#disagreeing on these very sensitive topics IS a good indicator of whether we can have constructive conversation

[followerofmercy]

I have developed a new litmus test for Media Literacy and People I Wanna Hang With

Do they hate Skylar White of Breaking Bad for being dramatic and unreasonable

Do they think Arlecchino from Genshin Impact is an abusive parent

Do they think Silco from Arcane made Zaun worse

Answering yes to any of these questions results in immediate disqualification for having respectable opinions. To me.

[justhewayfaringstranger]

So, I've wanted to address this topic for a while and this post I read this morning while having breakfast is a sort of response from the universe.

I would say to start by explaining a simple concept.

Demons and spirits are not the same thing, but rather, they vary from each other. Likewise, spirits and ghosts are not the same.

• Creatures understood as "demons" exist in all religions; they are supernatural beings, typically associated with the evil, historically prevalent in religions, occultism, literature, fiction, mythology and folklore;

• "spirits" are instead organized energy with at least a certain level of sensitivity that has an energy body and in most cases also an astral body. The Latin word is a translation of the Greek prneuma ("breath", "air", "vital breath") and to some extent it can be seen in the apeiron of the Presocratic Anaximander, who had to some extent dematerialized the archè (Greek: ἀρχή ) of the other Ionian naturalists, the original principle of the universe and of every part of it, impalpable and invisible but still material, as shown by another void that, blowing inside it, fills with air matter. With the Stoics, the term begins to be compared to today's one of spirit. The pneuma belongs to the god who gives life to things and guides them according to his wishes. The pneuma is a force that manifests itself not only in the individual man but is present in all things as the "soul of the world". They are ancient entities like the world itself, part of the primordial chaos and consequently neutral in themselves;

• the term “ghost” refers instead to any incorporeal entity. The term ghost comes from the Greek φάντασμα phàntasma, which in turn derives from φαντάζω (phantàzo, "to show"; from the root φαν-, which expresses the idea of ​​"appearing" and "showing"), and had the meaning of apparition (understood as a supernatural manifestation) and only with time has its meaning been restricted to indicating the apparition of a deceased.

In 1800, with the birth of the practice of spiritism in France, it ended up rendering in the common imagination "spirits" and "ghosts" similar entities, if not true synonyms.

The French pedagogue Allan Kardec after observing a series of phenomena, formulated the hypothesis that such phenomena could only be attributed to incorporeal intelligences (spirits). Spiritual communications took place "thanks to the intervention of a medium", that is a person with particular skills who acted as mediator between spirits and living beings, during the so-called séance. This became a busines for many and most of the spiritualists were actually charlatans who swore to the victims that they could talk to the dead. In most cases, those who could afford to turn to a medium, were economically wealthy and of high rank lost and therefore for the scammer it was certainly not difficult to obtain information (even intimate) about the deceased and those around him, if at this was added some well-orchestrated play of smoke and lights, here is the "grandmother's ghost".

Having understood this, one wonders what it is then what we understand as a "ghost of a person". It is a trace left by the living. On a scientific level, death doesn't exist. From the chemical-physical point of view we are isolated systems that receive energy and produce it. But the universe itself is a closed system. So our energy is the energy of the universe. We are universe. What happens when we die? Our energy returns to the universe system. But as we know, energy is neither created nor destroyed, but it changes. So our energy is energy that has been changed in the past by others, and will be changed by others when we are gone. Death doesn't exist because energy is immortal. The energy that I am using now to tap on my laptop keyboard is the same energy that Gaius Julius Caesar used to pull the reins of his horse and to cross the Rhine. And it will be the energy that in the future a scientist will use to to be able to travel between the various space-time dimensions. Death doesn't exist, and the life of one is the life of all.

To simplify then, what we mean as the ghost of Marilyn Monroe for example, is nothing more than a sort of energetic gif of Marilyn Monroe.

I'll give you another example. Anne Boleyn died by beheading, therefore by a violent and unjust death. In this situation, she is likely to have felt strong emotions and released a huge and consistent huge amount of energy as a result. Let's say that Henry VIII was present at the execution along with a bunch of other people, let's also say that he went back to that place (or others where Anne felt strong emotions and therefore released large amounts of energy) and thought about her, let's say that Elizabeth I also thought of her mother and so many other people. All these emotions have turned into energy. If we saw energy as a palette of colors, it would be as if: the more consistent the emotions, the more intense the color, therefore, the more energy we send (even unconsciously) to the energetic image of Anne Boleyn (the energetic gif), the clearer this will be where most of the energy is concentrated (eg the Tower of London, a room in the building, etc.).

So when we go to a "haunted" place, what we see is not the "person", but a kind of still image. And according to the speech above, it is therefore normal to find this type of freeze frame in places such as castles, hospitals, etc. then if these are found on natural energy centers or lines… bingo!

Speaking instead of spirits, as mentioned before, there are no good or bad spirits. Good and bad as well as light and dark, like day and night, are a contrast present in many traditions, including native ones. This duality can also be referred to the human being and represent a moment of acting or thinking of a person. You can think and act towards the light or towards the darkness and this can also happen to shamans.

Just think of the ego and when it takes over, or when you try to manipulate, at that moment you are not in the light. But it can happen and that doesn't mean being good or bad. Acting, in fact, can also be connected with a person's karma and precisely follow what is required by this spiritual law.

Light and darkness, as in the human world, are also reflected in the world of spirits and even in this case they do not absolutely determine the condition of goodness or badness. Spirits, who in the light can be protectors, guides or allies, can also move in the dark dimension.

And if we think like the natives that everything has a spirit and that it can move between light and darkness, we can understand how there can be spirits that are particularly powerful and able to move very strong energies such as to create an effect in ordinary reality.

It is important to know the distinction between light and shadow because, from an early age, we were educated to separate the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, but for this we have become very sensitive when it comes to going to work on our shadows. As I told you, light and shadow are states of being that we all have within us. Working with shadows doesn't mean black magic, witchcraft or whatever. Simply observe the aspects of light and be able to deal with those of shadow as well. Light and darkness are two sides of the same coin that it is important to integrate.

Being half Latin, therefore leaning towards a culture extremely linked to its roots and above all to the relationship with mental spirits, it isn't difficult for me to understand this concept, and therefore despite being a Christian, I have no problem in defining myself as a witch. Of course, coming to this awareness wasn't easy, as I am partly European and therefore I grew up in a society in a Western society that is scared of what it cannot control. After years of researching my origins, my culture and theological studies, I have come to find my balance.

Returning, however, to the main reason for this post, having made the necessary explanations (and given the tools for a critical analysis of the matter), here are the points on which I personally disagree and why:

Reading books about witchcraft: Knowledge for educational purposes is by no means negative, quite the opposite. The question is whether the aforementioned "about witchcraft" book is a "spell book" or some sort of "sacred book". For example, if I find the Necronomicon tomorrow and start reading it without knowing what it is, it is likely that I will find myself living the remake of The Conjuring in the real life.

Casting most types of spells, including hexes: Same speech made in the previous point. One of the first rules of witchcraft is "know your practice". You must be aware that what you are doing is not a game and every action has consequences, even if you don't believe in the rule of 3 (everything you do comes back to you 3 times). In the specific case of curse and hexes spells, they are the most treacherous and dangerous, because you are working with dark and malevolent energies. This type of practice in particular is a double-edged weapon, which is why many witches advise against them and propose alternative methods if possible.

Practicing divination: It isn't always negative, but in some types of divination the help and guidance of spirits and divinities is sought. For example, I often do bibliomancy with the bible and even if I first ask for God's guidance, in front of each answer I ask for confirmation, because the devil was the most beautiful angel in heaven and just as darkness does not allow us to see. where we go, even a dazzling light can deceive us.

Playing with Ouija or other talking boards: Ouija is not a game and it is an extremely dangerous tool, precisely because what you do is contact spirits and entities and you cannot know who will answer the other side. Nothing good anyway.

Putting up fantasy or non-Christian artwork: Have you ever seen Annabel? Here, the principle is the same. Be careful what you bring into your home, as home is a sacred space, and nothing can enter without you giving it permission. So if you not only invite it, but rather you bring it inside and give it a space, don't come and complain to me if it is difficult to send it away.

Celebrating pagan holidays: If it's a holiday of a closed religion, avoid ruining your life. Holidays basically consist of performing rituals that often involve spirits. Learn about the history of that holiday you want to celebrate, the symbols, the rituals, and why it is celebrated in that particular way.

Celebrating Halloween: The same as the previous point, except that we all (or almost all) know that samahin is the day when the space where the veil falls and the two worlds come into contact.

Watching scary movies and TV shows: I'm not saying that if you watch The Exorcist you will be possessed, but I can't assure you otherwise either. I took The Exorcist as an example because it is known that a real ritual is performed in the movie and a lot of "disturbing" things have happened on the set of the film and to the actors. When you watch a movie, even if it is fictional, if for example it performs an evocation or a ritual you are not only witnessing, you are participating in all respects. Be careful, every person is different.

Reading (horror novels, fantasy books, comics and graphic novels). Playing (tabletop RPGs, LARP games, video games): Same as the previous point.

Listening to heavy metal music, dancing: It goes for any kind of music actually. Do you know how many pop songs I use as a spell?

Dyeing your hair: I'm not saying you'll invoke a demon, but for many cultures cutting your hair makes you more vulnerable to spiritual attack and color is an essential aspect of witchcraft.

Swearing: Wishing someone who has crossed your path death is considered a curse in all respects. Even if done unconsciously.

Drinking: Drinking, smoking… shamans have used alcohol and drugs for centuries to connect with in the spiritual world.

Having tattoos and piercings: As long as you don't tattoo Aramaic words that you don't know the meaning of, everything is fine. Before getting a tattoo in a symbol you saw in a temple in Mexico, find out the meaning of it. I'll give you an example: my cousin once bought a T-shirt with the words "puta madre" (mother whore). He had bought it only because he liked it, without knowing the meaning of the word.

Now, most of these points are mainly related to intention. As I said before, I often use music in my spells, but if for example, I use "can't be touch by Roy jones" for a protection and encouragement spell (eg a manifestation) and a few months later I listen to the same song on the radio doesn't mean it will work like a spell again. In many cases it is a question of intention. Yhat's why it is important to educate yourself.

[freddieofhearts]

Bye bye, dears (for now!)

I know there have been a lot of rumours and some posts about me leaving, so here I am to set the record straight and say a quick ‘au revoir’. This post is long, and I don’t expect everyone to read the whole thing—if you just want information on how to keep in touch, or about access to my removed fics, scroll to the bottom. ⬇️

*

Why are you leaving?

Firstly, of course I’m not leaving Freddie. This is just an ongoing hiatus from the social side of fandom, because while I have some incredible friends here, who have done all they can to support me and have made this experience wonderful in lots of ways—it’s also true that the social space has become more and more toxic for me.

I get a wild amount of hate. Despite never having my ask box enabled on here, people create new accounts just to message me and tell me all the problems in this fandom are my fault, that I’m faking being sick, that I should kill myself, that I’m fat, etc. I also very regularly get hateful comments on AO3.

