#i also like the term ungendered for the same reasons!!

[xoruffitup]

TROS (Mis)Characterizations: What Was and What Could Have Been

What started as responding to an anon ask turned into an entire meta... but working out all these thoughts has at least eased a bit of my TROS pain. :’) 

From my perspective, TROS managed to destroy not only the characterizations built so far in the sequel trilogy, but also the entire story built upon these characters (mainly Reylo) as we knew them. While talking to a family member about the movie a few days ago and voicing my grievances with the story, he pointed out how someone could watch TFA and skip to TROS without realizing they’d missed much. That’s mostly true and entirely gutting.

Since I had an ask to talk about how TROS regressed in terms of characterization, I’ll start with the most hurtful of defacements: All of the nuanced vulnerability that made Kylo/Ben our most beloved character. We had absolutely nothing in TROS like the complex masterpiece moments of TLJ. Think back to “You are a monster.” / “Yes I am” – delivered with glowering menace as Kylo stalked closer, simultaneous to the tell of fragmented uncertainty in a quivering bottom lip and chin, all while his eyes remained completely riveted on Rey. Think back to “You’re not alone” – delivered with a wet sheen to his eyes in a soft cracked voice, but with self-loathing still smoldering behind his expression. Until the scene with Han, Kylo was shrunk into an entirely two-dimensional cookie cutter “villain” figure in TROS, seemingly more committed to the dark side and the First Order than he ever was to begin with in TFA. (I say “seemingly” because his true motives and interior dilemmas are frustratingly unclear in the entire first half of the movie. Cue me loathing the mask more than ever.)

Though Kylo seems uncharacteristically committed to the Supreme Leader role in TROS, considering he ended TLJ in a supplicating position fixing regretful eyes up towards Rey, luckily TROS did at least maintain the Force bond. …or at least the concept of it, because in execution the Force bond scenes achieved approximately nothing of what TLJ so uniquely excelled at: Creating a sense of intimacy, understanding, and forbidden tenderness between Rey and Ben. Instead of soft-spoken entreaties and promises across the soft glow of a fire or the dappling light of rain (ugh, remember the way light and shadow literally played out in contrasts across Kylo’s face during “I am a monster”? TLJ is a cinematic wonder, pass it on), we get scenes where the two yell and spit spite at each other. Most frustrating is how absolutely out of touch Kylo’s dialogue is with the Ben who was revealed through previous Force bond scenes. In a regression that makes absolutely no sense after Ben’s big proposal of “It’s time to let old things die: The Jedi, the Sith… I want you to join me” – he literally has the most reductive, bland, and meaningless lines such as “I will find you and turn you to the dark side.” ……..? Kylo has literally never been that boring or straightforward ever, not even since the TFA interrogation scene. He offered to be her teacher, sure, but never on terms that simplistic or blatantly combative to Rey’s will.

What I’ve always passionately loved and defended about Reylo is that Kylo never forced Rey to do anything harmful or against her will. Even pushing her to the painful moment of admitting the truth (or so we FUCKIN’ THOUGHT) about her parentage during the throne room scene did, in the end, help her character come to terms with repressed trauma and move forward in her journey of self-determination. (haha look at me, still stuck in my feminist goggles as if they haven’t been ripped off my head by TROS…) The point is: The TLJ Force bond was never a means of threat. It was never a tool for Kylo to say something as blatantly antagonistic as “I will find you and turn you to the dark side.” (Wow, did a Kindergartener write that? Come the fuck on, JJ.) And I was deeply disappointed to see the Force bond reduced to a tool used only to tell a part of the story unrelated to Reylo; rather than being the means of developing their relationship in and of itself.

This feeds into my overall biggest grievance with how Kylo/Ben was handled in this film. Similar to the Force bond – Ben’s character was reduced to a secondary prop piece who mostly served only as a narrative device in advancing the Rey-Palpatine plotline. Look, I imagined for months ahead of TROS the kind of candid Force bond conversations we might hear. Like “No one (knows me)” / “But I do.” (Where the FUCK did that line go?! Apparently JJ doesn’t know her…) Or perhaps Ben apologizing and opening up to Rey about how unhappy he is in the dark, how alone he feels. Instead…. we got shit like “You’re his granddaughter.” Like how dare they disrespect Academy Award Nominee Adam Driver’s talent like that?

Now, looking past the fact for a moment that the Rey-Palpatine addition is insulting, unoriginal, and sexist; there could have been a very interesting dynamic here. We would have the grandson of Vader and the granddaughter of Palpatine feeling very different pulls to both light and darkness, Force bonded together as they struggle with the weight of these legacies. Kylo, I imagine, was probably partially excited when he learned it, because maybe this means that Rey would understand him fully and perhaps this time, once she learned the truth, she would finally be with him. But nope, we don’t get nearly that much of a look into Kylo’s head. He does say at one point “You can’t go back to her (Leia), just like I can’t,” but the line missed the mark a bit for me because TROS still had Kylo appealing to Rey from the perspective of “Join the dark side as if we’ve done away with all that grey morality complexity we introduced last movie” – rather than from the perspective of “Neither of us should feel alone ever again.”

