he’s so much nicer. I feel certain he would never have hit [Peeta] the way she did over the burned bread” (Hunger Games, 37). And like the Mellarks, we see similar non-normative gender roles reflected in their son and his eventual relationship with Katniss:

“It may take readers the entire first book, or even the entire series, to realize that from his earliest descriptions, Peeta is an equally complicated match for Katniss. Just as Katniss’ masculinity is expressed in her status as hunter, so Peeta’s femininity is expressed in his role as baker. Even Peeta’s shrew of a mother undercuts his masculinity by suggesting that Katniss might actually win this year, a sharp testament to his perceived feminized weakness.” (Mitchell, 132-33)

Though Peeta’s talents and occupations are never actively gendered either way by Katniss’ narration, baking, cake decorating and painting are all coded as ‘feminine’ skills by modern Western society, and are therefore widely considered to be inferior. This is probably why Katniss is lauded for her ‘masculine’ ability to hunt, kill and suppress ‘negative’ emotions like sadness and fear, while Peeta is mocked for his own penchant for nonviolence and creativity. “Of the major characters in the Hunger Games trilogy, Peeta is the closest to being an androgynous blend of the most desirable masculine and feminine traits,” Jessica Miller explains in her essay, Katniss and the Politics of Gender. “He’s confidant and self-reliant [...but] he’s also trusting and open. He’s physically strong, but avoids violence and aggression except in self-defence. Emotional and expressive, Peeta [...] cried openly when he took leave of his family for the Hunger Games” (154). So even with his muscular build, physical strength and experience with hand-to-hand combat, Peeta is still not considered ‘manly’ enough for many readers, as they have come to expect only the aggressive, authoritarian male lead and tend to reject any character who differs from this archetype. However, in the end, there is no ‘superior’ skill set: Collins portrays both Katniss and Peeta’s abilities as different but of equal merit and importance. After all, “individuals ‘vary’ [...]. From the perspective of Darwin’s theory, it’s just as natural for Katniss to fail in one environment (as she surely would during the Victory Tour without Peeta, Haymitch Abernathy, and Cinna’s help) as it is for her to succeed in another” (Mann, 106-107). Anyway, it’s unlikely that readers see Peeta as a damsel in distress solely because he ‘constantly’ needs to be rescued by Katniss, as canonically, they support each other both physically and emotionally in relatively equal amounts throughout the series. No, in reality, Peeta is probably designated as weak not because he is unable to protect himself, but because he needs to be saved by a woman at all.

Now, while this titular couple is well known from their differing-yet-complimentary personalities, we actually see that Katniss progressively comes to understand and even adopt many of Peeta’s beliefs over time. From the death of her District 11 ally in the first Games to her ethical conflicts with Gale throughout Mockingjay, Katniss is actually influenced by Peeta far more than many readers care to admit. Truth be told, Peeta “risks a beating because it’s the right thing to do. Strange as that motive must have seemed at the time to young Katniss, she will become more and more like Peeta over the course of their relationship, displaying a growing concern for others and a willingness to sacrifice herself in order to do what’s right” (Foy, 215). In fact, Peeta Mellark’s sense of morality is perhaps one of (if not the most) important aspects of his character, as it directly influences his actions, relationships and inclination towards kindness and altruism, as well as contributes to the grander themes of the trilogy at large. A prominent scene that displays said ethics takes place on the night before the Hunger Games. Katniss finds herself so worried about survival strategies and fear for her own wellbeing that she is unable to sleep, and while wandering the District 12 quarters of the Tribute Center, she discovers that Peeta is still awake too. When she asks him what he’s thinking about, he clarifies:

“I want to die as myself. Does that make any sense?” he asks. I shake my head. [...] “I don’t want them to change me in there. Turn me into some kind of monster that I’m not.”

I bite my lip, feeling inferior. [...] “Do you mean you won’t kill anyone?”

“No, when the time comes, I’m sure I’ll kill just like everybody else. I can’t go down without a fight. ...Only I keep wishing I could think of a way...to show the Capitol they don’t own me. That I am more than a piece in their Games.” (Hunger Games, 142-143)

Upon hearing this, Katniss is at first flummoxed, then irritated, and misunderstands his explanation as pretention and superiority rather than a sincere personal dilemma. She is at first unable to grasp that “when [Peeta] insists that he won’t let the Games change him, part of what he means is that he’s unwilling to [...] sacrifice his human decency, even at the cost of his life” (Foy, 214). Katniss goes on to put this encounter out of her mind, and the meaning of his moral impasse remains beyond her comprehension for a considerable duration of the 74th Games. But when her young ally, Rue, is brutally murdered by the male career from District 1, Katniss’ whole perspective turns on its head. Upon killing the boy and comforting Rue during her final moments, Peeta’s words are the first to enter Katniss mind, and it is at this point that she makes the decision to do something that will somehow force the Capitol to be held accountable for their cruelty. This is what leads to her memorial to Rue: the first act of subtle insubordination and solidarity to the rest of the districts that proves to be the spark of what will soon become the final rebellion.

With that in mind, although it was Rue’s death that triggered the defiance that eventually turns Katniss into the figurehead of the uprising, it was actually Peeta who first planted that seed of defiance in her head. After this, both Katniss and Peeta together are “determined to hold onto their humanity by preserving their ethical autonomy, which includes the sense of moral obligation that Katniss has come to feel, in large part because of Peeta’s example. And because they do, they live to see another dawn” (Foy, 216). With the progression of each book, Katniss’ understanding of the broader concepts of ethics and selflessness increases exponentially, and by Mockingjay, her entire worldview has altered significantly to the point where it has become almost indistinguishable from Peeta’s. For instance, in the later days of the rebellion, Katniss is appalled at Gale’s strategy for defeating the Nut: he suggests that they bomb the mountains around the Capitol stronghold to trap and eventually suffocate both enemy and civilian within. When she protests, Gale “makes a classic ends-justify-the-means argument, insisting that war always involves collateral damage, the sacrifice of innocents, and inflicting tremendous suffering upon others” (Henthorne, 87-88). If this controversy had taken place at the beginning of the series, Katniss might have very well condoned Gale’s merciless viewpoint, albeit reluctantly; however, after both witnessing firsthand the damage this line of thinking can do and coming around to Peeta’s perspective, she is now utterly unable to justify the murder of innocents simply for the ambiguous goal of ‘victory’. In effect, Katniss eventually divorces from Gale entirely, as she has realized that “choosing Gale would mean a betrayal of one of her highest values: the preservation of innocent life” (Myers, 143). Like Peeta had the day before their first Games, Katniss has come to value mercy over justice.