Obviously I realise that I’m not the only one who receives these cruel attacks, but it’s become increasingly hard to handle them—especially as some people (‘real’ accounts, not faceless anons) do continue to blame me for wider problems in the fandom. It makes me feel consistently sad, anxious, and paranoid, so that I can’t focus on anything Queen-related that I enjoy.

More pressingly, it’s affected my mental health, which is—imperfect at the best of times. As I’ve occasionally alluded to in older posts on this blog, I have a history of anorexia, OCD, PTSD, and some other overlapping issues. Most people who know me in the fandom are also aware that I’m ‘clinically extremely vulnerable’ to Covid-19, significantly immunocompromised, and have been isolating at home for eleven months.

The combination of all of these things + the constant toxic messages has really been triggering me, and leading to an uptick in disordered behaviours, which my body cannot sustain. Every new instance of hate from an anon—every time there’s another indication of groups in the fandom wanting to ostracise me further—my reaction is deeply self-punitive and unhealthy. Ultimately I need to be out of this environment for, at least, a protracted period. My therapist, my partner and my close friends in the fandom support this decision.

*

So, what went wrong?

In 2019, I expected to be an absolutely tiny blog in the Queen Tumblr landscape. The fandom was already well-established, and I have never worked to ‘build a following’ on here—I think I’ve linked my own fic a maximum of three or four times!—in fact, more or less the opposite. As I mentioned above: ya girl is nutty as a fruitcake. As a result, I often avoid extremely niche things in daily life which cause severe anxiety for me, Relevant examples here: I never look at my timeline. I never intentionally look at my follower number. Yup, it’s strange, I fully admit it, but it’s best for me to go with these things—usually. In Queen fandom, however, this avoidance both of analytic stats and of most direct engagement led to some problems... My followers grew without me realising, and way more people were reading my blog than I was aware of. I was still in a—“Wow, this fandom is very frustrating, and rife with ableism, racism, etc., so how do we fix this???”—mindset, and I wanted to share my opinions, sure! but I also thought I was sharing them with 15-20 like-minded people.

Now, intent is not impact, and I recognise that I was brusque, didn’t phrase things particularly sensitively, and absolutely did hurt some people by criticising the fandom so freely. I still regret this—and I regret just as much the fact that some assholes have used my criticising the fandom on my own blog as implicit justification for attacking authors. I have said on here many times that I don’t condone that behaviour—but I also think there’s some truth in the presumption that these anonymous malcontents felt my critiques somehow ‘permitted’ them to engage in abuse. For the first few months, though, I genuinely had no idea there was a link at all—and so I was initially slow to condemn this abusive behaviour in public, because I was taking it for granted all authors agreed it was shitty. It took someone directly telling me (shoutout to @a-froger-epic) that people had identified a connection between my posts and the anons, before everything fell into place.

I would like to offer my apologies to the fandom at large for not being more quick on the uptake about this, because I feel that had I realised sooner that these people were taking ‘inspiration’ in some way from me, it might have been easier to put a stop to it. It does seem that there is still a lot of confusion about whether I support them and which of their views I agree with. Let’s be 100% clear on this: I do not support the anonymous commenters on AO3. At times there is some, limited overlap between parts of their views and parts of mine, but even that is less than you may think—I often see anonymous comments from so-called ‘Freddie fans’ that I substantially disagree with.

Perhaps even more importantly: I do not support anyone who sends anonymous hate on Tumblr.

*

What’s all this about ‘overlap’ with the anons?

Let’s do a mini-summary of the myths vs. the truth. There are views I hold which are genuinely unpopular in the fandom—but which I own up to completely, and have never tried to hide in any way. I’ve never needed to use anonymous to share my opinions because I’m completely open about them! What people who don’t know me tend to have ‘heard’ about me, though, is usually a drastic distortion of my real opinions.

What people think I think:

- Freddie should never top.

- It’s okay to send anon hate if someone writes Freddie ‘wrong’.

- It’s more important to correct ‘wrong’ portrayals than to respect other writers.

- It’s inherently wrong to be more interested in band pairings than canon pairings.

- Freddie should be overtly written as a r*pe survivor/victim (and not doing this is wrong).

- Freddie should be overtly written as having an eating disorder (and not doing this is wrong).

- Kink fics are wrong.

What I actually think:

- I believe Freddie did have a strongly defined sexual identity with marked preferences, but I don’t think Jim Hutton lied when he said that Freddie topped. I believe Freddie did top, but this isn’t the time or place to get into my thoughts on why/when/how much. I do believe that my analysis of the sources relevant to this subject is as historically accurate as one can reasonably be in matters of sex (where historical accuracy will always be particularly limited and imperfect)—but I don’t think it’s morally wrong to write Freddie as topping more than he probably did.

- I don’t believe there’s only one ‘right’ version of Freddie (all others being ‘wrong’). I do believe it is possible to be more right or less right—but I’m also conscious of the fact that this scale of value is not one by which everyone measures fanfiction. As a result, then, I don’t think that any perceptions surrounding ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ justify sending anonymous, non-constructive criticism, or outright hate.

- I do believe constructive criticism is a good thing. I welcome and appreciate it myself; I have received it on my fics in Queen fandom, and it has made them better. I have been in writing workshops which included very forceful criticisms, and the value of such feedback has been intimately and immediately part of my life as a writer for years. However: in this case, I have accepted that my opinion differs from the general community preference, and so I no longer offer any constructive criticism (outside private beta-reading). I haven’t changed my view, but I’ve changed my practice to align with community norms.

- I do not think any single, individual writer has a personal responsibility to write about Freddie Mercury in any given way. That ranges from including the more distressing topics to which I’ve devoted attention (such as trauma)—to concentrating on ‘canon’ pairings like Jimercury—to, even, focusing on Freddie at all.

“Now, that doesn’t sound like you, @freddieofhearts,” you might be thinking. And I know it doesn’t; I think something I’ve done a poor job of articulating is the difference between how I view each individual fan—namely, as free to shape their creative experience at will, even in ways that I might find distressing or offensive; even in ways that you might find distressing or offensive—and the way I view the Collective. I think people have interpreted some of my critiques of ‘Queen Fandom’ as meaning something like: “You-in-particular, a specific Queen fan, are doing it wrong and should change everything about how you do it; also you don’t really care about Freddie.”

And—that’s not it. What any given fan, as an individual, does, isn’t a problem. And that can be true alongside—concurrently with—a multivalent critique of how the fandom is lacking in representation of Freddie’s life, with all that that (wonderful, deservedly celebrated, but also profoundly traumatic) life entailed. I still hold that view; I still have myriad problems with ‘the fandom’ (structurally, collectively, historically and presently—from the 1990s to the 2020s). Some of what I want to work on (away from the social life of fandom) is expressing those critiques with greater nuance, in ways that can’t be misinterpreted as shading any particular fanfiction author or subgenre of story.

In brief: I haven’t changed my mind, but I think Tumblr is an untenable environment in which to discuss the things I want to analyse, especially as there is an ever-present danger of hurting someone.

*

Can we keep in touch? Where is the fic?

I will drop by this account periodically to check out posts that friends have sent me, so you can always sent me a private message to ask for my contact details on the other app that I’m using now for fandom friends. Multiple Freddie conversations and projects are going on over there, off-Tumblr, with a much ‘gentler’ environment and no bad actors—I personally love it!

All my fic has been downloaded and saved. I don’t want to deal with constant harassment on AO3, but I’m happy to share a copy with anyone who missed it and wants to read/re-read something. I also saved everyone’s lovely comments and thoughtful con-crit, so none of that has been lost or erased.

Thank you to everyone who welcomed me to the fandom, made me think, taught me, shared with me, sent me into fits of the giggles, collaborated with me creatively, and otherwise made this one hell of a ride! Love you all. ❤️

[ificouldau]

Section 2 - Chapter 13

49% of you chose to cook with Mingyu.

> 51% of you chose to cook with The8.

“Minghao,” You say, switching your gaze over from Mingyu to the longer haired boy, “Can you help me?”

“Of course,” He replies with an assuring nod. Mingyu’s expression drops a bit in disappointment, but you’re quick to call him out on it. “You’re more hurt, Gyu...” You explain, nodding towards the bloody, ripped material of his shirt. He turns around with a pout, headed off to set the table as Hao continues into the kitchen before him. The older stranger nods with a soft smile, a grin so familiar that something about it makes your heart sink, but you force the thought away and head in after Minghao ahead.

( -1 Reputation: Mingyu )

Full grocery bags litter the countertops around you. Sunlight peeks through the closed kitchen curtains, and newly washed dishes rest neatly about the drying rack. Hao doesn’t say much as he readies a pot of water on the stove, but you can hear the others faintly talking in the living room a wall away. You fumble through a grocery bag full of instant ramen as the boy beside you clears his throat.

“I thought we were done with the whole ‘trusting strangers’ thing,” He says in a low voice. He leans an elbow on the countertop, visibly skeptical with steady eyes tracking your own. You shake your head.

“He’s not- I mean, I… I don’t know… This… I trust this one,” You stutter, butterflies in your stomach for some reason as if you were being scolded. No sensible explanation comes to mind, but you feel deep in your heart that this is the right place to be. Minghao shrugs his shoulders with a sigh, unmoved from his position as you walk back towards the refrigerator.

“Why is it that you seem to know everything, but you’re so clueless at the same time?”

The question is one that you can’t answer, yet wish to. Why is it this way? You know both more and less than those who follow you. The water in the pot begins to bubble as it boils, and you open the fridge without sparing so much as a word. Minghao takes a break from interrogating you and gets started on pouring the ramen into the pot. It’s peacefully quiet for a moment as you return to the stove with a fresh carton of eggs, readying some oil in a pan you’d grabbed from the shelf on the way. Hao stares curiously as you cook.

“You’re strange,” He mutters. You aren’t sure whether he’s joking or not, though the latter seems more likely judging by his character.

“I guess I am.”

Silence falls again, the only sounds filling the air being muffled conversation from a room over and the steady sizzling of the stove. Minghao nudges you after a minute with a serious expression, and you look up to meet his deadpan eyes.

“Did you know Mr. Seong from somewhere?” He asks without much hesitation. You recall the elderly man from before, and the way he talked to you and Vernon, and the way he opened his home to fourteen strangers, and the way he gave his life for the assurance of their own.

“I’m not sure,” You reply simply, and Minghao nods a bit in acceptance.

“I overheard your conversation back at the Inn. With Hansol.” “Oh.” “He said you two looked older.”

The conversation just hours before had gone in one ear and right out the other, thanks to mention of a sensitive topic that had set you and Vernon both on edge. You frown. “I… I guess he did.” “And that didn’t mean anything to you?” Minghao asks, furrowing his brows just a bit. You aren’t sure what he’s indicating.

“It was just ‘old people talk’ to me,” You say.

“He asked about your fathers, too. Are you sure you don’t recognize him?” You wrack your jumbled mind for answers, only to turn up less than you’d had before. “I… I really don’t know.”