I’m rather unspeakably bitter that we had no exploration into what Palpatine’s return meant for Ben. I imagine he would have gone a bit wild upon learning that the man who was responsible for his grandfather’s fall was still alive. And the revelation of “I have been every voice you’ve ever heard inside your head”? This was enough to bring Ben Solo stans to tears before we even watched the movie, and yet it was treated completely off-handedly. Ben never even gets his own moment of coming to terms with Palpatine’s return. No “My grandfather killed you – how is this possible?” Nothing like that at all – even though he’s the character who would be most affected by his return in terms of legacy implications. Nope; Ben’s first encounter with Palpatine at the beginning of the movie – the same encounter where we learn Palpatine has apparently been behind all of the dark side grooming, manipulation, and isolation Ben has suffered since he was literally in the womb – quickly veers towards “Kill the girl / She is not who you think she is.” Early warning here that Ben Solo as a character in dire need of resolution is about to be treated with utter apathy by this film.

Here’s where I need to pause for a moment of self-awareness. While arguing with my Dad about this movie (he loved it), he threw at me that he thought I was being anti-feminist because I disliked the ending of Rey being alone. I quickly did my best to disabuse him of the idea that feminism = women being forever alone. This did make me think though about the implications of TROS veering away from the dual protagonist story framework that had been established up to this point; in favor of a narrative with Rey as the single and clear protagonist. The two main reasons I had such a knee-jerk reaction against this shift were A) It left a bad taste in my mouth after Rey ended TLJ emboldened by her acceptance of her past and unremarkable lineage; and B) It upended Reylo as the foundation of the entire story – also which we’d been led to expect. And I’m not just talking TLJ – I’m referencing back to JJ’s own Director’s commentary for TFA where he says “Now back to the story we really care about” when the film goes back to Rey and Kylo’s forest battle; who described Kylo as “a sort of prince,” and insinuated “you get the feeling there’s more going on here” when Kylo decided to spirit off Rey on Takodana. JJ set all the fucking clues here and then apparently forgot about each and every one.

However – am I perhaps not being fair to Rey in my disappointment that she doesn’t end the film in domestic bliss with Ben? Was I expecting something beneath her potential? Can I really say it’s a bad thing that the narrative rearranges itself in this film to focus chiefly on her? 

The reason it all sits so wrong with me is because Rey’s characterization became bastardized for the sake of her solo narrative. Her character was essentially entirely effaced. The emphasis of her journey thus far pointed towards the crafting of one’s own identify; to the fact that might and greatness can reside within anyone, and it is up to that person alone to decide what kind of life to live with such power. Rey’s development at the end of TLJ indicated she’d found freedom from her past, and was now fully embracing the act of forging her own path without any constraints or shadows. But then, this road she’d been paving for herself was abruptly switched in TROS to one already completed and well-traveled, lined with unoriginal identity struggles and a copout for assigning Rey’s instincts of aggression and passion to the hereditary and ungendered “dark side.” This sudden switch stripped away all of Rey’s unique identity struggles, as well as her agency to define her own story.

Confining Rey to such an unoriginal and unfortunate struggle also required that her own goals and desires be changed as well. When faced with a legacy of evildoers, Rey’s story immediately shifts away from being focused on her, and rather to remedying the mistakes of men who came before. Rey’s own story was about a thousand times more interesting when she was in the center of it. As a twitter post I saw a few days ago but now frustratingly can’t find said very aptly: Male viewers found “Rey Skywalker” satisfying because they see a happy ending as being the “best” or the most powerful. Female viewers see a happy ending as being truly seen, understood, and valued for the person one is. (If anyone knows the source, please let me know...)

Rey used to say she wanted to learn “her place in all this.” That doesn’t indicate a thirst for greatness or power; but rather for belonging and connection. She has spent most of her story so far thinking back to her parents, then spent a solid 2 minutes in TROS looking longingly and smiling at the alien babies on Pasaana, which hello motherhood signaling. She has been happiest in moments when she felt valued and connected to those around her.

The idea of having greatness bestowed upon her by some external entity (aka a man) was already examined and rejected in TLJ. (Read: throne room proposal scene.) But in TROS, this act of external determination is thrust onto her regardless of her will. In so doing, her possession of a legacy rewrites and predetermines all of her goals, battles, and the key facets of her identity. She no longer has the freedom to embrace and cherish her found or chosen family; instead, her goal is to rid herself of the “family” that’s been thrust upon her – making what’s now presumably her happy ending of being disconnected from her assigned family the complete opposite from everything her character previously yearned for. Standing alone in a desert with the company of only half-remembered spirits is likely what filled the nightmares of young Rey of Jakku.