Be that as it may, if our meadowlark and mockingjay are both as similar as they are different, where does that leave the third member of this infamous love triangle? By the closing of the final novel, Gale Hawthorne becomes the true antithesis to everything that Peeta represents. After all, in almost every sense, Gale is what would be considered a traditional and ‘desirable’ male lead, defined by his ability to hunt and existing as the sole provider for his family. Furthermore, he feels intense romantic feelings for Katniss that he expresses passionately, physically and often without her prior consent. However, these sorts of Byronic heroes and their displays of what might be considered ‘sexual assault’ in the real world are usually seen as alluring when exhibited in fiction. Many individuals, especially impressionable teenage girls, find themselves unable resist the “slightly mysterious and protective” type: so even though he might be “prone to displays of temper and violence [...], Gale fits the stereotype of rugged masculinity” to a tee (Miller, 153). Consequently, when confronted with the ‘Gale versus Peeta’ quandary, plenty of readers default to the taller, darker and handsomer individual without hesitation. However, if one looks closer, one might notice that Gale is actually a vessel for many a toxic aspect of hyper-masculinity, aspects that are entirely absent from Peeta’s character. For example, Gale is the embodiment of the male concept of ‘friend-zoning’. To clarify, this is a relatively recent slang term formed to describe a common situation in which a person is rejected by their romantic interest (typically a woman) that wants to keep their relationship platonic. Instead of mourning rejection but respecting her decision, ‘friend-zoned’ men typically lash out at their former flames and refuse to remain on good terms—friendship, to them, is insignificant if amorous love is not the end result. Throughout Catching Fire and Mockingjay, we see Gale engage in strikingly similar behavior to what was described above. On multiple occasions, he pressures Katniss to admit her feelings for him, even after she expresses discomfort at the prospect of romance, and he coerces and guilt-trips her into kisses or other displays of affection on numerous occasions. Though it is clear from day one that he does indeed care deeply for Katniss, Gale is still unable to accept her platonic friendship at face value, thus putting his own desires above Katniss’ emotional wellbeing.

In contrast, while understandably stung by Katniss’ romantic indecision after the first Games, Peeta is quickly able to swallow his disappointment and extend the olive branch in Catching Fire. While he admits that he “was jealous of [Gale],” he goes on to say, “I thought if I stopped being so, you know, wounded, we could take a shot at just being friends” (51). Despite the reality of his obvious attraction to Katniss, Peeta is more than willing to simply be with her in any way, romantic or not. This is an incredibly uncommon occurrence with any narrative that features a love triangle, as both parties are generally expected to be possessive of their ladylove. It is because of this that these boys are often keen to ‘duke it out’ with their rivals, so to speak, regardless of the apex of said triangle’s possible qualms; friendship just isn’t part of the equation. And yet with Peeta, Collins gives us a new possibility: that a man respecting his significant other’s choices and happiness isn’t just feasible, but healthier than the more conventional alternative. With that being said, the differences between Gale and Peeta go much deeper than just straightforward appearance and personality. In fact, these two young men stand on complete antithetical sides of morality. On one hand, Gale Hawthorne champions the tactic of fighting fire with fire. To him, morality is irrelevant in war, and he is more than willing to sacrifice others in order to achieve what he believes is just. And yet, in the end, it is Gale who falls short; more than that, he is ultimately reproached and sent away by Katniss: essentially exiled by Collins for the remaining few chapters. ...But why is this so important in terms of toxic masculinity and divergence from the gender norms that so constrain modern fiction? And what does Peeta have that Gale doesn’t? –In the end, ‘EverLark’ is the only resolution that makes sense: “Gale is correct when he says that Katniss would choose the one who would best help her to survive—but it’s not just physically. Peeta helps her to survive as herself, with her values intact” (Myers, 143). Though Katniss could have very well chosen Gale, not only would it have gone against everything she believes in, but most if not all of the uniqueness of the series’ romance would be nullified. So despite the fact that many fans of the books are confused and even angry about the final pairing, it remains evident that “Katniss and Peeta—the hunter and the baker—offer something that Gale and Katniss never could have: a partnership that helps us imagine an alternative to dominant romance narratives and a way of valuing both masculine and feminine roles, regardless of who fills them” (Miller, 159).

In conclusion, Peeta Mellark is not just an accessory to Katniss, nor is he in any way detrimental or irrelevant to the narrative at large. Though he is involved in what could be viewed as a ‘gimmicky’ love triangle, what matters is that he provides us with refreshing divergence from the aggressive, often-damaging masculinity and misogyny that so many leading men in popular fiction are reduced to. Peeta is a multifaceted and three-dimensional character, but most importantly, he is unique—both within and without the narrative. He is kind instead of harsh, gentle instead of violent, calm instead of domineering: he is the peaceful sunset to Katniss’ raging fire, and the Hunger Games trilogy would not be the same without him.

Works Cited

Collins, Suzanne. Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay. New York Scholastic, 2008—

2010. Print.

Foy, Joseph J. “Safe to Do What?” The Hunger Games and Philosophy. Eds. George A. Dunn

and Nicolas Michaud. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012. 193-203. Print.

Henthorne, Tom. Approaching the Hunger Games Trilogy : A Literary and Cultural Analysis.

Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2012. Web. Jan. 2016.

Mann, Abigail. “Competition and Kindness.” The Hunger Games and Philosophy. Eds. George

A. Dunn and Nicolas Michaud. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012. 193-203. Print.

Miller, Jessica. “Katniss and the Politics of Gender”. The Hunger Games and Philosophy. Eds.

George A. Dunn and Nicolas Michaud. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012. 193-203. Print.