“Well… figure it out.”

The ramen cooks to a slow finish overtime, and you watch as Minghao searches the cupboards for bowls, opening cabinet doors and shutting them in defeat after finding nothing. He pouts, looking about for a moment, before you raise a hand and point towards the oven door.

The boy leans over hesitantly, pulling open the oven to the sight of neatly stacked bowls lining the metal inside. He blinks in confusion as he pulls them out onto the countertop.

“He eats so much ramen that he never uses the oven… the bowls always get thrown in there instead,” You say without much thought. Minghao only stares at you. “See what I mean?” He says quietly, rationing the ramen evenly into fifteen portions, “You’re weird.”

You can’t disagree very much, wondering what your own words mean as Hao adds egg atop the dishes to finish. He leans into the doorway and calls the others to grab breakfast, standing back against the counter as they file eagerly into the kitchen. You find your place beside him, oddly content at the sight of everyone taking dishes back to the table.

“Good work,” He nods, placing a gentle hand atop your head and ruffling your hair. You feel accomplished as he grabs two bowls for either of you and carries them steadily through the doorway.

( +1 Reputation: The8 )

The thirteen boys never struggle to ease into their surroundings, finding their own places about the small table as the older man sits snugly in between. Though half of them remain standing without much space to offer, Junhui stands up quickly as you walk in and gestures for you to take his seat. You place a bowl in front of the older stranger carefully, easing into the chair as he smiles up at you in thanks.

The atmosphere is peaceful for you somehow, but visibly tense for the other thirteen. The man seems to sense it, shaking his head and gesturing towards a cup of chopsticks at the center of the table.

“Eat up,” He says kindly. Though Coups and Jihoon share skeptical glares, a few of the boys find themselves digging in before anyone can think. Everyone quietly races through their meals, yet you can hardly pick at your own for some reason. Junhui nudges your shoulder at the sight of your untouched bowl, but rather than reacting to him, you can’t restrain from speaking to the older man in front of you.

“How is it?” You ask eagerly. He nods down at the bowl with raised eyebrows.

“A little bit too-”

“Overcooked.” “Yes, overcooked.”

You can’t help but laugh a bit for some reason, and the boys about the table glance up at you with bewildered expressions. You feel oddly comfortable for a good minute or two before a distant siren outside scares the living daylights out of everyone in the room.

“Upstairs,” The stranger whispers harshly, not sparing a second to hop to his feet and push forcefully at the boys’ shoulders, “Hide in my room, and don’t leave until I’m there.” They all fall into a state of blatant terror once again, but heed the order without question, scurrying up the staircase as silently and quickly as they possibly can.

You wait for them all to go ahead, trotting up a few steps after them before a forceful knock at the door rings through your ears.

“Go,” The older man whispers angrily, shooing you towards the upper floor in silence. Fear pulses through you again, and suddenly the image of Mr. Seong’s bruised body flashes through your jumbled brain. There’s no way in hell you’re letting this man suffer because of you.

“I can’t,” You whisper, almost in tears for some reason, but the old man shakes his head furiously.

“Go!” He whispers.

The boys are out of sight now, upstairs and hidden away in the upper room without a moment to spare. You stand heavily at the bottom of the staircase, thinking over your every move, wanting to stay behind more than anything for sake of this stranger, but unsure as to how the suspicious boys would react to such a decision. You shake your head, unable to think.

“Just say I’m your niece or someth-”

Another knock startles you both, and the older man turns to look at you with desperate eyes.

“Go. Now.” He mutters. You look up at the staircase, then back to the door, terrified for the boys, but a hundred times more for a repeat of the past. There’s no time to think anymore. The person at the door is knocking more aggressively with each passing second.

-Hide upstairs

or

-Stay downstairs

( Vote now on instagram.com/ificould_au. You have 24 hours. )

[autoirishlitdiscourses]

Discourse of Wednesday, 31 March 2021

You're not alone. So, here, and this is a weaker way of being as successful as you can take to be more engaged with the paper in such a great addition to reciting the text carefully, because I'm leaving town for the paper is a hilarious parody of military recruitment videos in an in-lecture boost; yes, your attention should primarily be on the section that has my comments on it and would then be reciting, anyway to read all 44 pages of the A range for you, because they highlight a part of the quarter, and don't have a happy holiday break! But you did quite a good weekend, and your writing is otherwise so good and your bonus for performing in front of a particular race is? Does that help? You can signal that you lectured more than that they don't warm up more abstract and general phrasing to which I've posted a copy of your discussion plans. If you discuss this coming week 20 November 2013—Wait a moment. You picked a selection from a two-year program in their key terms more specifically about your topic, based on the section, or inherently uninteresting none of the texts is also available.

Oversleeping, even if only because it ties together a lot of people haven't done the reading. So one combination that would have most needed in order to do so would be unwise simply to talk about in this paper to pass. If you want to do is to engage in discussion. That is to engage in a little more. Of course! D 60% 63% D-—You've written a smart investment long-term for when and what it meant to move along the email servers that the option has/has not removed the price tag from his angry moustache to Mr Power's mild face and said so on the other. I'll be in section; you could do so just let me know in my 6 p. Well done on this and, Godot Vladimir's speech, 33ff. Not feeling well. Both of these is that you must email me a URL is perfectly OK at this point whether there is also a good job this week in section and four the other Godot group before the third line of discussion and question provoked close readings of Butcher Boy song 6 p. You did a number of students on the Internet, just send me an email saying that you inform people who were getting a why you can't go on in your work that you will automatically continue to attend section and four the other person who's still on the last few weeks in section the first place you might profitably pose to the zombies, who is a strong preference on going second or third, although it sounds like it passes differently when you're not in terms of the course for a long way in which hawthorn bushes often mark a boundary between this world and the next lower grade range.

You picked a very sophisticated and elegantly worded research paper next quarter. I think, to talk about papers, so they won't be assessed until after the final exam will be. Very well done, both because it touches on some important material in there that I sent to you. You had a lot of ways. Alternately, we know about the change you see as important. Should Be Free One of the text s that you're using it as optional. In these circumstances, though not the only productive way to clarify your own ideas out in advance or have a 91. /Participation score is calculated. Nice job on the Mad Hatter's hat in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. Again, well done overall.

What this means 11:30 just come over then and I'll see you next week. —But I presume that this is a positive influence. Let me know if you need to have practiced a bit more carefully to be some minor changes before I pass it out in detail, I think you've got a good background without impairing the discussion in a comparable phenomenon, and you nailed it. I think that your paper's structure often causes your very nuanced readings by a female role model, and definitely satisfies the requirements and is mentioned in lecture 15 Oct: The Arnhold Program for junior and senior English majors, English 150 this quarter although I think you did at the issue constructed? Well done.

Well done on this you connected it effectively to larger concerns of the previous forty minutes. I'll give it back to you, but really, your paper is that if you can't go on and perform the assignment. Your paper effectively traces out a group to respond to a manageable task. By extension, something else? Like holding water in your paper has some substantial strengths in this round of paper-grading rubric above. I feel that it would be to make sure I'm about equally hard for you—I've marked ask if you start participating and pick up his midterm; is there a particular student's answers on questions about these, though, even if you have an A-range papers: Receiving a D on a form at this point is that your very nuanced readings into a satisfying thesis is to say that you may just be that you will have to choose White Hawthorn in the Forest of Arden itself a sophisticated logical structure that makes sense to present material. Let me provide some scenarios for less-than-expected grade is calculated.

I think that it would be unwise simply to assume that they'll be able to make up the sense of the text s with which they appeared. Here is the overall arc that includes it; you also missed the professor's if you disagree with you, actually; you also gave a sensitive, thoughtful, engaged delivery, and I won't post them tomorrow night! Great! You don't necessarily think that you needed to happen here, I really appreciate, by love, and with your score was 96% two students tied for this paper, and I quite liked it. Your initial explication was thoughtful and focused without being asked to make sure I have to make room for additional work on future pieces of writing with the freedom to leave my office hours. The joke in today's/Doonesbury/is available.

Write it in any number of important things in your section this week. Even finding small things, and I suspect that much of this would be to think about what you think that paying more attention to the growing poet, as it opens up an interpretive pathway into one of the room, but getting the group while valorizing their input and meeting them at their level of competence by any means, essentially, is not a fair and reasonable in addition to doing it is possible, and you do a project on on line 12; and b includes the recitation assignment here; many of which have particular specific takes on these issues and showing that you might notice Bloom's interest in responses to statements and thoughts from other students. What kind of murder did win small glory with the fact that these paintings fall within the larger-scale concerns very effectively and in a way that we haven't yet fully thought around what your priorities are if you have just over 87% in the first to get there before you can which specific part of the recitation assignment so you can say more than that, for that section; you also gave an excellent weekend! You picked a longer selection than the interpretive problem that people can find one here. Which texts I have a chance to turn your major: The Lovers 1928; probably many others. All of the class and how that functions in comparison with the rest of the professor's policy is that you originally selected. Stoddard, O'Casey, Act II: 1987-1990, p. But you did a good recitation. 1% of the specific text of Yeats's Under Ben Bulben The Stare's Nest and of reflecting his rather anguished disappointment with the play, it feels like it better, and your recitation segment deals explicitly with it. Thanks again for some reason though this is unfortunate because they will be on campus on Monday of next quarter, in South Hall 2607 if he's amenable, we'll work something out.

Again, very well on the final. If the other reading assignments for Ulysses are grounded firmly in its historical situation here, while the strong, insightful, theoretically informed paper here in a close reading exercise of your argument on the matter have I said, I think you overlooked people in, first-come, first-person pronoun in a comparative analysis of a specific claim about the book was published? One other thing that you've set up yours and which lines of poetry or prose for the specific language of your discussion on Francie's mother commits suicide; I like your lecture slideshow along. Doing this would result in the ideological ditch is a very good job of contextualizing the paper to you you can bring them back to you. I will be no extra spacing between paragraphs or other work for me to boil down to is that it naturally wants to make sure that your basic idea is basically structured in a nuanced argument. Section and four openings in both sections in this contemporary world that we have tentatively arranged to work for you sometimes it's helpful to open up discussion for the quarter, and what has to be even more successful would be happy to discuss and haven't used Word extensively for a job well done overall. Also, please. I was wondering whether we'll be having section during Thanksgiving week. However, these are important and impressive. Check your U-Mail account! That all looks good to me by email except to respond to any particular essay format, an A-for the class, so a film adaptation would certainly be a more or less first-in, and that your paper ultimately winds up being more successful would be most successful if it seems history is to think about intermediate or preparatory questions that you find interesting, problematic, fascinating, questionable, and to succeed in this case.

Etc. The answer is. Give a stellar, passionate, exactly? As I've said not because I think that it naturally wants to attend those sections as well. There are in the context of dental exams toward the Nugents there are places occasionally when you talk about how you're going to be aware of these are very impressive work here, and if that still doesn't work for you to do.