This is, of course, why the dual protagonist/Reylo narrative we expected to see in this film was so compelling. While doing none of Rey’s decision-making for her or removing any agency from the formation of her own identity; her force-bonded relationship with Ben offered Rey belonging, understanding, and purpose. Ben was the only character who could understand how debilitating and frightening it was to feel her Force sensitivity come alive and waver between the light and dark; just as he was the only one who could comfort her in that conflict without infringing on her independence. Once we saw dark!Rey in that D23 footage, I think every Reylo imagined scenes where Palpatine begins to sink his control into Rey’s mind and Ben rushes to her side to pull her back towards the light, because he knows all too well what those voices are like inside his head and he’d rather hear them all again than watch Rey suffer it.

From several perspectives, Reylo fighting and defeating Palpatine together is also the only ending that makes sense from a holistic storytelling perspective. (I mean both of them wielding blue sabers against Palpatine and fighting together in tandem – rather than that single crowd-pleaser shot of them hefting their complementary lightsabers together before Ben gets brushed off into a pit…) While Ben is the legacy character, representing all that our beloved original characters fought and suffered for; Rey is the new-generation character, representing a new age and the banishing of old mistakes which continued to perpetuate conflict. Only these representatives of new and old; of royal legacy and self-made upstart; could truly banish all of the harm committed in the galaxy by Palpatine and remedy all the loss and suffering effected throughout the Skywalker line. To have only a single character recently revealed to be related to Palpatine facing him alone (no matter how “badass” that might make said female character seem by superficial standards), rather than a union with the single remaining descendant of the Skywalker line himself is simply unsatisfactory and directionless storytelling. It is Palpatine’s manipulation towards three generations of Skywalkers that was the sole catalyst for all of the warfare, struggle, and conflict we’ve witnessed throughout this entire 9-film series. To not even engage with Ben Solo-Skywalker’s troubled relationship to that heritage and to completely fail in realizing the emotional catharsis and resolution that stood there waiting is nothing short of infuriatingly shortsighted storytelling. J.J. claimed in several interviews that this film was crafted with the entire preceding story in mind, as a cap to everything that came before. I have absolutely no idea which story he was referring to.

And so, from the perspectives of this film alone, the sequel trilogy, and the entire 9-film saga as a whole – Yes, I do claim that it was a poor decision in terms of story telling and character integrity to reconfigure the narrative to focus solely on Rey. For the reasons just mentioned, it was an utter disservice to Rey’s character arc. To reduce all of the tragedy, charisma, and youthful potential in Kylo/Ben’s character to a secondary narrative device is nothing short of shameful. Not to mention wasting all of Adam’s potential for playing truly heart-wrenching scenes of Ben’s penitent soul-searching. I will never forgive the fact that Ben had literally not a word of dialogue after his quick conversion scene halfway through the movie. Not only does he play no major role in the final battle with Palpatine, but aside from charging in heroically and doing a phenomenal Solo Shrug, he isn’t allowed a single moment of interiority. He has no speech to Palpatine declaring his change of heart and his reclaimed heritage. Perhaps most painful of all – he and Rey never even have their Big Talk where we expected Ben to apologize for the doings of Kylo Ren and for both of them to affirm their desire to be together and their devotion to each other. Adam did a pretty amazing job demonstrating all that in how he cradled Rey’s body and couldn’t even bear to look into her lifeless face (RIP my heart). But no matter how phenomenal and tender the Reylo kiss was, how luminous Rey’s smile was when she said “Ben,” and how achingly loving his eyes were when he looked at her – I can’t help feeling crushingly cheated that their love itself wasn’t what enabled the victory. Rather than the strength they lent to each other through a union that defied light-dark dichotomy (as it should have been and as the story was previously leading towards), it was rather Rey’s miracle heritage that won the day. The fact that Ben never says a damn word when he stands before Palpatine, or when Rey kisses him and he finally realizes she does care for him too – makes both their bond and Ben’s entire character feel like a throw-away prop only there for Rey to wear so long as this feeble story needed it.

I’ve been trying to put my finger on what made TROS’ plot so underwhelming and lifeless compared to TLJ or even TFA. The difference between TLJ and TROS in the simplest terms is that TLJ’s narrative was character-driven, whereas TROS subjected its characters to a narrative. Rather than a huge space battle, TLJ’s biggest moments are Rey and Kylo’s throne room proposal and Kylo and Luke’s showdown on Crait. Both of these moments had huge emotional stakes for the characters involved, which was what made them epic. TROS’ narrative, meanwhile, uses twists like the Rey Palpatine reveal to manipulate its characters in inorganic directions, and builds towards a finale that is unrelated to any of the long-standing challenges our heroes have confronted throughout the story. TROS derided its characters down to mere tools for a superficial spectacle of a story. TLJ, on the other hand, made its characters the story. It’s no wonder I found myself strangely numb and disconnected the first time I saw TROS.