Mitchell, Jennifer. “Of Queer Necessity”. Of Bread, Blood and the Hunger Games : Critical Essays

on the Suzanne Collins Trilogy. Eds. Mary F. Pharr, Leisa A. Clark, and Donald

Palumbo. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2012. 118-128. Print.

Myers, Abigail E. “Why Katniss Chooses Peeta.” The Hunger Games and Philosophy. Eds.

George A. Dunn and Nicolas Michaud. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012. 193-203. Print.

#mine #one person said 'I'd read it' and that was enough LOL #bear in mind that this essay is over a year old #and I had to cut stuff out to keep it under 10 pages #but I think it holds up #especially as a response to Peeta-Haters #hunger games #hunger games analysis #hg analysis #catching fire #mockingjay #Peeta Mellark #Katniss Everdeen

116 notes · View notes

sdmilnesjournalba2a2 · 6 years

Text

Ideas on ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ so far:

Two things so far have jumped out at me as something that I could write about as inspired by ‘Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’.

The first of these is more concise and whole as of the moment and was based on a discussion in class surrounding the duality in the text. Lynsey asked the class what they would do if they had an extra personality to do things they wouldn’t normally and some gave answers such as take revenge etc. (in a light-hearted, hypothetical, and I assume non-lethal way) while others said they would use their alternate personality to do good. This led be to consider that if this is the case (and assuming within the rules of the text one is better than the other) that you yourself would be the bad version, or the ‘Mr Hyde’. There’s an interesting question there to do with inactivity and why, if your alternate personality would bring good to the world, then why don’t you? This could also tie in with racial politics and social issues linked to why large amounts of people who would do the right thing but didn’t (such as in standing up to discrimination, particularly state led) don’t, especially when coming from positions of privilege themselves.

The second comes from when we looked at depiction of Hyde in other media and adaptations and compared them to what it said of Hyde in the book. Lynsey pointed out to us that the main difference is that in the book, Hyde is described as being smaller than usual in stature, as well as not deformed in any physical way, but giving of a sense of deformity, and apart from that is not described in physical form. We discussed how this is in part potentially to allow readers to project themselves onto what Hyde looks like, or the diminuitiveness of Hyde linked to homosexual undertones to the text. What struck me however was that all the adaptations got it “wrong” bu in the same way:

1935 Comedy version with Abbott and Costello

1990 TV Movie, starring Michael Caine

From 2017 ‘Dark Universe’ film ‘The Mummy’ starring Russel Crowe

1931 film version

Version of ‘Mr Hyde’ in Marvel Comics

Version in 2003 film ‘The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen’ based on a comic book series of the same name.

All of the examples here (both adaptations and reinterpretations) not only make him more physically deformed/supernatural than described but also either make him bigger and bulkier, and/or hairier. Some very visibly so, and in the case of Russel Crowe, when he faces off against Tom Cruise hits with a harder and heavier style, with loud crunching effects accompanying his punches, he is personified as bigger and stronger. What’s so interesting about this is that because it’s not in the original text all of this is added in by the artistic choices in each version; at some point someone has looked at this hyper-violent character and given them all these characteristics (hairy, superior size, superior strength) that are associated with (white) masculinity. Although this isn’t necessarily surprising, it’s remarkably consistent, and I think provides an interesting comparison to society and the gendered world we live in, and could give way to many prompts focused on this, not least of these I could see something relating to American gun violence working well. Especially when looking at the perceived duality of the shooters (again prevalently white and masculine) and how could such a “normally so quiet and innocent” child do things like this, and it being completely “out of character”.

#narrative

0 notes

cherryvanillamilkshakes-blog · 7 years

Text

The ‘F’ Word

Cue the sighs. Why is it that ‘feminism’ has to be a term that is associated with such negativity? I can guarantee that even the mention of it has put a few of you off even bothering to continue to read this. But why?

I have identified myself as a feminist ever since I knew what the term actually meant - when I was younger I was told that it was used to describe women who don’t shave their armpits. Now that I’m older and have taken a long look at the world around me, I understand that it’s not that at all, and it’s in fact an entirely necessary ideology to live by.

The fight for women’s rights has been an ongoing battle for years and years, but putting previous feminist movements aside and looking at present day ‘third wave' feminism, which particularly focuses on the overall financial, social and cultural inequalities for women, it completely baffles me that it’s something that we still have to fight for.

Seeing posts about International Women’s Day, it got me thinking: what exactly do we have to celebrate? We can’t ignore the fact that there is a continuous attitude of inferiority towards females in comparison to males, and it seems apparent that this patriarchal structure is not going anywhere. Not only that, but shouldn’t every day be about celebrating women?! Although the thought is universally appreciated, we shouldn’t need a particular day to feel validated. There’s no International Men’s Day, presumably because every day is considered a day to celebrate men? Shouldn’t it be the same for females?

In saying this, I would like to stress that I personally do NOT consider females who hate males to be feminists, I am all for the rights of both men and women equally, and I don’t believe that this should be achieved through hating men. However, it’s the fight for women’s rights that need to be addressed more urgently than men’s, which I’m sure we can all agree on.

Every time I look at the exact definition of feminism, I often wonder why it’s such a difficult concept to grasp and achieve: “The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.” Equal rights for both sexes. Not men being more superior to women; not women being more superior to men. Fairness. Equality. That’s it.

My previous part-time job was at a trampoline park. There was a dodgeball court there where we ran games continuously. I cannot count the amount of times I heard comments from young children (particularly boys) saying things such as: “You got beaten by a girl!” accompanied with a roar of laughter. A lot of the time I had to stop myself from asking them what they meant by that. I do realise that it’s not necessarily them being mysoginistic, and it easily could have just been childish banter, but if women’s rights have really come such a long way, then why are young children viewing the idea of girls being fast or strong or simply ‘better’ at something than boys so wrong? I recall another time at work where a young boy was crying, and his father turned around to him and said: “stop crying like a little girl!” Not only does this teach his son that girls should be perceived as weak, but it illustrates the idea that boys should be masculine, and that they aren’t allowed to cry - which they ARE. Once again, this could simply have just been a comment to make his crying child be quiet, but this is just one case in a sea of examples.