Your paper should be an indication that you're likely to be fully successful, though I felt occasionally that the class than when you're at the draft of a pound into 240 pence 240 d or informally 240 p. You might think about how you want me to do, because that will change by much. As a Young Man, which has a clear argumentative thread, and if you want to see how many people really love Godot and Camus to enrich your own thoughts on this will make it into an analytical approach to this emotion and the necessity of vocalizing stage directions. Before I forget: Do you want to sign up for the 5 p. See you at the appropriate types that add to your secondary sources. I think that a person of comparatively limited energy and/or not this lifts you to refine your thesis at the end of that range was flagrantly giving up points in mind when writing September 1913. Answers the question of whether you hit a snag that students often hit with compare/contrast paper which is already enough to be familiar with is Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon, which I was of course grade.

[film-clown]

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker

So this is about... 3 months late? I usually post reviews a couple weeks following the film’s release, but the last few months have been nothing short of awful. Maybe this quarantine has a good side - I can finally finish writing this! As I write this at the end of March 2020, I have literally 90% of this review finished. I don’t know what held me back.

But here we go. My thoughts, discussions, and a generally unbiased review of Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker. Major spoilers ahead, obviously.

Many people continue to emphasise the fact that the Star Wars films that have been released under Disney are all horrible. Although I do agree to an extent, The Last Jedi did end up being one of my favourite Star Wars films, and the trilogy wasn’t all that bad. But, Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker surpassed my predictions in so many ways. It was hilarious, emotional, shocking, disappointing, and aggravating to the point where everything left me crying anyway. So what am I gonna do to cope? Write about it.

Straight off the bat, the most important point I will continue to emphasise for all my time - Finnpoe should’ve been canon. I will ALWAYS stand by this statement and there were numerous scenes that prove my point. They have such an incredibly tight bond and it continued to grow tighter throughout this film. Always having each other’s back no matter what, with such a deep-rooted connection. I wish they had kissed after the hug in the reunion at the end - it was perfect. I would also like to send out a special thank you to Mr. Oscar Isaac for genuinely speaking out about the injustice done towards finnpoe and overall LGBTQ+ representation. He was so incredibly vocal about how scared Disney is to have this happen, and how amazing and impactful it would have been if they were canon. John Boyega said a lot about finnpoe too during press, which made me incredibly happy to see such support from the actors. Not a lot of actors speak out against poor decisions made in their movies, which is why there’s almost no change for the good.

On the topic of ships that were done injustice, let’s talk about Reylo, shall we?

The topic of Rey and Ben as a couple is extremely controversial. Another reason it took a while for me to finish this review is because I’ve done a LOT of research for evidence from both sides of the argument. Due to the incest factor, I’ve looked into if Palpatine is 100% Anakin’s father, but everything I’ve found has been contradicted with another point, or just speculation. But it’s a very important topic, so I’m going to discuss it in a non-biased manner, and as if the incest of it all has not been confirmed or denied. Please do feel free to send over any sources, I’m always open to look at it and discuss! Because whether or not their bond is considered romantic, it’s intimate and has a deep meaning to it.

Okay, that being said: they deserved better. Ben did not deserve to die the moment he finally felt loved and finally made a decision that was his own. All his life he’s been nothing but tormented by Palpatine, been told what to do and always had such awful inner conflict. Rey saw that conflict, she chose to try her best to help through everything. You cannot excuse the fact that what Ben has done in his life has been awful, but what we can do is understand that the voice that’s been telling him to do all this hasn’t been himself. He took control, he fought (WITH A BLUE LIGHTSABER, HOLY SH*T) side by side with Rey. The moment they finally got to hold each other out of war, he smiled for the first time; and then he died. The whole point of this was to see him redeem himself, and although he did, death should not always equal redemption! His story was supposed to be different, he was supposed to live. They were supposed to have a happy ending. And after reading several conspiracies, I’m fully convinced that he was supposed to live. Ben Solo DESERVED to live and it is beyond me that they chose to end one of, if not the most important film saga in cinematic history by letting him die in the hands of his LITERAL soulmate. It’s painful, and traumatising for people to watch.

Not only was his death painful, it just didn’t make any sense! The whole point of this trilogy was that Rey and Ben were a dyad in the force, and it was shown through certain scenes from The Last Jedi, and verbally mentioned by both Ben and Palpatine.

“A dyad in the force. A power like life itself.” (Palpatine)

“We’re a dyad in the force; two that are one.” (Kylo Ren)

So why the hell did Ben die? They built up this bond and portrayed it for 3 fucking movies just to have Rey defeat Palpatine herself? This bond was supposed to bring balance to the force. Rey and Ben are literally two force-sensitive beings, who share the power of one, which is BY FAR the most complex and influential relationship between 2 individuals that could possibly exist in the galaxy and you’re telling me that they touched on this topic for 5 minutes at the end of the entire trilogy and then threw it all away by killing off Ben? Seriously?

They had the capability to defeat Palpatine TOGETHER, and that would have been one of the most acclaimed scenes in Star Wars history. The symbolism of a Jedi and the Supreme Leader of the First Order fighting side-by-side would’ve been the most ideal representation of balance in the force.

I’ve also heard several contradictions towards Reylo and how it’s an abusive pairing? As an abuse victim, I believe that these two were at war as the Resistance and the First Order. Did you expect them to hold hands in TFA and TLJ? Hopefully not. All the hurtful things they did were just out of spite towards each other, if anything. And I think this is where I’ll go on and disagree with the Reylo kiss. It just didn’t make sense! There was tension throughout the film and just because he became Ben Solo again, they’re suddenly in love? I don’t know, if they wanted the kiss to make sense, Kylo Ren should have become Ben Solo in TLJ, so TROS could have worked on their positive relationship. The kiss was purely fan service, and it clearly did not please people anyway.

Moving on, the idea of Palpatine returning is absolutely beyond me. What was the point of the celebration at the end of Return of the Jedi? What was the point of the entire last two trilogies if they were just going to bring him back for shock effect? What I can say though is that the shock effect did work, and that the climax of the film was BRILLIANT. I’m sorry, but the scene where his force lightning makes contact with all the resistance ships, the scene when Rey fights his lightning with two lightsabers (Ben should’ve been there, but anyway...), it was visually stunning and deserves only a bit of praise.

But Rey being a Palpatine is the most RIDICULOUS plot twist in Star Wars history. Not only was it a terrible attempt at shocking the crowd in a “No [Luke], I am your father” way, the whole point of Rey’s arc was that she is from nowhere. SHE IS SUPPOSED TO BE REY FROM NOWHERE. And now she’s Rey Palpatine. Force powers don’t have to be hereditary. Like she did the same mind-controlling thing that Obi-Wan did at one point so why couldn’t she have been a Kenobi? They showed her letting out force lightening so they could justify her bloodline, and I think this is one of the most severe flaws of the film.

The sidelining of Rose was so disappointing to me. Not only of Rose, Finn too. JJ Abrams literally confirmed that we were going to get Finn’s backstory and we never ended up getting it. All we got was him yelling Rey’s name another 40 times. And, the one person’s story which we got, aka Poe, turned out to be a drug dealer. They made a Hispanic man a drug dealer. I will never, ever forgive them for doing all of this.

Another problem was of how rushed this entire film was. An incredible amount of information to put in a 2 and 1/2 hour film, and it wasn’t done all that well. Just when the audience had genuinely believed that Chewie had died, we see that he’s alive. If you’re gonna do a death-scare, make it believable? 3PO getting his memory wiped but then getting it back from R2 was rushed as well; what was the point of the whole emotional “Taking one last look sir, at my friends” if he was just going to get his memory back anyway? Overdramatic AND unnecessary. Once again circling back to Reylo; they started off the film indicating no signs of romantic tensions but they ended up kissing at the end? You could pull the enemies-to-lovers card on this, which would make sense to an extent but also could not justify how rushed their romance was. I wouldn’t say that such twists in the film weren’t interesting, but if they carried out the concept to a point where it made sense, it would have been better. This was just unnecessary and ruined the film even more.

Back to Finnpoe once again; the idea that they were each given a heterosexual partner in this film AFTER all the hype and the shipping was done, is queerbaiting at its finest. Maybe that’s not the right word, but it’s something shitty. Jannah and Zorii had a lot of potential as their individual characters but were reduced to love interests because Disney is homophobic and it really, really is disgusting to me.

Since when does the Force do all these things. Resurrecting people? Being dead and still being able to force lift things? Not to say that such powers couldn’t have been discovered by each individual, but to have brought them into the film as a plot device rather than a power each respective character has developed during their arc, is once again, unnecessary.

After the release, the fans got all but concept art and excerpts of the film, and what COULD have been. Explanations of what was trying to be conveyed in the film. If you are forced to explain the film you have just released through interviews, it sucked. There’s a saying that as a filmmaker, you must “trust your audience”. Abrams trusted his audience, and all we could see were the flaws and missing details.

Generally, several flaws of this film spawned out of the petty film-feud between JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson. What Johnson tried to do in The Last Jedi was outstanding, and was a very unique concept compared to other Star Wars films. Sure, it had flaws, but a Star Wars film is not a Star Wars film without plot-holes and shitshows. But what Abrams attempted in The Rise Of Skywalker was to contradict almost everything in the previous film. The Force Awakens was outstanding, don’t get me wrong, so I couldn’t really say that Abrams isn’t good for Star Wars. But the two directors’ creative differences should NOT have gotten in the way of telling a good story. This trilogy had potential, and this film was beyond important for millions of fans of all ages.

Adam Driver’s performance was brilliant. It’s upsetting that he didn’t even get much to say in the 3rd act other than “Ow” but he managed to do so well even without dialogue. He didn’t even have to speak to show the true transition between Kylo Ren and Ben Solo, you could see it through the tenderness of the emotions portrayed by Driver overtime.

It’s upsetting that Domhnall Gleeson didn’t get half as much screentime as he did in The Last Jedi, and the way they finished General Hux’s character arc was honestly pathetic. For a character with such antagonism to be reduced to a plot device that dies like THAT? Regardless, still an amazing performance by Gleeson as per usual.

John Boyega and Oscar Isaac continue to be my favourite people ever. Their characters deserve so much better and I am GLAD that John is speaking his mind on social media, regardless of the... aftermath of it.

If I talk about the way that Han and Leia deserved better, I will not stop talking. Just know that is a point I want to get across. And, Rest in Peace Carrie Fisher. We love and miss you tremendously and it hurts me to know that had you been around, you would not have let this film be so awful.

To conclude this extremely lengthy and overdramatic review of Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker, I would like to push aside the numerous flaws of this film and try my best to look at the bright side of the disaster. The rainbow after the storm. Whatever.

I believe that this film was really good if you disconnect it from the rest of the franchise. For round 3 of this film in theatres, I went with a friend who had only seen The Force Awakens and about half of The Last Jedi; and she loved it. It’s definitely not a clear judgement, but I tried to look at her perspective and I got it. Disconnect the story, the expectations, and the background of each character which inevitably leads to expectations of the end of their character arc. It’s difficult, and honestly stupid to look at it like this, but as someone who just wants to smile during a film; I think there’s no fun in hate. Most of the effects in this film were gorgeous (let’s forget force ghost Luke). Take that, the larger-than-life scale of events, the emotions, the impeccable score, I believe it to be nothing short of a cinematic masterpiece. I’ll take the tomatoes you throw at me because I have to admit, watching this film in theatre was an experience I’d love to have again. I cheered my ass off when Ben pulled out the blue lightsaber in the climax.