Now, I’m just angry and disappointed. Disappointed that such brilliant, wonderful characters were wasted. Angry that we’ve imagined a hundred endings more appropriate and fair to the characters we hold dear. I am trying to appreciate what I can from the film and hold on to the few beautiful moments, but I definitely plan on writing my own fic version of how TROS might have played out, had it upheld the complexity and integrity of its characters. Even still, I’m quite sure we all know and understand Ben Solo much better than J.J. or Chris Terrio, so in our hearts Ben will find the happy ending he deserves.

[betterbinderproject]

Hi, when you say that you understand completely the reasons why people don't like the better binder project you're being very presumptuous. It's not the same as well-meaning but ignorant abled people attempting to solve highly complex and expensive problems of access for disabled people. And furthermore, the way you talk about this is really condescending and frankly just...you make assumptions that you understand the intimacies of how people think and feel that are just not true or analogous.

Like I mean this in the nicest possible way, but cisgender people’s relation to trans people is just not the same, and it would be a lot less patronizing and transphobic of you to *not* characterize every possible negative and/or critical reaction to this blog as being a reflexive anger and automatic rejection instead of being a justified and/or reasonable wariness. Like I absolutely hope this project succeeds, but there’s no reason to think that you’re qualified to make it succeed.

I’m going to use this also as a way to respond to your post, which didn’t show up on my Acitivity, so I’m glad someone pointed me to it.

1. My ability to listen to criticism

For the last couple weeks, I’ve been monitoring the activity of my posts, especially looking for people saying things like, “This will never work”, “this is a bad idea”, “won’t work for me” and so forth. Then a lot of the time I’ve messaged them to say, “Hi, I want to hear about your thoughts and experiences, do you have time to talk?”. I’m in a little bit of a backlog with this because some really smart and informed people have been commenting on it but I’ve been busy. For example, if I got the chance to listen to @the-scottish-costume-guy at greater length and in greater detail in the next couple days, I’d be really happy.

So while some criticisms have been reflexive rage or despair, others have been completely on point and I’ve already integrated them into my design (for example, recommendations to slope the boning diagonally down and to the outside). And others have been logical on the surface, but don’t apply to the specific thing I am trying to do (eg. “corsets are expensive”)

2. My credentials

I’ve been sewing seriously for the last 20 years. In some of that time, I’ve been paid for my work. For much of it, I’ve both been reading academic sources on the topic, and sewing in the workshops of vastly more experienced sewists. Over and above all my other sewing experience, I’ve made and worn numerous corsets. There is no set certification for a “professional tailor” but yes, if I wanted to do that as a job, I do have the resume and portfolio for it.

Tailoring isn’t actually the field you want here, though. Since beginning this project, I’ve located and contacted several researchers in the fields of human ecology, mechanical engineering, and biomedical engineering, who have relevant expertise. None have yet gotten back to me, probably partly because it’s summer. If someone more qualified than me wants to work on this project, I am 100% willing to collaborate with them, or hand the project off to them.

3. My profiting from this project

I’ve already made some very particular and pointed decisions about this. If I wanted to significantly profit from this project, I would:

Keep my R&D process secret

Patent and license the design

Sell patterns of the design I made for individuals wanting to make their own, individual, copy

Sell binders I myself made, or possibly outsource their production and then sell the result

Send cease&desist letters threatening to sue anyone selling copies of my binder, or any other binder on similar design principles, or any pattern for such a binder

Demand that anyone wanting to profit from the use of my design principles pay me a licensing fee.

Meanwhile, my plan right now includes:

Publicizing my concepts and progress in a way freely accessible to anyone with an Internet connection

Maintaining a record of my progress to keep anyone else from claiming to be its inventor and licensing it in exploitative ways

Encouraging feedback from as many people as possible and seeking out trans, nb, and genderqueer perspectives 

Coming soon: Creating a survey about wearer experiences and health outcomes, asking anyone involved in this project to report back so the data can be disseminated and analyzed. If this project and my design are a failure, I will say so.

Making design concepts, and in the future, patterns and tutorials, freely available to anyone with an internet connection, and agreeing to their republication to reach other audiences

Only receiving donations from people who understand that this is an experimental venture, posed as the question, “What if I tried this thing,” and only profiting from items that I have ensured people could get for themselves some other way. (eg “Here’s a free tutorial on making this binder using items from the dollar store. However, if you want to buy a $20 kit of high-quality items pre-cut for your convenience, here’s my Etsy”)

Providing prototypes to their intended wearers for free in return for feedback about the wearers’ experiences, instead of selling half-baked designs for a profit

Openly encouraging other sewists to suggest design improvements, make their own versions, or make binders for other people without paying me

In the future, I’m very open to stepping back in my own role in this project, and handing it off to trans people who have taken the idea and run with it.

From a legal perspective, I have probably already ruined my chances of making big bucks from this project, and I did that on purpose. From the beginning, I realized that it is very possible for me to be exploitative in how I handle this project. 