Awhile ago, I read something that discussed how women are expected to cook, there are the multiple kitchen jokes which I’m sure we are all familiar with. Yet if you are at a restaurant eating delicious food, it’s a male chef who we presume has cooked it. Isn’t it funny how the stereotype and expectation is commonly addressed with females, right up until she is about to get credit for it?

In my sociology lecture not long ago, my lecturer informed us of a very recent gender inequality example. An employee from a small company in Philadelphia couldn’t work out why the replies to his emails were so out of the ordinary and rude. He then figured out that his colleague’s signature (who is female) had accidentally been attached to several of his emails due to a shared inbox. Upon realising this, he stated to the rude client that he was in fact Martin and not Nicole, to which he received an immediate improvement in treatment. His technique did not change, the only thing that changed was that he now had a man’s name. This caused Martin and Nicole to conduct a social experiment, where they switched signatures on emails for two weeks. Martin described the two weeks as “hell” stating that it “fucking sucked”, whereas Nicole had the most “productive two weeks” of her ENTIRE CAREER. A prime example of workplace sexism. Martin shared this story on Twitter, to which he was appalled at how difficult it was being a woman in the workplace and dealing with clients, however Nicole stated that she was completely used to this unfair treatment.

I don’t know if perhaps the belief needs a new term due to the word ‘feminism’ having been dragged through the mud for far too long, but we need to start educating ourselves on what it means to be an equal and just society. We cannot live in a world where females are considered less than males. If you want to ignore the lack of equality, and continue to think that this is either a false issue coined by man-hating, dramatic feminists or that males SHOULD be treated better than females, then it’s just plain ignorant. To live in a world where we have levitating lightbulbs, shoes that tie themselves, Apple watches and robots that mow the lawns, it’s disturbing that we are still protesting for the equality of the two sexes. Women have carried us and nurtured us all, we name ships after women, yet we cannot respect them as much as men.

I need feminism because in Saudi Arabia, a nineteen year old woman was gang-raped by 200 men and then punished for not having a ‘male guardian’ with her at the time, she was sentenced to six months jail time and 300 beatings (this is one example of many). I need feminism because in many countries, women are treated as children and need permission from men to do anything, even leave the house or work. I need feminism because if females wish to abort, they should be able to choose what happens to their body. I need feminism because when men are raped, they were never asked what they were wearing. I need feminism because in countries such as China and India, female foetuses are being aborted purely because of their gender. I need feminism because women are too fucking often sexualised. I need feminism because our favourite actresses are getting paid a lot less than their male co-stars. I need feminism because if a girl enjoys having a lot of sex, she shouldn’t be shamed for it. I need feminism because far too many of us have been oppressed or belittled. I need feminism because if a man gives his opinion he is a man, and if a woman gives her opinion, she is a bitch. I need feminism because men are judged on performance, and women are judged on performance and appearance.

I don’t care if you are sick of the term ‘feminism’ or sick of hearing about the struggles women face, because the truth is these inequalities cannot be overcome until we all start to acknowledge the basic human rights that women in our society deserve. It’s time for women to work together instead of tearing each other down, and it’s time for men to stop being embarrassed to call themselves feminists. Gender inequality is not made up, it’s alive and real.

I dream of a future where women can be viewed as intelligent and strong people; a future where our mothers, daughters, nieces, wives, granddaughters and sisters can live in a world of equal opportunity and respect. Feminism is not a dirty word. Feminism is an entirely needed value in order to achieve a better world. We cannot all succeed when half of us are held back.

1 note · View note

salmanadergalal · 8 years

Text

Male Gaze of Women in Advertising: Visual Examination of An Uber Outdoors’ Ad in Egypt.

Introduction & Literature Review

Gender has been a crucial matter of discussion all over the history of art, the riddle of whether women are being equally represented in paintings, films, ads... etc, in comparison to men has always been argued by many historians and theorists. Not only the fairness of representation that has been the subject of discussion, but also how women are being represented as objects in the context of a male field of vision or the Male Gaze. Griselda Pollock noted in her work on modernity and the spaces of femininity (1988) that there is a long tradition in art that female nudes are understood as of possession to the male artist. Similarly John Berger wrote “Men act women appear”.They both reflected upon how images of women are exclusively presented for male viewers.

In her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (1975), Laura Mulvey, British Feminist and Film Theorist, coined the term Male Gaze to the gendering of the spectator. She has drawn from Freud’s idea of scopophilia - the pleasure involved in looking at other people’s bodies as objects and argued that most film narratives do not only typically focus on a male protagonist, but also assume a male spectator (Sturken & Cartwright, 2001). Mulvey argues that Traditional Hollywood films present men as active, controlling subjects and treat women as passive objects of desire for men in both the story and in the audience.

In the same essence, Mulvey’s psychoanalytic view of the gaze can be applied to advertisements that are directed at a male target audience. Sexual appeal has long been counted on by adverts to sell products. In some instances, sexuality becomes the only allure used in an ad for attention getting no matter how far it is from the selling service or the intended ad message. With a lesser extent than in western societies, women in Egyptian ads have been objectified in indirect ways that position them at the male power of gaze or represent them in a voyeuristic point of view to male viewers and that was apparent in how female models in Egypt used to have western features and perfect body shape. In both cases, women as a part of the audience as well, are included to share POV of a male spectator in which they are supposed to feel pleased as subjects being looked at.

After years of being raised among social norms that emphasize male domination over females, women in eastern societies subconsciously get used to perceive their self image in a male perspective in which they feel more safe. In a similar manner, some ads even those about women or created by women are still impacted by the male gaze somehow along the course of their life.

The power of the gaze develops unplanned consequences (Manlove, 2007). The unplanned consequences can be identified not only through knowing the person’s looking intentions and position but also by becoming subliminally affected by the gaze. Jacques Derrida argued that the norm is always set up in opposition to that which is deemed abnormal and thus the category of the feminine is commonly understood as that which is not masculine (Sturken & Cartwright, 2001).

Whereas in reality these distinctions are mostly blurred, in our daily life interactions male superiority and dominance often take place at levels of cultural, linguistic, social and cultural meanings and drawing from that the power of the gaze can be effective on the intellectual level rather than only in a voyeuristic sense. In other words, being backed up by social norms that empowers masculinity over femininity, the male gaze can stereotype women and demean their role to an extent that frames how women think of themselves.