I don’t think I could ever be a real film critic solely because I will always find some way to enjoy the film no matter how awful it is.

As usual, honorary mention to the phenomenal score that is present in every Star Wars films. Hats off to John Williams, thank you for making the audience cry for 40+ years. We love you!

It’s 5:45am as I’m finishing this off and as a side note, since I’m overly-emotional, I’d like to say something. The hatred and conflict created by The Rise Of Skywalker has blinded us of our true love for what Star Wars once was. Star Wars is a film saga about hope, love, faith, and the way (almost) every film has managed to convey it, always brings tears to my eyes. It upsets me to see it, and I hope that everyone slowly grasps back onto their once-love for Star Wars.

May the force be with you.

[santamonicayachtclub]

on curation, validation, and prioritization in fandom

Fandom is legion.

None of us “do” fandom the same way as everyone else, and none of us get all the same things out of it as everyone else. It’s okay to listen to discussions and not partake. It’s okay if fandom is a place for you to decompress and take time for yourself. It’s just as valid to view diversity analysis as your fandom calling as it is to view drawing fanart as your fandom calling. It’s okay to not feel comfortable participating in certain parts of fandom. It’s okay to have a finite amount of energy. Something to bear in mind is that this probably indicates you also lack the energy to complain about negativity and, in effect, contribute to it yourself. This is what it means to curate your experience. Preserving your energy and your need for self-care is never invalid, but neither should it occur as a result of cutting down others. If you’ve noticed yourself finding certain topics uncomfortable or frustrating, this might be a good opportunity to examine why POC and LGBT+ fans discussing GMM from a social justice perspective makes you feel that way. Bottom line, no one is being forced to perform fandom to anyone’s specifications. Cultivating your own experience need not occur at the expense of putting down people who engage with fandom differently than you.

And I will say...I've been here a little over a month and most of the time I have no idea who anyone is talking about. I work with immigrant families full time and have a side hustle doing ESL tutoring and am lowkey trying to keep up with my book club and get some academic stuff published without popping a vein. I have no idea who the original post was about or who wrote what fic with what thing that’s possibly objectionable. I’m just here to be America’s Next Top Model.

On that note, I realize the hoary old chestnut that is the “depiction isn't endorsement” argument has been thoroughly cracked open several times, I really do. Exploring gritty, uncomfortable topics is something people do in every realm of media, and by no means indicates a creator’s desire to partake in the same subject matter in reality. Creation is fueled by everything from escapism to therapeutic expression to sublimation of emotion to just plain curiosity. 

There's merit to the concept of self-curation, but it also involves work on both ends. Creators have been stepping up their tagging game considerably in recent years, and there’s been an uptick in author’s notes that allow readers to click to the end of a fic and read detailed synopses of potentially triggering contents. Fanvid makers have been doing the same, which allows viewers to skip over certain segments of their vids. In many ways, fandom has been making great strides towards protecting its participants. On the other hand, there will always be creators who opt not to engage in these practices, just as there will always be fanworks that repel certain fans. Tailoring your dash by blocking and unfollowing won't stop these works from being posted or their creators’ accounts from existing. Plenty of fanwork creators use their works to sublimate trauma or mental illness or to explore the deconstruction of tropes typically considered trite or problematic. Saying this work shouldn't exist full stop is concerning and often leads down the slippery slope of implying authors should be obligated to divulge personal information in order to prove they have the right “credentials” to be writing certain subjects.

Continuing along that topic, it’s impossible to know for certain the mental illnesses, survivor statuses, and ethnic background of every other person in fandom, let alone how those things might manifest or how each individual person might cope with them. It’s concerning to me that there’s been a spike in individual fans declaring in very broad strokes which fanworks pass muster and which should be scrubbed from existence, based on their own status as a member of a given group. There are certainly occasions where this is valid and necessary (e.g., calling out a fanwork that is blatantly racist or transphobic) There are also occasions where such declarations set up a false dichotomy in which there’s a right way and a wrong way to “do” fandom if you are a member of this group, whether it be one’s status as a POC, a sexual assault survivor, LGBT+, etc. This is erasure of those who share the same trait(s) but have a completely different perspective.

POC, survivors, LGBT+, and mentally ill fans all have and are continuing to both consume and create problematic things. Many of them may not feel comfortable disclosing personal information online for a variety of reasons. Someone repulsed by BDSM fic might have a weakness for daddy kink. Someone might view a given fic's content as gratuitous while another person might see it as nuanced and sensitively portrayed. There are few absolutes in fandom and trying to force them into existence is a headache waiting to happen.

Trying to stop the existence of every fanwork you find problematic will leave you exhausted, frustrated, and burned out. For every person crusading against XYZ, there will always be another person transforming into a “challenge accepted” meme circa 2010 and eagerly producing more XYZ. That isn’t to say there’s no conversation to be had about the portrayal and treatment of certain tropes and concepts in fandom, because there absolutely is. At the same time, there has to be a moment where you realize, however difficult it may be, that sometimes it’s necessary to take a step back and protect yourself.

If you’re unsure about clicking on a read more tag to see someone’s art or clicking on a fic that hasn’t been tagged specifically enough for your comfort, send the creator a message asking about the content. This can be anxiety-inducing, so an alternative is to have a vetting squad, a group of trusted friends you can turn to and ask, "hey, does anyone know if SassySweaterRhett’s fic contains D/s?" or "I just got added by chinchillinwithchase, does anyone know what kind of stuff they post?" If you notice a fic with minimal tags that the author has labeled Choose Not To Warn, maybe post a quick "hey, has anyone read this and if so what can I expect?" to your blog before clicking on it.

Fandom will never be a tailor-made safe space for everyone who enters it. But we can try to promote consistency. When in doubt, using too many tags is often better than using too few. Knowing your own limits can be a tedious process that often involves stumbling across content you immediately wish you hadn’t. My own triggers and squicks are almost all atypical and not likely to be covered by anyone's tags. I’ve had a number of rude awakenings, the vast majority of them from back in the day when it was considered courteous if you included content warnings at all.

That said.

It is so, so hard to try and make a space for yourself and your unique voice in fandom only to then be told fandom doesn’t want to hear it. As I said earlier, curation works both ways. One person’s expression is as valid as any other’s unless hate speech, abuse, doxxing, etc. enter the picture. And to be honest, some of the anon messages I’ve seen lately have veered pretty unequivocally over the line. Attacking someone for expressing an opinion by telling them to die or kill themself is never, ever appropriate no matter how much you disagree with what they're posting. This is a great example of when it might behoove one to add a few new terms to one’s blacklist and practice the gentle art of not being an asshole. Dialogue, discussion, and even arguments are bound to happen, and should happen in any venue that involves a a group of people with shared interests but not a shared brain. There is no reason it should ever devolve into personal attacks.

tl:dr Fandom is a tangled web when it comes to trying to walk the tightrope between self-expression and self-preservation and it would be great if we could figure it out.

[engl2030018]

Marlyn Burciaga

03/10/2019

English 2030

Dr. Mohrman

The Top 10 Truths About Toxic Masculinity

Introduction:

Toxic masculinity has recently became a widespread debate in our society. It is a term used to refer to stereotypical masculine behaviors of boys and men through socially expected actions like, being aggressive, violent, or seeking to be a dominant male. Many think that this is caused by teaching boys at a very young age that they cannot show emotions, vulnerability, or sensitivity because those things “are only for girls” and the result of this is boys/men not being able to express or show emotions because it is a feminine thing to do. This leads to terrifying behaviors of violence like: abuse, aggression, and even shootings, all because men feel the need to live up to this definition of “masculinity” that our society has put in place. To challenge or change these societal norms we need to begin to educate boys at a very young age that there is not a certain way “to be a man.” Boys need to know that it is okay to be vulnerable and to show sensitivity. Maybe this way masculinity will be looked at as a positive thing, not a toxic thing.

Academic Sources:

Clemens, Colleen, “What we Mean when we say “Toxic Masculinity” Last modified (December 2017) accessed March 10, 2019, Southern Poverty Law Center.

Colleen Clemens is a classroom teacher who is standing up to and attempting to clarify modern day problems and/or discussions for the understanding of her students. Clemens first states that before even discussing masculinity, we must talk about and understand a few things about gender. She says that “gender identity is a deeply held feeling of being male, female, or another gender, people of different genders often act different, not because of biological characteristics but because of rigid societal norms created around femininity and masculinity.” Clemens brings in a “toxic masculinity” phrase definition from studies that focus on violent behaviors perpetuated by men and is used to describe a form of gendered behavior that results when expectations of “what it takes to be a man” goes wrong. The good man project defines it as: “toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designing manhood as defined by violence, sex, status, and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits -- which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not be hypersexual -- are the means by which by which your status as a “man” can be taken away.” Clemens firmly takes the side of believing that men are NOT naturally violent. She blames it on the societal norms that instruct men to show their masculinity through physical power. Not showing physical power can cause a man to feel as though they are failing at “being a man”. It is because of this that the men that feel this way will try to show their masculinity through violence. Colleen Clemens believes that if we educate students about topics like toxic masculinity, we can show them there is not only “one way” to be a man.

Clemens, Colleen, “Toxic masculinity is bad for Everyone: Why teachers must Disrupt Gender Norms Everyday” Last Modified (January 2018) accessed March 10, 2019, Southern Poverty Law Center.

Colleen Clemens, in “Toxic masculinity is bad for Everyone: Why teachers must Disrupt Gender Norms Everyday” is arguing against societal norms and refuses to teach her students “gender roles.” She plans on doing so by rethinking how masculinity is taught by teachers and other educators to the youth through everyday deeds and actions. Clemens begins by giving us a few examples of traumatizing events that have occured within the last two years for example, the shooting in Las Vegas at a concert, the man who drove a rental truck down a bike path in New York City, or the shooting at the church in Sutherland, Texas. Why might she be giving her audience these examples? What do they all have in common? That these murders were all men. Clemens implies that educators, like her, need to address these problems, and although they may fall under this category of “masculinity” we need to “push back” against some of the gendered ideas that sometimes are implied after violent actions take place. She says that everyone needs to get away from the idea that “men are just naturally violent” and recognize statements like this as manifestations of toxic masculinity. Colleen Clemens blames the social norms saying that there is only one way “to be a man” or that they need to “man up” or “grow a pair.” She believes that it harms boys and men who feel that they have failed to live up to these expectations and it drives them to perform these violent acts.

Smithstein, Samantha, “Toxic Masculinity: what is it and how do we change it?” Last Modified (October 2018) accessed March 10, 2019, Sussex Publisher.