I honestly asked for money because I can’t pay for medications, groceries and utilities right now. I got about $300, which was enough to cover most of my monthly medical expenses. Most of the clients I see as a psychotherapist are disabled, living on extremely limited incomes, and cannot pay me much more than the cost I pay to rent the room we meet in. I’m trying to survive and find a better job. If I had a full-time job and made a decent income, I would be funding this project out of my own pocket. I know how to market and monetize a project like this, and have, from the first, deliberately chosen not to, in large part because I’m cis and this isn’t my issue.

4. Binders over top surgery

This project has largely been inspired by a trans person with whom I have worked, whose parents were involved in a custody dispute beginning when they were 14. At 14 they realized they were trans, but they required the consent of both parents for medical procedures until the age of 18. One parent was extremely transphobic and would not consent to top surgery, although they didn’t see their child on a regular basis and didn’t know how they dressed and presented. During those 4 years, they used a binder as a way of dealing with the dysphoria that made them suicidal. Despite its negative physical health effects (pain, trouble breathing, rashes, etc) the binder was an essential aid to their mental health.

Yes, binding is a “stopgap” method compared to top surgery. However, one of my major areas of work is as a mental health therapist with LGBTQ people, especially teenagers. Not everyone can get top surgery, and not always as quickly as it is needed. Sometimes there is a gap you need to stop.

5. Why do we need better binders at all?

I didn’t go into this because I, frankly, had considered the need for improvements in binder technology so well-documented as to be completely obvious. Just today someone tagged this blog talking about how much they want it to work because “binding gives me rashes, makes my already shitty lungs hurt, makes my back hurt, and doesn’t actually work for me“ Would you like me to curate the research and accounts of people who have problems with the current models of binder available? Is that proof you in fact need?

7. Corsets are unsuitable/super gendered

Yep! That’s why I’m not making corsets. I’m trying to use the engineering elements from corsetry that would make the binder better, and make everything else as un-corset-like as possible. 

How possible this is is an open question right now. For example, corsets need to be fitted so precisely because they go from the bust to the hips, and therefore need the correct bust, waist, and hip measurement, and the correct height, and the correct ratio of all things to each other, and to have the correct vertical profile. My current hypothesis is that by making a binder that covers only the bust, I can eliminate many of these complexities. However, many informed observers of the project have told me that they think I’m wrong, and that the binder will need to extend to the waist to more evenly distribute the load of compression, and a garment that only goes around the chest will cause too much back pain over the long term. This is a question I think can honestly only be answered when I ship my prototypes to my genderqueer friend in Georgia, who shares my measurements and is eager to try each model out for hours/days/weeks and report back.

At present, I am experimenting with adaptations to sports bras, which I also know can be too gendered and induce dysphoria. I’m using them because my current project is aimed at people who have very little experience sewing, and therefore would benefit from only having to add a few elements to an already-constructed garment. After this, I want to see if I can transition those adaptations to something less gendered, like a tank top. After that, I can begin work on drafting a binder entirely from scratch, which, one hopes, I can make as ungendered as possible.

My askbox is open!

[paleomancy]

Deconstructing the Masculine and Feminine Archetypes

In religious history, folk magic, and occultism the dichotomy between “masculine” and “feminine” energies often play a large part in mythological and therefore ritual construction.  I propose that the use of “masculine” and “feminine” encompass multiple different aspects of magic and ought to be deconstructed for more potent spell development.

In less academic terms, since I’ve spent too much time writing scientific articles: the traditional “masculine” and “feminine” archetypes are actually a combination of multiple aspects of magic that are unnecessarily gendered.  By taking the different aspects of these two archetypes apart, we as occultists can select the particular aspects that are most useful to us.  These are: reaching and receptive, creation and destruction, and attraction.

Obviously I’m leaving some qualities out, but I’m just going to focus on these 3 for now.

Reaching and Receptive

Examples

A paintbrush and a canvas

A spoon and a bowl

A snake and an empty den

These two qualities could also be considered “passive” and “active”, where one is acting upon the other to create something new or otherwise change the state of the receptive object.  In the three examples above, the reaching object acts on the receptive object to perform an act of creation (paintbrush and canvas), destruction (spoon and bowl), and occupation (snake and den).  These actions are fundamentally different in nature, but both have reaching and receptive objects that allow the action to occur.

There is more to this particular relationship than meets the eye, however.  In order for these two objects to function as intended, there are other ingredients needed.  The paintbrush needs paint or ink in order to act on the canvas, or it leaves no marks; a bowl with no food in it has no need for the spoon.  For the reaching and receptive objects to function, one must provide the paint or make the food.  A house is not a home until the creature living within it changes it in some way, often influenced by other experiences brought in from outside the base relationship of the reaching and receptive objects.

In relevance to magic and spellcraft: you could draw a sigil on paper, but the effect of the sigil will change depending on the ink used to write.  Are you carving it into wax?  Are you writing in blood?  India ink?  The middle components will change the impact of the spell as much as the reaching and receptive components do.  If I were to create a protective sigil, for example: I could use a silver pen nib, ink made from a suspension of oil and black salt (heavy on the charcoal), and cedar wood as the writing block.  In this way, all three components are working in tandem to create the desired symbolic impact of the sigil.