I am using an Uber outdoor ad as an example to show how advertisers are subliminally affected by the male gaze even in addressing a feminine point view. In my opinion this ad unintentionally defied the conventions of looking, the same way the 1991 film Thelma and Louise defied the traditional formula of the gaze and it’s power relations by preseneting women’s gazes with agency.

~ Source: Google

Theoretical Framework

Uber Mother’s Day outdoors’ campaign on Al Mehwar, the ring road and 6th October bridge is supposedly showing how Uber’s service in Egypt has made Moms’ life easier by providing them the safest and best ride to wherever they are going. It enhanced it’s objective through drawing from real life social traditions that women encounter in Egypt and reflecting upon how Uber relatively helped unsaddle some of these social burdens.

This paper will mainly examine how this ad visually operated to show a female gaze within a feminist social context (Mother’s Day), but the textual content accompanied with it might have inflicted a male gaze to a women-related dilemma. The theory used to examine the ad is the Jacques Lacan and Laura Mulvey’s“Gender Gaze”.

~The ad says “Since Uber came along, I spend way less time on the Ring Road”

Contextual Analysis

Generally, the ad itself had nothing to do with the selling service Uber is offering in Egypt which is basically a safe and comfortable ride. The ads didn’t show any uniqueness or brand enhancement. The campaign called since “Uber came along in Egypt” has mainly depended on a series of outdoors in which the visual production has been clearly a secondary aspect of the campaign. All the campaign billboards had either a blurry or a black background of men or women at the back seat of a car (which is consequently an uber). To deliver it’s message, the campaign ads have depended on the slogan (“Since Uber Came Along in Egypt”) and a caption that varied according to the situation- visually expressed on the billboard.

~The ad says “Since Uber Came along, my mom only calls me twice instead of ten when I go out “

Drawing from the campaign’s slogan and captions, the objective is to show how Uber made transportation and commuting easier in Egypt. Though the ads haven’t stressed on Uber’s points of strengths with regard to the concerns people have always had regarding the safety of taking a taxi in Egypt.

Amidst Careem’s feud, after firing its Managing Director in Egypt, Wael El Fakharany - one of Egypt’s sweetheart entrepreneurs- many Careem customers were disappointed in the company and it was expected from Uber to step in and seize Careem customers, learning a lesson from it’s US competitor Lyft that found Uber’s conflict the opportune moment to seize it’s customers after JFK airport protesters decided to boycott Uber rides because they believed that the ride-sharing app dropped it’s surge as a try profit from the (New York Taxi Workers Alliance) NYTWA’s demonstrations following Trump’s Muslim Ban.

Instead it came out with an outdoors campaign that sparked significant backlash on social media.

~The ad says: “Since Uber came along, I escaped from driving my mother-in-law home 64 times” (Source: Ola Mohey Elden Facebook Account)

As shown above, this billboard was the one to anger many of Uber clients. It says “I escaped from driving my mother-in-law home 64 times”. Among the series of (“Since Uber Came along”) billboards, this particular ad being released days before Mother’s Day in Egypt; wasn’t quite a clever idea. Egyptians might not be as religious as they claim to be and they might as well complain about some threadbare social norms, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t hold these unfavorable duties at high value. In eastern societies family bonds and relations are way tighter than they are in it’s western counterparts. We might covertly feel bothered about giving a relative a ride but we won’t like to either admit it publicly or be faced by it as a joke.

I personally imagined Uber’s creative team to have met up and said let’s do something creative and equally funny to relate between Mother’s Day and Uber’s ride service and from there came the idea for this billboard without an understanding of either the customer perspectives or the market insight. Some brands have gone bold lately (Sunny Food Oil) depending on a similar reverse psychology strategy that offended women and it backfired, so why use it again?

What I found really interesting about this particular ad, is how the combination between the visual and the written have deviated from the ad’s intended gaze. Featuring a woman in a female related context, this ad was supposed to present a female gaze to the situation in hand which is giving your mother-in-law a ride home. We can reflect upon two scenarios in which this sentence is said by a man and/or a woman “I escaped from driving my mother-in-law home 64 times”; in both cases this sentence represents a gaze power over the (female) mother-in-law. If said by a man, this textual content strongly places the woman in a weaker position in which the (male) son-in-law is the superior and stronger party whom the woman commonly needs to be given a ride by him and judging by our social norms there is a great possibility that this sentence was said by a man because men especially relatives are always sought of as a sign of power and also safety that should always give girls a drive in our society. In this case, young women and ladies being brought up surrounded by such social traditions adds a male gaze to how they view the world.

~One Twitter user (Noura Nader) about the ad (” It could simply have said Uber helped me drive my mother-in-law home safely instead of Escape”)

Source: Think Marketing

~One Facebook User on the ad (Reem Essam Sabry): “ Why is the poster suggesting that it’s an ad for a home for the elderely?, it could have been better if Uber says that it made it easier for Grand Moms to attend their grandchildren’s social events, with a picture of the lady booking a ride. Reem also asked “Releasing this ad during The Month of Mothers, seriously?”

Source: Think Marketing

It’s less likely for this sentence to be said by a woman, because even if a woman feels the same discontent that a man might feel about giving his mother-in-law a ride, she won’t probably admit it as to not shake her image in front of her husband, which again places her under his male gaze. Another reason why I think many women got angered by this ad, is that some day they will eventually become mothers-in-law and they don’t want to be treated in the same demeaning way the ad did. In this sense, women responded to this image through identification with it ( Sturken and Cartwright,2001).

Visually examining the image of the lady on the billboard (supposedly mother in law), that’s clearly a female gaze. Her look and facial expressions collectively say a lot. For me it seems like she is so angry and menacing over the fact that her family ordered her what looks like a taxi at the end of the day from her own perspective, instead of they giving her a ride home. The look can also convey a sad and a lonely feeling of a mother-in-law living on her own and is becoming more sad that the few moments she spends with her family are becoming less because they don’t have to give her a ride home anymore thanks to Uber.