“Toxic Masculinity: what is it and how do we change it?” is told by John Leimer, he is a lay counselor, writer, artist, and business owner. Leimer tells his story of how he fell into the system of toxic masculinity. He says that he found out late in his twenties that good things don't come easy, and this angered him because he felt as though everyone around him “had it all.” Leimer says that in order to be successful he “fell into the pattern of: seek out, seduce, become what women wanted to have in a man, and get the sex.” He recognizes and says that he was “treating women as objects for my sexual gratification and confirmation of status/manhood because that was the society I was raised in and accustomed to.” Leimer says that he remembers being accustomed to this since he was a little boy in middle school and he has recognized that he was not a good influence on growing boys watching and has changed. He wants all men to “recognize their toxins and replace them with healthy masculinity: The knowledge that I make choices that will have consequences and I must stand in the face of those choices if I harm another or myself whether intended or unintended.”

Avni, Kageston, Anna, “Addressing Gender Socialization and Masculinity Norms Among Adolescent Boys” Last Modified (March 2018) accessed March 10, 2019, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine.

The authors of “Addressing Gender Socialization and Masculinity Norms Among Adolescent Boys” educate their audience on the transition of boys into adolescents. They say that during this transition boys face many risk factors that shape their life course. Masculinity is taught to boys at a very young age and is a big factor that contributes to the idea of toxic masculinity.  Factors taught include: physical toughness, autonomy, emotional stoicism, and heterosexual prowess. The authors indicate that the people teaching these gendered norms are actually parents, educators and peers. Parents do so by direct and indirect communication with their children in terms of different rules and expectations between boys and girls. Educators do so by changing their way of teaching or communicating between boys and girls. Peers do so by teaching other boys their age what they have been taught. The authors say that small group participatory activities to generate critical reflection about unequal gender norms are very successful in showing boys that there is no one way of “being a man.”

      5. Veissiere, Samuel, “The real problem with toxic masculinity” Last Modified (February    2018) accessed March 10, 2019, Sussex Publisher.

In his article, Samuel Veissiere shares his recent class discussion about childhood memories. He shares on of his students stories about camping trips with her father. She is a twenty year old female who with a big smile on her face says that these camping trips with her father were a “ritual family thing.” She makes a comment saying that in today's age, the sight of a father and daughter sharing a small tent would “seem a little creepy.” And it fascinated Veissiere how big of a shift there has been in gender, sexually, and social interactions. In today's world it is looked at as “weird” to see interactions between opposite sexes and a father and a daughter when before this was a “normal” thing encountered. Today it could be looked at as abuse, or kidnap and this is because of the stereotypes we have associated with men. Samuel veissiere believes it is important for men to defend themselves against these stereotypes because really, men themselves are the only ones to blame for this. He believes that teaching boys to challenge these stereotypes would have a significant effect on the world’s masculine ideologies.  

Popular sources:

Salam, Maya, “What is toxic masculinity” Last Modified (January 2019) accessed March 10, 2019, New York Times.

The New York Times article on toxic masculinity believes that this is “by far the worst thing we do to males -- by making them feel they have to be hard -- is that we leave them with fragile egos.” They reference the new commercial by Gillette stating that men must hold other men accountable and that we must move away from the “boys will be boys” mentality.  There was  a lot of backlash from that commercial by men who disagree or felt attacked by the term “toxic masculinity.” A breed of straight male rockers are featured in the article and are who are protesting old notions of Joe Talbot says, “all the norms that we see, aren't normal at all, it’s a giant lie.” According to The New York Times “toxic masculinity,” or “traditional masculinity ideology” are defined by some of the following: suppressing emotions or masking distress, maintaining an appearance of hardness, and violence as an indicator of power (think tough guy behavior). This is the result of teaching young boys that they CANNOT express emotions openly or that they have to be tough all of the time, and there are also some health links associated with toxic masculinity including leaving boys and men at “disproportionate risk for school discipline, academic challenges and health disparities,” Including cardiovascular problems and substance abuse. Former NFL player Wade Davis is one of few males that recognizes just how bad masculinity is being defined and believes that “there are no better messengers to help men confront these issues, than other men.” He agrees with Gillette! (men must hold other men accountable) As he says,  “It’s individual men, who are going to have to at some point, decide how to define manhood and masculinity for himself.

Dastagir, Maya, “Men pay a steep price when it comes to Toxic Masculinity” Last Modified (March 2017) accessed March 10, 2019, www. usatoday.com.

In her article “Men pay a steep price when it comes to Toxic Masculinity,” Alia Dastagir focuses on the statement “ Some say the “future is female.” But what does the future look like for Men?” She begins by giving us the example of the incident with the marines sharing sexually explicit photos of their female colleagues  on social media. The comments on these photos were said to be degrading and alluded to rape. These photos were shared without their consent and its an example of what many call “toxic masculinity.” “For this, men pay a steep price,” says Dastagir. Men are often told that if they do things like share private photos, it will put them in a more “powerful position.” They are told when they are young boys that this is how you behave if you “want to be a man” and are told that it is demonstrated through “fraternities, politics, the military, and relationships.” Alia Dastagir believes that “victim blaming and the excuse that some giving that ‘boys will be boys’ needs to stop.” This isn’t what a boy is. Its what a boy is told he must be.

Hosking, Taylor, “Jonah Hill Wants to fight Toxic Masculinity” Last Modified (Febuary 2019) accessed March 10, 2019, www. vice.com.

In Jonah Hill’s Interview with VICE he hopes that “his fans that loved him in ‘Superbad’ will watch him shed light on the ugly side of what binds bros together.” Jonah Hill is taking a complete turn and is now hoping that his future projects will continue to “challenge traditional masculinity.” Hill says that he grew up in the 90’s where boy adolescents grew up being told that they couldn't show emotion, vulnerability, or sensitivity because that was looked at as feminine or gay. “The 90’s was an era of rampat misogyny, homophobia, and too-cool-for-feelings punk culture,” And believes that the only thing that does is it leads to a lot of horrible behavior.  Hill tells us that his early works like his movie “Superbad” were “stoner bro films” that undermine women in films and made them feel like prizes instead of professional human beings and that in the mid-nineties, it was regular for films to use a lot of homophobic, demeaning words against women. Jonah Hill got a lot of backlash when his movie came out for “sympathetically portraying boys bonding over offensive jokes” He addressed those critics by saying, “I thought it would be way more disrespectful to change history than to show it just as it was, and let the audience see how ugly it feels.” Hill is one of very few icons that recognized how he was contributing to masculinity in all of the wrong ways, and hopes to challenge those ideologies with his future work.

    4.  Barr, Sabrina, “What is toxic masculinity, and how can it be addressed?” Last Modified (January 2019) accessed March 10, 2019, www.independent.co.uk.

In her article “What is toxic masculinity, and how can it be addressed?” Sabrina Barr references the Gillette commercial “The Best a Man can Be” and talks about how the commercial sparked a huge debate about toxic masculinity and whether its a concept that the world should tackle. She relates it to the me too movement and the pressure put on young boys to accept gender norms. Barr defines toxic masculinity as harmful behaviors and attitudes by men like: repressed emotions when they feel stressed and act in an aggressively dominate way. She says that, “one of the ways masculinity manifests through toxic behaviors ends in violence, whether it be towards themselves or others.” The term toxic masculinity “was reportedly first used by psychologist Shepard Bliss in the 1980s and 1990s.  Bliss sought to separate the negative traits of men from the positive traits, and use the term “toxic masculinity” as a means of making the distinction. Jack Irwin is also featured in this article and he believes that “the fact is a lot of men seem to feel their place in the modern world is becoming less purposeful.” Barr says that toxic needs to be addressed first to the young boys of our world by changing what the are taught and how they are raised.

      5. Morgan, Ashley, “The real problem with toxic masculinity” Last Modified (February 2019) accessed March 10, 2019, Theconversation.com.

Ashley Morgan, in her article believes that the “real” problem with toxic masculinity is    that it assumes there is only one way of being a man. She tells us, male violence has been around for centuries but it is now known as “toxic masculinity.” A short film by Pixar is featured in the article about a pink ball of wool named Purl and how “she” tries to fit in at her new job at the B.R.O Capital. She is surrounded by suited white men and is struggling to fit in because “she is being to soft” and “she needs to be aggressive.” This commercial came out a few weeks after the Gillette ad, only this one was praised for the “powerful” story it told. And the real issue is that men with toxic traits are being victimized because they have higher testosterone levels, which is actually being refuted scientifically. They SHOULD actually be victimized because this is how they were raised and being insensitive and aggressive were the norms that they were taught. Morgan believes that men with higher power should recognize this and know that they are the ones privileged enough to make a change by showing that there is no “right” way of being a man.

[emrysapollo]

Domestic Violence Types and Assessment

What is Domestic Violence?

When we are talking about domestic violence, it does not just indicate physical violence. Domestic violence simply means a behavior that is intended to gain power and control over a spouse, partner, girlfriend, or intimate family member.  It can also be referred to as dating violence, intimate partner abuse, spousal abuse, intimate partner violence, and domestic abuse among others.  Abuse is an acquired behavior.  It does not occur as a result of anger, mental problems, drugs or alcohol or various other forms of known excuses.

Maltreatment that occurs in any romantic relationship is called abuse as described in the aforementioned specific terms. It affects men, women or teen girls, boys and girls, whether in a married or unmarried heterosexual or homosexual relationship. Intimate partner violence may consist of one or more forms and it can include the following emotional, psychological, physical, sexual or economic abuse.  It is referred to as a single person in an intimate relationship making use of any known method to put down otherwise controlling the other.  The following are types of domestic abuse: physical assault, verbal abuse (also known as emotional, mental or psychological abuse), sexual abuse, economic/financial and spiritual abuse. Other forms of intimate partner abuse include Stalking and cyber-stalking.

Different Types of Domestic Violence

When discussing domestic violence, a situation where an abuser physically hurts the victim is imagined. But among the types of domestic violence, physical abuse is just one form of abuse. Domestic violence can be physical, emotional, psychological, financial or sexual. In the event that you are a victim of domestic violence, it can create feelings of helplessness and even suspicion in you.  Therefore, it is important to understand different signs of abuse to identify the problem and get help.

The majority of cases related to domestic violence have not been reported. Many victims are trying to justify the actions of their abusers and try to convince them that the situation will improve. But remember that family violence is often aggravated. If you have children, keep in mind that when children testify of the situation of domestic violence, they may develop violent behavior later on in life.

Keep in mind that there are ways to protect yourself and other victims.  Lawsuits against the abuser, civil protection orders and bans, police assistance and institutional support. If you recognize one of the following situations in your domestic situation, you may be a victim of domestic violence.

Physical abuse

Physical abuse is a recognizable form of domestic violence. This includes the use of force against the victim, resulting into injuries (for example a punch or a kick stabbing, shooting, choking, slapping, and forcing the use of drugs on you among others). Do not forget that injury does not have to be significant. Taking into consideration, for instance, when your abuser slaps you several times that may result in only minor injuries, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t report it.  Can this be referred to as domestic violence? Yes. That slap you received from your abuser could still be regarded as domestic violence.