Creation and Destruction

Examples

Spring and Fall/Summer and Winter

Birth and Death

Beginning and End

Creation and destruction are frequently referenced as feminine and masculine qualities respectively, and may be some of the qualities tied most strongly to the archetypes.  They can be seen best in the Wiccan wheel of the year, where the Horned God takes over from the Triple Goddess as the harvest season ends and everything dies off for the winter, only to relinquish his reign again come spring.  The act of creation is also associated with childbirth, for good reason, and assigned qualities of motherhood.  

Creation and destruction are often depicted as opposites, but are better described as cyclical.  To quote my favorite tumblr post: “Decay exists as an extant form of life.”  Even as things die, other life springs from their bones.  Entire ecosystems are built around the death of whales in the deep ocean, some lasting as many as 100 years.  To construct creation and destruction as separate from one another weakens magic by creating a divide where one should not exist.

In relevance to magic and spellcraft: some spells work best where a system of renewal is set in place, and some may rely on creation or destruction specifically to begin a new cycle or end an old one.  Cord-cutting or burning spells, a method of destruction, functions to end an old cycle but may be best complimented with a second spell to begin a new cycle.  Seeds might be planted to start a new cycle or celebrate the beginning of a season or event.  A houseplant that goes dormant might be given offerings to form a spell that cycles according to the natural rhythms of that plant.

Attraction

Examples

Magnets

The Moon and The Tides

Surface Tension

Attraction is the quality I’d most like to separate from the archetypes of the “feminine” and “masculine” simply because it predisposes those who rely on masculine/feminine imagery to blindness over the potential for the traditionally “feminine” and “masculine” to attract like objects.  Attraction, as I define it, is simply the act of two objects being drawn to one another through forces physical, spiritual, or mental.  

For example, the moon controls the tides due to its gravitational pull on the earth.  Because the water is malleable, it rises and falls in accordance with the movements of the moon -- the moon, however, is not necessarily attracted to the oceans, but to the mass of the earth itself.  These are two different attractive forces working to produce a visible influence on the planet: the gravity of the moon on the oceans and the gravity of the earth on the moon.  You could even expand this analogy and say that the gravity of the earth also acts on the oceans in opposition to the moon, giving us three different attractive forces and subverting the traditional dichotomy of masculine-feminine attraction.  Attractive forces build on and interact with one another in innumerable ways.  To expand the water analogy, surface tension is the result of attraction between trillions of water molecules that make up a single droplet.  There is no upper limit on the number of attractive forces that can be at play in a given situation.

From a more human perspective, attraction should still remain ungendered.  To gender human attraction would be to devalue friendships and reduce complex systems of interaction (in both humans and non-human life) to a two-sex baseline that does not hold true for most of the natural world.  Minds are attracted to one another based on perceived similarity -- like attracting like -- as well as differences that compliment the personality and mentality of both individuals.  Friends and partners share interests and personality traits, but rarely do they share completely similar views.  In this same sense, opposites don’t attract either!  Rarely does a relationship between two extremely different people thrive simply because they need things from each other that neither can provide because they lack similarity.

From a spellcraft and magic perspective: the law of attraction is already well known for most folks practicing magic.  When you construct a spell, consider the relationships (symbolic or otherwise) between the structure of the work and the desired intent.  For example, if you’re using hair as a taglock in a spell consider these things:

Did the hair fall off naturally?  

Was it plucked?  

Did I cut it off in secret?  

Was it cut and given as a gift?

All of these factors, and many more, can influence the impact of a spell.  A lock of hair given as a gift for remembrance is going to fare better in protective spells, while hair cut from someone in secret is going to be far more effective when used banefully.

I have more thoughts on this, but alas!  It’s 1 in the morning and I have a date with some dirt early tomorrow.

[ranger-truth]

Hey! I’m 17 and have never had any sex ed in my life. We had the abstinence talk and that’s it. Catholic school. But uh i have a boyfriend now, we’ve gone to third base, but I really know nothing about this? Like? I don’t even know where to begin I just need to know whatever the hell people need to know in sexual situations

Alrighty, BIG SISTER MODE ACTIVATED!!!

First thing’s first, the first time is a little rough. It is for everybody, regardless of how much sex ed was given. It’s 100% okay to be SUPER awkward while you figure out what feels good and what doesn’t. In fact, usually the first time can be a little painful.

If anything is painful, stop doing it. If it hurts, tell your partner to stop (and if they don’t listen, dump them then and there, that is a violation of you and you can consider it rape if they continue after you say stop). Pain is an indicator that you should slow down, usually because your body isn’t used to making its own lubricant. 