Furthermore, the camera had an important role in framing the woman’s look in a way that she won’t be looking directly at it which might suggest that she is looking at someone whom we can’t see and sharing gazes with him/her as if she’s reproaching her son or daughter who left her go home alone. Adding text to this female gaze has changed it’s concept and switched the woman’s role from being at the powerful position of looking and controlling the camera to being controlled by the male gaze power of the man and/or woman who said the sentence.

Conclusion

Regardless of Uber’s epic fail to deliver a campaign that respects and understands it’s audience, there are some key concepts that contributed to this ads failure; for a mother’s day celebration, that is aimed to honor the mother, Uber had to be appreciative towards the mother figure even more on this special day, instead of making a joke about escaping giving her a ride home. The campaign ad lacked expressive visuals and only depended on the textual content that was written in a font that can be barely seen by the naked eye especially for a street-hanging-ad. The caption accompanied with the picture has presented a very interesting aspect of how women can be objectified in ads not only in sexual or voyeurstic paradigms and also showed how adding a text can present a male gaze to a seemingly feminist situation, the same way the male director of Thelma and Louise (1991) presented feminism from a male gaze POV.

References

Sturken, Marita, and Lisa Cartwright. Practices of looking. Oxford University Press, 2001.P 122:124, 130.

Website Links:

https://thinkmarketingmagazine.com/uber-egypt-billboard-ads-one-word-makes-difference/

1 note · View note

thatslifetheblog · 5 years

Text

Battle of the sexes: Why the fight?

I am a Feminist.

Now before you either start mentally cheering me on in your head (you go, girl!) or rolling your eyes and find the quickest exit off the page, I promise this isn't going the direction either of you think. So, if you're in the mood for an unexpected twist, I urge you to stick it out.

I didn't gain a solid understanding of "feminism" until I was 22 and studying gender bias portrayed through media in graduate school. Until then, I had foolishly been misusing the term. I point this out because I was being vocal on a topic on which I was misinformed, regularly stating, "I'm not a feminist." In today's discussions around the subject, I hear similar misconceptions that I once had, so I want to make sure we're starting from a place of information instead of judgment.

Just about every source from Merriam-Webster to Britannica to Google define feminism the same. Urban Dictionary doesn't count, my friends! Although I would encourage you to read some of these proposed definitions to see even more the misunderstanding going on (at least get some laughs... or tears).

Feminism (noun)

fem·i·nism | \ ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm

the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

Equality. There's no mention of superiority of one over the other; no comparison.

So, basically, by being a "feminist", I am proudly stating that I believe we - men, women, transgender - are all created equal. I would venture to say for most of the free world, this statement alone is not daunting or challenging. In fact, just thinking about the reverse of this literally makes my imagination go black and white with me narrating in a transatlantic accent.

Having established my personal belief system with you, the question I get stuck on is: In our effort to create awareness and communicate openly, have we created even more of a divide between our battles lines?

In our effort to create awareness and communicate openly, have we created even more of a divide between our battles lines?

I began considering this topic from an entirely new perspective... the male. See? I told you there was a twist.

Working in corporate America over the last decade, I've experienced a couple of tide changes on this topic. Let me start by saying I have never felt discriminated against by a man at work for simply being a woman. I have, however, experienced discrimination in the form of ageism.

Because I have not experienced gender discrimination, I'm actually in the majority of both women and men. (4 in 10 working women experienced gender discrimination, and 2 in 10 working men according to a 2018 Pew Research Center study).

So while I'd love to see both of those statistics at zero, I can't help but wonder if we're projecting a general "guilty until proven innocent" vibe onto all men, making them hesitate with pursuing a relationship at all with women, let alone a good or close working relationship.

I've spent my professional career in a mostly male-dominated space - technology. We can click down one more level to sales and marketing, too. My relationships were strong; we respected and treated each other as equals. As the years have gone on, I've noted increasing tension and frankly, insecurity among my male counterparts. "I'm sorry. I shouldn't ask personal questions." "Would you take offense if I told you that color looks nice on you?" Or better yet, let's not talk about anything besides work because I don't want it to be perceived as me showing any kind of interest in you.

This is just sad. The thought that good professional relationships, and in some cases, friendships, could be jeopardized out of fear and conformity. The male perspective here is confused, not knowing how to proceed or pursue relationships with women in the workplace anymore. As such, out of fear and the mindset to "not risk it", he retreats. Now, who wins that battle? Nobody, in my view.

My perspective on this whole topic is actually quite simple. Like anything in life, each individual - male or female - is responsible for determining their own individual boundaries when it comes to relationships. And then, like all relationships, we're responsible for communicating those boundaries. We have to stop comparing ourselves and our relationships with those of the opposite sex to anyone else because we set our own rules of engagement. What I am willing to tolerate is different from you, and that's OK! Aside from having an open, honest and communicative relationship with your counterpart, consider the Golden Rule (it's the oldest and truest, hence why it's golden): Treat others as you would like to be treated. There it is... plain and simple.

We have to stop comparing ourselves and our relationships with those of the opposite sex to anyone else because we set our own rules of engagement.

Next time a colleague of the opposite sex questions what they can and can't do around you, take the opportunity to tackle it head-on so there's no guessing or dodging anymore. Or when the conversation takes a turn towards comparisons like "You can't carry a baby!" and "You can't pee standing up!" (I'm speaking from experience here), reconsider the fight. We're each individually different for a reason. We should aim to embrace our unique differences between males and females instead of trying to ignore them entirely or worse, intentionally outcast others because of them.

Putting a final thought back onto the phrase "battle of the sexes"... why do we? Battle, that is. What would happen if we followed the Golden Rule, took down the battle lines and stopped looking for a reason to fight?

0 notes

fuckthegovfucklove · 5 years

Text

Abandoning the conventional relating framework.

“The state is not something which can be destroyed by a revolution, but is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of human behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently.”

― Gustav Landauer

The way things are now, navigating relationships are by no means an easy exercise. It’s trying to keep up with what the new standard of a good partner or friend is and trying to fulfill the covert code of conduct that is culturally instilled in us. It’s goes from playing to win favour, to walking on eggshells. Crafting an identity that will sell on the market, to trying to remind your buyers of your (volatile) worth. It’s blindly devoting ourselves to formulaic ambitions of a private nuclear family, a house, wealth and not imagining beyond that.