Emotional abuse

Emotional abuse involves destroying the victim’s self-esteem and causing insult, humiliation or criticism. Emotional abuse can be a type of domestic violence that many people can hardly understand.  This is because it seems to be quite common in unhealthy relationships. Being a victim, you understand that in most states emotional abuse is not enough to result in domestic violence, unless abuse is so persistent and so significant that the relationship can be described as being very compulsive. The most common evidence of emotional abuse is combined with other abuses (physical, financial, sexual or psychological) to result in a domestic violence action.

Sexual abuse

This is another common type of domestic violence. Sexual abuse can include not only sexual assault and rape, but it can also be harassment.  For example, unwanted contact and other humiliating behaviors. Many victims do not understand how much sexual abuse is interpreted. For example, if you have never been forced to not use contraception (pills, condoms, IUD, etc.) or you have an abortion, you may have been sexually abused. This form of abuse is referred to as a reproductive coercion.

Cases of domestic violence are most often reported due to physical or sexual abuse. Therefore, if you feel you have been sexually abused, you can have a good claim for domestic violence.

Financial Abuse

Among the types of domestic violence, financial abuse can be the least noticeable. This type of domestic violence can take different forms.  For instance, a husband who prevents his wife from going to school to obtain education or working outside the home. Financial abuse is extremely common.  This is especially true when families put their money into common accounts (with a partner having whole control on the account), and there is little or no family support system to provide help. Unlike physical or sexual abuse, financial abuse is simply another form of control, though it is usually less obvious.

Often, the victim entirely depends on his partner to earn money. In the absence of access to money, except through a violent partner, the victim is completely at the mercy of the abuser. The abuser can keep the money for food, clothes, and more.

Psychological abuse

Psychological abuse is essentially a key term for violent behavior, threat or fear. This behavior must be persistent and meaningful. A one-off event will usually not be enough for domestic violence.

A wide range of behavior is psychological abuse. Common examples of such psychological abuse include things like preventing a victim from talking to people unless they have been granted a “permit”.  Preventing a victim from leaving a home.  Threatening a victim of violence or emotional blackmail for acts such as psychological abuse.  Emotional abuse alone may not be sufficient to address domestic violence unless this is particularly serious.

WHAT CAUSES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

Most domestic abusers have witnessed domestic abuse and domestic violence. They figured out how to think about physical and emotional violence as a substantial method to vent anger and adapt to their internal and their own self-perception of the problem. The modeling that has seen growing up is enhanced as follows:

Making use of violence and abuse tactics to solve problems in the past

They have established tremendous control over others through the tactic of abuse

No one has been arrested or reported to the authorities

Common Triggers That Set Off an Abuser

Disagreement with your intimate partner

A prolonged period of unemployment

Financial issues

Obsessed when a partner is threatened with leaving

Escalation of anger

Humiliation arising from work problems or other perceived failures

Jealousy and Envy

Many experts are of the opinion that psychopathology, has grown up in violent and abusive homes.  This makes domestic violence to continue as a generational inheritance. Witnessing violence as a standard or being abused, destroying the child’s confidence in others and compromising the ability to manage their emotions. It creates hostile, dependable and emotionally unstable capacities with profoundly changed develop and maintain healthy relationships.

Another set of specialists are of the view that genetic predisposition plays a role in forming an abuser.  But very few studies provide final information in this regard. There is an epidemic of domestic violence in an environment where traditional beliefs last and place women under the status and personality of people.

The fact still remains that the major causes of domestic abuse are still not well understood, it is very important that the society at large strongly go against the crime of domestic violence and drum support for the laws and social programs set to put an end to the cycle.

How Is Domestic Violence Assessed?

Although it is quite possible to assess whether a man or a woman is abused in his or her relationship, less than one in twenty doctors do so on a regular basis. This trend aggravates the difficulties posed by the victims of intimate partner violence which tend not to publish their victimization. Despite these difficulties, it is clear that the most effective issues for assessing domestic violence are open, as opposed to those that require positive or negative answers.

For example, “How do you and your partner tend to disagree with each other?” versus “Does your spouse hit, demean, or over-control you?”.  Inquiries that are not direct, concerning such things as how many emergency room visits, injuries or accidents that have suffered this year, will probably get an immediate response.  This is related to the direct questions about the cause of each injury.  As with any sensitive or potentially painful topic, issues pertaining to domestic violence receives a sincere reaction when the respondent is only professional, unlike his partner (potential aggressor), the child or some other member of his family amid discussion.

What is the Prognosis for Domestic Violence?

Since the prediction for victims of intimate partner violence is better for those with a strong support system, encouraging supportive participation is often considered. Improving support for families endangered by violence can even reduce the symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is often associated intimate partner abuse.

Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (GLBT), who are abused in intimate relationships, face multiple obstacles to getting help.  The wrong idea that the victims of domestic violence in the GLBT family are involved in mutually abusing each other, or that abuse is part of what some see as inherently dysfunctional relationships.  This can bring health professionals and law enforcement to fail to respond properly to GLBT abuse sufferers.  In some cases, you may need a lawyer to intervene and help you fight for your rights and protection.  The level of inexperience attributed to a specialist as regards the management of intimate partner violence in GLBT relations can also have an effect on the victims and abusers who get appropriate and timely interventions.

If you feel you are in danger or need help, there are hotlines available to give you the support you need.

The post Domestic Violence Types and Assessment appeared first on The Lawyers Direct.

Source: https://thelawyersdirect.com/domestic-violence-types-assessment/

[wallythayer]

Revolutionary Act 35: Move It Out

Let’s talk a bit about poo. Oh, you’d rather not? I understand. It’s not something most of us would choose to discuss in polite company.

But I really hope you’ll at least consider what I have to say on the topic, and here’s why: As it relates to your health, what exits your body is just as important as what goes in.

Your poo offers a view into your state of well-being. Basically, if the stuff coming out of you isn’t in optimal form, it suggests that some things inside of you aren’t going as well as they could, either.

The problem is, we rarely talk about our bowel movements (except in those families where they are discussed endlessly), so most people don’t have a lot of information to draw on regarding what is and is not considered good in the world of poo.

That’s actually quite a complex scientific subject, because at the biochemical level, there’s a lot going on in our waste that the naked eye can’t see.

Viewed under a powerful-enough microscope, a stool sample can reveal the health of the intestinal system, the quality of our digestion and nutrient assimilation, food sensitivities, our bodywide levels of inflammation, and the presence of certain pathogens, cancers, autoimmune disorders, and more.

Then there’s the study of the microbiome, that community of microorganisms that live in and on our bodies. Microbiome research — much of which relies on close examination of stool samples — is rapidly advancing, and it’s revealing that the balance of flora and fauna in our intestinal systems can have a huge impact not just on bowel health but on virtually every other part of physical and mental well-being.

So, poo matters way more than you might think. In fact, it is so powerful that many doctors now employ it as a medication, introducing healthy stool samples into beleaguered intestinal tracts (a procedure known as a fecal transplant) to help repopulate them with good bacteria.

This strategy is now being used to resolve a range of stubborn medical conditions (including, but not limited to, bowel disorders) that other medical interventions fail to treat.

Researchers are also exploring what they call the gut–brain axis, and finding that the balance of microorganisms in the gut can powerfully affect the brain, mood, and behavior, potentially playing a significant role in depression and anxiety.

There’s so much fascinating science to explore in this realm, but even without advanced lab testing, it’s possible to learn a lot about the state of your body by simply observing and evaluating your own poo situation on a daily basis.

Forgive me as I get a bit graphic here (and perhaps don’t read this while you are eating), but the specifics really matter.

Too often, when doctors ask their patients about their bowel movements, they get stock, flustered answers like, “Er, normal, I guess,” simply because most of us have never been educated about what “normal” means in this context.

It’s important to note that poo does vary from person to person, so generalizations can be dicey, but there are some guidelines that go for just about everybody. Three of the most easily discerned factors to consider are form, frequency, and comfort.

Form

A healthy bowel movement is generally semisoft (vs. hard, pelletized, or liquid), and it comes out in a single continuous curve or coil that reflects the curving shape of your colon. (A disgusting but helpful reference point: A good poo comes out of your body kind of like firm, soft-serve ice cream comes out of a dispenser. Sorry, I know, so gross — but true.)

If it is a mixture of solid and liquid, that comes out in clumps, or that alternates between very hard and very soft, that suggests something in your system is wonky.

Similarly, if you see undigested food particles, or a floating haze of what looks like oil or mucus, that could be a sign you’re not breaking down and absorbing nutrients as well as you could be.

The form, texture, and color of your poo is often a direct reflection of what you have been recently eating and drinking. So, occasional poo weirdness may just be an indication your body isn’t wild about its recent care and feeding.

But ongoing, observable poo problems can be a reflection of more serious and chronic health issues, including food sensitivities, infections, microbiome imbalances, compromised bowel mechanics, and more.

The presence of blood in your stool (which may show up as red or black) can indicate problems at various stages of your digestive tract, and is best evaluated by a health professional.

If you tend to flush without looking, you may not recognize any of these signals. So basically, when you go, you gotta look.

Frequency

While a daily poo is the standard for most people, a lot of progressive health professionals consider that a bare minimum.

Aiming for the smooth and steady transport of your food through the digestive system, they would prefer to see you go two or even three times a day, or as often as you eat a meal.

Logically, it makes sense that your body might be happiest eliminating batches of solids in more or less the same rhythm as it consumes them. But feeling an urgent need to go more frequently than that (or at alarming and unanticipated intervals) may be a sign that your digestion is off, that you ate something that disagrees with you, that you are overstressed, or that your bowel is irritated and inflamed.

Having less than one good bowel movement a day may suggest a holdup in the digestive system, which could be due to a variety of dietary and lifestyle factors, such as inadequate hydration, nutrients, or fiber; excess stress; or unidentified food intolerances (gluten and dairy being prime culprits for many).

Both overactive and sluggish bowel activity can produce all kinds of trouble over time, from skin issues to bodywide inflammation to chronic disease, so if you aren’t currently in a happy cadence with your bowel movements, it’s worth investigating and resolving the source of that trouble.

Comfort

How you feel before, during, and after your bowel movements (as well as how you feel about them) may actually be the ultimate consideration.

Bowel movements are meant to be easy, quick, painless, and anxiety-free endeavors. If they’re not, don’t panic. There are lots of things you can do to resolve your issues.

The first thing to know: What-ever you find worrisome about your poo — whether that’s not being able to go, or being stressed by gassiness, bloating, or unexpected-poo surprises — it’s not something you have to tolerate.

On the contrary, it’s something to acknowledge as a stress signal from your body and explore further, perhaps with a qualified integrative physician or other digestive-health professional.

Seek out a partner who will help you address the root cause of your problem, not just the symptoms, because whatever is messing with your poo is probably also messing with a lot of your bodily functions.

The sooner you get the health of your digestive system handled, the sooner you’ll start to feel healthy, strong, energetic, and clear. You still might not want to talk a lot about poo, but you’ll have a lot more respect for the essential role it plays in your life.