Now, if you don’t know anything about your own anatomy (I’m assuming you’re female) check here: https://www.webmd.com/women/picture-of-the-vagina#1

It’s important to understand your own body as well as the male anatomy. The labia is the folded skin around the vagina. “The hymen is a thin membrane of tissue that surrounds and narrows the vaginal opening. It may be torn or ruptured by sexual activity or by exercise.” Tearing of the hymen has been considered the one sign outside of pregnancy of “losing your virginity”. The reality is it was probably torn by exercise or tampons long beforehand. Some girls don’t even develop the hymen. When it’s mentioned that a girl bleeds her first time, the hymen tearing is what they’re talking about, but with tampon usage today that rarely ever occurs.

I would like to assume you know this, but in case you don’t (I’ve known 30 year olds who didn’t): sex is what leads to pregnancy. The male’s balls are where sperm are created, the penis delivers that sperm into the vagina, and if it’s the right time of the month the sperm will make its way towards the ovaries to fertilize the egg. In the same cycle your period is on, also includes the time your body releases new eggs and you become fertile. I highly suggest downloading a period tracker/ ovulation calendar on your phone, as ovulation is when you’re at your highest risk of pregnancy.

Now, birth control: Birth control includes everything from ovulation tracking to condoms to actual birth control medication. I highly advise looking into birth control laws where you live. I know a lot of states now have it so that, at 17, you can get on birth control without parental permission or advisory (you don’t have to let your parents know that you went to planned parenthood and started BC). If that’s not an option, and you’re still concerned about telling your parents, consider requesting birth control to regulate your periods. It can significantly reduce period pain, keep periods on a steady schedule, clear up acne, and prevent some cancers. There’s a number of reasons you can ask for birth control without admitting to moving forward with your sex life.

Every man can fit into a condom, with a few conditions. First off, they need the correct base size, otherwise it can cut off circulation to their penis and be VERY uncomfortable for your partner. It is his responsibility to know his preferred condom size. If either of you is allergic to latex, there are latex-free condoms and latex free lube. It is both of your responsibility to make sure allergy needs are met. Because a condom can break due to friction, and your body won’t be making enough natural lubricant during your first few times, you’ll need to get some lube at the store. Certain types of lube can erode certain plastics, so check the packaging to make sure the lube is compatible with the condoms you’re using. It’s good to use a condom for both pregnancy and STD prevention. Even if there aren’t symptoms of STDs, a person may be a carrier without knowing. It’s always good to be safe.

Birth control medication includes the depo-provera shot (I am highly against this), the IUD (great, but expensive), the arm implant, and the pill (you NEED to be responsible with this one, but it is cheap and reliable). No one birth control is 100% effective, and there’s still a slight chance of pregnancy. That chance, however, goes from 50%+ to below 6%.

Depo: As I said above, I am highly against the shot. It has more bad side effects than good, can cause month-long periods, and long-term usage can result in infertillity, cancer, weakened joints, severe calcium deficiency, etc. Some women swear by it, because one shot lasts 3 months, but it’s been proven time and time again to be bad for your health and well being.

IUDs (Intrauterine devices) are the “T” shaped devices that are medically implanted in you’re uterus. The device delivers a slow release of pregnancy hormones, causing the uterus to close itself off. It also completely or mostly stops your period (depending on the device you get. One is made for virgins and only mostly-stops your period due to patients having pregnancy scares when they no longer had periods). IUDs are the most effective birth control, with almost no women getting pregnant while using them. They also last for years. One implant, years of birth control, and neither you nor your partner should feel it. The only downsides are the price (usually around $300-$500), and the chance of it moving. While this is rare, there are cases in which the IUD slips and digs into the uterus lining, causing internal damage, scar tissue, and possible infertility. Again, super rare, but it happens. Honestly, the price is the biggest problem for me. 

Arm implants such as implanon and nexplanon are another form of a long-term implant. They last for years, slowly releasing hormones, but can also have some side effects and can be a tad expensive. People who don’t have reactions to these absolutely swear by them, but a number of people have a bad time with bruising and allergic reactions.

Then there’s the pill. The pill is the cheapest and oldest form of birth control. There are different types, but they essentially all provide the same thing: hormonal regulation of periods and pregnancy hormones to close off the uterus. If you can trust yourself to take the pill daily without missing it, this is the best option for you. It’s cheap (you can order it online for $20/month without insurance, https://www.prjktruby.com/ provides an online consultation with an online prescription). So long as you take it daily around the same time every day, it’s extremely effective (99%). If you miss a pill, start it when you aren’t on your period (up to the second week of usage), or are taking antibiotics, the effectiveness drops and you are at a slightly higher risk of pregnancy (the risk goes from 1% to about 6%). The pill has the multiple benefits I mentioned above, still allows you to have your period (resulting in fewer hormonal imbalances), and gives you control day-to-day. Another benefit of the pill is that if you DO get pregnant while on it, there are no ill-effects on the fetus. Other forms of birth control can cause birth defects or miscarriage should you get pregnant while on them, but the pill has absolutely no effects on the baby so long as you stop taking it before the second trimester (aka, just stop when you realize you’re pregnant and all’s guchi). This was an important tidbit to me in my choice, because while I don’t want a baby just yet, I also wouldn’t get an abortion if anything happened. It’s easier knowing that if I am in that 1% of women my baby won’t be disabled because of it.