It’s a shame though that, for the most part, our relationships are being remotely controlled by mainstream conventions, so we get little say in how they play out. It’s a shame that relationships are only marketed as source of joy and pleasure and not spaces where we can join to reform practices and aid wider humanity because that would involve challenging every system .. too much commotion.

Connecting and growing with other complex human beings is a transformative endeavour, and is the crux of our existence as social creatures.

I for one want to relate with others in a way that is ethical, supportive, mutually beneficial to our growth and our aid of others, but I don’t trust the dusty normative scripts handed to each of us once we are forcefully integrated into society. From the customary practice of demoting long-running friendships to accommodate shiny new romantic relationships, to the comical fact that 50% of “ti’ll death do us part“ marriages end in divorce - the results thus far have been dismal.

These categories, hierarchies, practices and ideas attached to relationships were placed on a platter as illusionary contentment but are better recognised as tools of control and surveillance. They don’t serve humanity, but those in power who press us into building a patriarchal capitalist family.

We do need a post-conventional approach to performing relationships in order to get us closer to relating with others in such a way that is liberatory, fair and nurturing for the collective before the individual. One that relies not on deeply flawed societal norms, but relies reflexive thinking on choices and operates based on higher principles. But well acquainted are we with reflexion?

to be reflective vs. to be reflexive

Reflection is no stranger to us. Most of us consciously and unconsciously reflect on our actions, past events, feelings daily I’d imagine. Reflection is solitarily reviewing or reliving an experience outside of oneself. We learn and undergo personal development through examining what we think happened, what we thought or felt about it, why, who was involved and when, and what these others might have experienced and thought and felt about it too.

Reflection might lead to insight about something not noticed in time, pinpointing perhaps when the detail was missed. It’s looking at whole scenarios from as many angles as possible. However, this is all done in the context of, and in comparison to what we objectively believe to be correct action in the normative social environment we’ve been bred. Our unquestioned assumptions and unrecognised aspects of context all influence the by-products of our reflection and yield half-baked conclusions.

Reflexivity is finding strategies to question our own attitudes, thought processes, values, assumptions, prejudices and habitual actions , to strive to understand our complex roles in relation to others. To be reflexive is to examine , for example, how we - seemingly unwittingly - are involved in creating social or professional structures counter to our own higher values. It is becoming aware of the limits of our knowledge, of how our own behaviour plays into interpersonal practices and why such practices might marginalise others or disregard their individuality.

Through reflexive thinking, we recognise that we are active in shaping our surroundings, and begin to proactively and critically take circumstances and relationships into consideration rather than merely reacting to them, and help review and revise ethical ways of being and relating.

Reflexivity involves the willingness to consider aspects of the self strange: focusing close attention on your own actions, thoughts, feelings, values , identity, and their effect on others.

The reflexive thinker has to stand back from belief and value systems, habitual ways of thinking and relating to others, structures of understanding themselves and their relationship to the world, and their assumptions about the way that the world shapes them. This can only be done by somehow becoming separate in order to look at it as if from the outside: not part of ‘habitual experience processing’, and not easy.

Strategies are required such as internal dialogue, and the support of others. This critical focus upon beliefs, values, professional identities, and how they affect and are affected by the surrounding societal and cultural structures, is a highly responsible social and political activity.

Reflexivity involves being comfortable with personal uncertainty, critically informed curiosity as to how others perceive things as well as how you do , and flexibility to consider changing deeply held ways of being. Asking questions, reading widely and speaking with others who exist in nonconformity are useful avenues.

Reflection: “I blew up and started that argument because I felt disrespected. I need to learn to take things easy and not let my ego get the best of me.“

Reflexion: “Why did I feel disrespected? How often do I feel this way? How do I position myself in respect to others? What’s my relationship with power and entitlement? What influenced my behaviour/where have I seen this done before? Did something unjust really occur? Let me speak to someone about it.“

To develop my own reflexive thinking, it’s important to me that my choices hold up to political analysis just as the feminist expression ‘The Personal is Political’ instructs us.

The personal is political

The personal is political’ is a renown feminist phrase coined by Shulamith Firestone and Anne Koedt, the editors of an essay Carol Hanisch published in Notes from the Second Year: Women’s Liberation. From the late 60’s, through discussions in several consciousness-raising groups, many women of the era began to realise that the issues in their personal lives and daily activities (unequal housekeeping distribution, gender pay gap) were shaped by unconscious assumptions about male superiority and prerogative. The personal quickly became political, in the sense that daily seemingly minor offences inflicted by men (sexism), were in fact symptoms of oppressive norms and structural inequalities.

‘The personal is political’ served to provide an explanation for the issues in the lives of individuals in relation to social systems, ideologies, polices and practice. It also acts as an excellent prompt to open dialogue on issues traditionally view as “personal“, ”private” or ”social”, allowing for political analysis. The phrase now has a couple of different meanings and here are some common ones:

"The personal reflects/serves the political status quo”

“One can make personal choices in response to or protest against the political status quo”

“One's personal choices reveal or reflect one's personal politics”

“One should make personal choices that are consistent with one's personal politics”

“Personal life and personal politics are indistinguishable”

Politics is loaded with meanings but in this context it’s important you understand politics as a process concerning the distribution of power and resources and why putting the power relations of interpersonal relationships under the microscope is crucial. The choices we are seemingly empowered to make for the most part are socially constructed and deliberate, which is why majority of us follow such strikingly similar scripts when it comes to relating romantically, platonically, familially etc.

‘The personal is political‘ becomes important too when looking at our relational practices and the choices we make within those realms. From acknowledging that how we go about relating with others is really not a simple as following our individual desires and thus using personal preference as a justification, we must recognise that they are in fact governed by relationships of power, conventional morality, inequality and personal interest. For example, The Equal-But-Different Myth is often used to justify clear double standards in gender conversations and can also be extended to make excuses for any form of inequality within interpersonal relationships.

Our relationships, conventionally performed, are a reflection of a society dominated by patriarchy and economic power, a society that doesn’t actually exist to serve our needs.