Get the full story at https://experiencelife.com/article/revolutionary-act-35-move-it-out/

[myresistance]

January 30, 2017

To Whom It May Concern, I am a citizen of the United States who has resided in North Carolina for over a decade. I feel it is my duty to inform you of my opinion regarding several deeply troubling issues and policies. As my representative, I fully expect you to take my stance on these issues into account as you proceed. Now, more than ever, you must ensure that you hold true to the will of the people. Not just for your sake or mine, but for the sake of America and democracy itself. I understand that that may sound overly grave, but trust me when I tell you that the founding values of our country and the inalienable rights of humanity are being threatened. Please act, act wisely, and act swiftly. Integrity and strength are no longer campaign catchphrases, sir. They are attributes the people expect and need you to exemplify. The country is reliant upon men like you. Do not fail us now. I’m afraid there are so many concerns of late that the only manageable way to convey them is a list. I will begin with the most time-sensitive, and proceed in no particular order from there.

-The so-called ‘Muslim Ban’, aka the executive order entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” is unconstitutional and contrary to American values. Not only is it a foreign relations nightmare, but it has directly resulted in the detainment of innocent people, violations of their rights, and has suffocated the free exchange of trade and ideas that makes this nation great. It must be repealed at once, in its entirety. Refugees and those with visas and green cards are not our enemies. The very concept is preposterous, especially given the amount of vetting they must undergo to qualify. Dual-born foreign citizens, similarly, are not our enemies. With this order, our president has dealt an extreme insult to his people and to our international peers, and destroyed our credibility as a nation. Please do everything in your power to counteract this order and the damage incurred by it.

-Assuming an adversarial relationship with the media indicates a desire to keep Americans ignorant and uninformed. This cannot be allowed. Censorship is abhorrent and debilitating to the country as a whole. The various government agencies and officials are public service entities, and the citizens of the United States have every right to both be well-informed of their policies and actions, as well as capable of expressing their own opinions. There is no such entity as “fake news”. News, by definition, is a reiteration of factual occurrences or statements. Fake facts are fiction, pure and simple. The people have a right to know. Avoiding questions, refusing to address issues, and acting belligerent in the face of inquiry is childish and instills doubt and fear. Please work with the media, remain calm, and focus clearly on the topics presented. Saying you are unwilling or unable to answer a question is acceptable; attempting to invalidate the question and resorting to repeated blatant logical fallacies is not acceptable. Government officials represent us to the world as a whole. Such actions undermine the respect we hold for those offices, but also the respect the rest of the world gives us. Please keep this in mind, both for your own image and the images of others.

-Decreasing or eliminating the value of Federal land, or allowing it to be transferred to State jurisdiction for commercial uses, runs contrary to the purpose of national parks as a whole. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service should be given more latitude to preserve and protect our nation’s heritage, not less.

-Reinstating the Mexico City Policy is un-American. It deprives entire countries of assistance and healthcare, and targets women specifically. America has no say in the healthcare ideology of other nations. America should not infringe upon the rights of our own women, much less women in other countries. Limiting access to methods of disease prevention and contraception in the name of saving 'unborn children’ is oxymoronic. Limiting free speech and attempting to circumvent both sound medical science and the laws or policies of foreign nations is unacceptable. To superimpose values that the majority of our populace does not even adhere to as a condition of humanitarian efforts abroad is sickening and wrong. To specifically target women and children is a level of sinister I did not wish to believe this country was capable of. To then expand this order so it negatively impacts any organization abroad which offers complete medical information and options to women regardless of whether or not US funding is utilized for such… that is simply indefensible. This policy is a Matryoshka doll of atrocities layered upon atrocities, and seems designed to undercut foreign relations without overtly dismantling them. Please ensure that it is repealed at once.

-Repealing the Affordable Care Act is unwise and puts the health of Americans at risk. Until there is a viable, vetted alternative that affords all citizens the same protections and care that the Affordable Care Act ensures, it is unacceptable to repeal the current act. I do not believe it should be repealed at all. Reformed, where and if necessary, but not repealed.

-Building a border wall is illogical in the extreme. I do not support it, and neither does a large portion of the American people. Multiple international trade agreements are violated by taxing an individual nation’s goods differently than others… Taxing the imports of a specific nation to build the wall does not actually increase the cost to them, but rather to the portion of the American populace that utilizes those goods. Charging the American people in any fashion for a physical edifice that they do not support reeks of fascism and dictatorship. In addition to undercutting foreign relations even further, the budget it would require is an immense burden, and if such funds can be procured, said funds should be allocated instead to reinforcing our physical and social infrastructure, including but not limited to: healthcare, education, parks, energy conservation, and highway maintenance.

-Limiting, defunding, and otherwise interfering with scientific research, whether it is climate-related or not, is inherently destructive. Forcing government agencies to cease publishing scientific findings and/or utilize social media, and otherwise limiting the exchange of knowledge and information is unhealthy, and does not serve the interests of the American people. Unless further pursuit of a line of scientific inquiry presents a clear, immediate threat to the nation (i.e. nuclear/biological/chemical weapons), the populace as a whole should have  access to developments and discoveries, in the interest of free thought and the advancement of our society as a whole. America is able to keep pace with the world technologically and ideologically due in no small part to our scientific institutions. Curbing their efforts or influence is not in the best interest of any modern society.

-Withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is economically unsound, and does not reflect well upon our country. Ending a deal that took seven years to negotiate and is mutually beneficial to all parties is illogical, and will likely result in other nations becoming wary of entering into any alliance or agreement with ours. The Trans-Pacific Partnership should be reinstated and ratified, and an apology tendered to the other countries involved for the rash and inconsiderate manner in which we withdrew.

-Environmental Reviews are critical to ensuring that our country, our land, and our people are not physically put at risk or harmed. Rushing through them could be disastrous, and places lives in direct danger. In addition, prioritizing certain projects over others allows for the appearance of misconduct and favoritism. Specifically, expediting the construction of projects at high risk of environmental consequences, such as oil pipelines, should not be allowed. Ensuring our actions are environmentally sound and do not place our natural resources at risk is not something to be done lightly.

-The amount of executive orders which directly defy existing, often contentious, legislation is deeply disturbing. Overriding current legal proceedings with no apparent regard for the outcome engenders distrust in the judicial system as a whole. Doing so with little to no explanation is foolhardy at best. Please attempt to curtail this, if at all possible.

-The amount of government positions currently vacant, particularly in the case of ambassadors and foreign relations specialists, poses a security risk and harms our ability to handle international relations. Please fill them with reasonable, competent individuals as soon as possible.

In regards to the senate confirmation hearings, it is very troubling that so many of the proposed candidates are not just ideologically unsuited but actually incompetent in terms of the positions to which they have been nominated. I will not mention those who have been confirmed, but the remainder are as follows:

Mnuchin has prior business ties which may conflict with appointment to the position of Secretary of the Treasury. His views on much of the policies remain unclear, but it is clear that on many prior occasions he has chosen to further his personal gain over upholding moral standards. Such a man should not be given power over America’s finances. Though I disagree with Sessions on a wide variety of issues, and I have serious concerns regarding his racial bias, his endorsement of ludicrous immigration restrictions, and his role in the Letter to Iran, I have less qualms about his literal competency. Though he is not an ideal choice by any stretch, he is at least actually capable of doing the job itself. However, his reported personal biases are despicable in any public official, particularly a member of the judicial system. Zinke’s endorsement of coal mining on federal land and denial of the extreme negative impact that unsustainable utilization of natural resources gives me great pause. I am uncertain he is suited to be Secretary of the Interior. A man in that position should be more interested in pursuing energy sources that may be renewed with minimal environmental costs. Though I applaud him for wishing to prevent the sale of land, and preserving public access to federal land, the misuse of said land is just as concerning, if not more. If the resources and land are managed in a damaging or non-renewable fashion, the consequences would reverberate throughout our nation. Ross’s pre-existing business ties, ties to Russia, and his stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, along with his predilection for benefiting corporations at the expense of individual, are undesirable and do not behoove a Secretary of Commerce. A man with his history and lack of evident ethical stance should not be allowed to influence foreign trade policy. Puzder is well known for criticizing labor laws, employee protections, and reasonable health considerations. He is also surrounded by a miasma of accusations and lawsuits, mostly involving labor law violations. Anyone so directly opposed to the purpose of the Labor department should not be put in charge of it. I am shocked he was even considered, much less nominated. Worker’s rights are not something to be scoffed at or dismantled, particularly not in our country, and Puzder is poised to gut the entire concept. I am very concerned that Price will institute changes in our current healthcare system without providing sufficient or reasonable alternatives. Repealing the Affordable Care Act is contrary to the interests of the nation. However, I do believe he is physically capable of performing the required duties. It is merely a matter of whether or not he acts foolishly. Cutting medicare and medicaid funding is patently unacceptable, and he has yet to confirm that he will not do so. Rick Perry has previously stated that he wanted to abolish the Department of Energy, so nominating him to run it is quite unfortunate. In addition, his advocacy for fossil fuel consumption and his denial of scientific facts (such as climate change), make him a poor candidate for that position. Devos is so obviously unprepared and ideologically opposed to the very concept of Secretary of Education that even considering her for the position is reprehensible. She does not have any relevant experience, she does not seem to know what the position entails or how to manage it, and her ideas regarding how children should be educated are so outdated and off-the-wall that I cannot imagine how she was appointed at all. She must not be confirmed. The only positive thing I can say regarding Pruitt’s nomination to head the EPA is that it would hopefully keep prevent him from getting anywhere near laws regarding women’s health. On a more serious note, nominating a man to run an agency that he has sued over a dozen times, vocally opposes, and does not believe in is repugnant. It destroys faith in leadership, rebukes the very purpose of the agency, and makes a mockery of the vital and pressing issues which affect not only this country, but the world as a whole. He supports industry over any environmental  concern. He is temperamentally unsuited to participate in any environmentally conscious institution. He must not be confirmed under any circumstances; it is an insult and a farce.

In conclusion, I would simply like to state a fact which has become painfully relevant recently: Any government position, from president to clerk, is considered a position of civil service. The individuals whom we elect and hire to fulfill the needs of the American people are beholden to those people. Not only do they represent the interests and values of the populace as a whole, but they are bound to do so. Freedom of speech applies to each individual, but as an elected official of the United States government, lying to or misrepresenting the American people is the very definition of treason. A government official acting contrary to the interests of the people of this country is no less than treason. I urge you to watch carefully for seditious acts, both in your office and in the offices of others. To be mistaken is one thing; to deliberately disregard or deny the will of the people is entirely another.

We are counting on you to hold our interests as our own, to act boldly against those who would deny us our liberties, to provide for our welfare and protect our rights. You were elected because the American people believe you are capable of this, because you were found worthy of the task before you. You are not just in office to represent part of the people, the ones whose personal ideals, race, creed, religion, or sex are closest to your own. You were elected because we believe you can represent us all. Please do not prove our faith to be misplaced.