That’s why we must subvert conventional relating and redesign how we relate with others. I’ve had a go creating my own relational framework, have a look {here}

#aromantic #anti-romance #against love #liberatory relating #blog post

1 note · View note

whittlebaggett8 · 5 years

Text

Joe Biden’s dominating the early polls, but his biggest strength will be put to the test at the first Democratic debates this month, Defence Online

Previous Vice President Joe Biden is currently primary the early Democratic principal polls, partially thanks to his perceived energy towards President Donald Trump.

Biden is mainly succeeding since other candidates are not perceived to be practically as electable as he. But when other candidates develop into more feasible, their achievement could threaten his one of a kind attraction.

The from time to time gaffe-inclined Biden has been capable to retain his notion of electability mostly by keeping out of the public eye and campaigning less than other candidates.

On the debate stage, Biden is most likely to encounter direct confrontation from progressive candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have been openly criticizing Biden on the path.

A very poor discussion displaying could contribute to much less voters sensation self-assured of Biden’s potential to get on Trump on the national stage.

Go to Defence Online’s homepage for a lot more stories.

Previous Vice President Joe Biden is now foremost the early Democratic principal polls partly many thanks to his perceived toughness towards President Donald Trump – but the initially most important debates later this thirty day period will place his most important asset to the check.

Though the elusive strategy of “electability” can be affected by a variety of elements which include a candidate’s race and gender, we attempted to crack down who Democratic voters see as the most possible to conquer Trump

To determine exactly how very likely Democratic voters perceive each individual candidate’s chances of beating or shedding to Trump, INSIDER has been conducting a recurring SurveyMonkey Viewers national poll. You can down load just about every single poll listed here, down to the unique respondent details.

Browse a lot more about how the INSIDER 2020 Democratic most important tracker functions.

In INSIDER polling — specifically, hunting at the details from the six polls conducted considering the fact that April — Biden not only has pretty substantial name recognition but pretty superior ranges of acceptance among the the Democratic electorate.

Out of the 83% of self-recognized Democrats who are acquainted with Biden, 60% would be pleased with him as the Democratic nominee when compared to 20% who would be actively un-content, the best overall performance for any of the candidates in the discipline, plausibly due to the fact they also understand Sanders to be electable, way too.

Biden is also the only candidate for whom much more than 50 percent of the respondents think can acquire towards Trump, with 73% of voters believing he would conquer Trump in comparison to 16% who feel he would shed in the May possibly 17 edition of INSIDER’s recurring poll.

Though political pundits usually tout Biden’s appeal to performing-class whites and arranged labor, he also dominates amongst African-American Democratic most important voters. In a late April CNN poll, for example, 50% of nonwhite respondents most well-liked Biden as the nominee when compared with 14% who most well-liked Sanders, and 47% of black girls supported Biden in a Early morning Consult’s surveys.

Biden is mainly succeeding since other candidates are not perceived to be nearly as electable as he. But after other candidates develop into more feasible, their success could threaten his distinctive enchantment.

Examine much more: Joe Biden just delivered a demonstrate of power in a important early voting state

Take Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, for instance. Even though Biden and Sanders may appear to be to signify entirely reverse wings on the Democratic most important, 45% of Biden supporters would also be contented with Sanders as the nominee – mostly simply because they also understand Sanders to be electable, as well.

In INSIDER polling, 47% of self-determined Democrats believed Sanders would beat Trump in contrast to 30% who assume he would get rid of, the 2nd-finest consequence in the area guiding Biden.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California arrives in third location, with 35% of voters believing she would beat Trump compared to 33% who believe she would eliminate, a comparatively steep fall-off from Biden’s quantities even with Harris’ potent effectiveness in the field.

Biden’s most important asset is his perceived electability and large attraction to a amount to various demographic teams. And his entrance into the race in late April failed to adjust that perception, or substantially effects the polling quantities or perceived electability of the rest of the 2020 discipline.

The often gaffe-inclined Biden has in a position to sustain the veneer of electability mainly by being out of the community eye and avoiding predicaments wherever he could put his foot in his mouth, as an alternative of hoping to out-marketing campaign the rest of the subject.

Presently, candidates in the progressive wing of the field these types of as Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have lodged some thinly-veiled assaults at Biden more than his reasonable plan positions, and his noteworthy absence from the California Democratic Occasion Convention, which he skipped to marketing campaign for LGBT rights in Ohio.

The debates could existing Biden, who served in general public office environment and community lifestyle considering the fact that 1970, with a chance to solidify his standing as the most skilled applicant in the field and the most geared up to get on Trump.

Go through a lot more: Some Democrats are by now blasting Joe Biden’s described ‘middle ground’ local weather alter plan for not likely considerably plenty of

But if he finishes up on the exact same phase as Sanders or Warren, he’s at possibility of remaining stridently attacked as out-of-contact with today’s Democratic principal and today’s The us, and not giving a ample rebuttal to their criticisms.

If progressive candidates succeed in generating Biden appear weak on phase as opposed to the relaxation of the Democratic field, it could lead to producing much less voters confident of his ability to just take on Trump on the countrywide phase.

Biden has properly held onto his status as the frontrunner due to the fact signing up for the race, but if he has a bad exhibiting on the discussion phase, he could be just a several gaffes away from his assistance and his perceived electability fleeing rapidly.

Read through a lot more:

Here’s how Joe Biden went from currently being a child from Scranton to a US Senator, VP, and now the 2020 Democratic presidential frontrunner

Trump claims he was defending Joe Biden when he referred to as him a ‘low IQ individual’

Joe Biden’s vote for the 2003 Iraq War is coming again to bite him with 2020 voters

Joe Biden is working for president in 2020. Here’s everything we know about the prospect and how he stacks up versus the opposition.

The post Joe Biden’s dominating the early polls, but his biggest strength will be put to the test at the first Democratic debates this month, Defence Online appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/06/03/joe-bidens-dominating-the-early-polls-but-his-biggest-strength-will-be-put-to-the-test-at-the-first-democratic-debates-this-month-defence-online/

#2020 election #Democratic Primary #INSIDER Data #Joe Biden #News

0 notes