Most women use both a form of birth control and condoms together if they want to fully avoid pregnancy while enjoying sex. I was okay with the risk because I trusted my then-boyfriend-now-husband to provide as a dad should I get pregnant. Ultimately the choice is up to you and your partner (because let’s be honest, your parents can’t stop you, and abstinence isn’t entirely reasonable).

On a side note, there’s the morning-after pill, plan B. I want to make it clear that this pill will throw off your hormones and seriously mess you up for a month. If you’re worried about pregnancy, this is an option, but it should only EVER be a plan B, and shouldn’t be relied on as a solution.

OKAY, NOW THAT THE SAFE SEX TALK IS DONE, let’s get into the gritty of it:

First, you mentioned you’re religious, or you’re at least raised religious. I’ve been there myself. You’re probably feeling the guilt of sex-before-marriage. It truly, honestly sucks, and I wish I could give you a hug. I want you to know, girl to girl, there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Sex is normal. The Bible’s laws on sex were written in a time where you get married off as soon as you have your period. Of course, we don’t do that anymore, so a natural and beautiful body function is going ignored. If you want some religious backing on the beauty of sex-for-feeling-good vs sex-for-reproduction, I suggest the Song of Solomon. God made sex to be enjoyable. Nowhere is masturbation written as a sin. I will be the person to tell you it is okay to touch yourself to figure out what you enjoy.

Sex and masturbation will also help you sleep better, balance hormones, and in some cases fight depression. It’s very important for your health, and the more you do it the better it feels. When you have sex more commonly, your body will produce more natural lubrication, making the in-and-out easier by relieving the friction. That’s why the first time (and the first time in a while after a long break) can hurt without using bought lube.

A very sensitive spot for you will be the clitoris. This is the highest hole-looking bit that you can see, and should be very sensitive to touch. When we’re developing as fetuses, we all start ungendered. The clit is what would’ve become a penis had you developed as a male (it’s the same reason guys have nipples). For most women, stimulation to the clit is very important in reaching an orgasm (aka coming, the rush of endorphins and happy feelings while your body clenches up and tightens). Too much stimulation can be uncomfortable. Again, if it hurts, stop. A guy’s boner is not a medical condition and will go away on its own after a few minutes so long as he didn’t take a pill to start it up. IT IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FINISH. IF IT HURTS, STOP. 

Foreplay can help to avoid pain by getting you turned on and getting your body to kick out natural lubricants. This can involve touching, fingering, oral, or just rubbing yourself on his penis without sticking it in. Foreplay can be essential to making it feel good for both of you, and is up to you to experiment with.

Something that you should always keep in mind is that there is absolutely a difference between having sex to have sex and having sex to make love. If your partner is having sex just for the sex, it can leave you feeling used and unsatisfied. This could mean they finish before you (and aren’t willing to help you finish via fingering, oral, toys, etc), or just that they aren’t really doing anything to make you feel good. If the focus is on themselves, it can feel really dirty and crappy. The best way I can describe that feeling is that I felt as though my partner merely masturbated, replacing his hand with me. It feels awful, and you just want to shower and move on. Making love is different. With the right partner, both of you are in it to make the other person feel good. If one of you finishes first, you’re going to let the other finish as well. You feel connected, in love, the absolute closest you can ever be to another human being. Making love is a much more emotional experience. Since a woman’s chance of reaching an orgasm is based on her emotions, you’re more likely to orgasm making love than you are just doing it without the romance. Feeling comfortable is key to having a good experience, otherwise you will tighten up, produce less lubricant, and possibly chafe.

In the end, your experience with sex is up to you. Something that feels good for some people can be awful for you (for example, I hate giving oral but love receiving, my husband hates receiving blowjobs but loves giving oral. It’s a personal preference, and you should never feel bad for not liking something). If/when you feel comfortable with your partner, experiment with different positions, types of foreplay, etc. You’ll only get better with practice, patience, and love. Trust me, I started out AWFUL at sex. It was a bad experience for me, I hated it, and never felt satisfied. My now-husband, however, was more experienced, and I learned quickly. I experimented, and I learned exactly what to do with my own body. It took time, but now I love sex, it feels satisfying every time, and I’m actually excited to initiate it with the man I love. It is, and always will be, one of the closest and most intense moments you can share with another human being.

Don’t feel ashamed. Do your research. Find where your own heart stands. Everything will be okay.

And know that I will always turn on big sister mode and answer what questions I can.

[adambstingus]

A Feminist’s Guide to Critiquing Hillary Clinton

Fair warning: This blog is not going to be angry. It will not be written in all caps. There will be no vulgarity. And it probably wont go viral. I dont care.

What I do care about is the fact Ive read over 70+ articles in the past two weeks alone discussing the 2016 election and what I see is a total lack of nuance and a lot of critiques that overgeneralize or underplay the very real role gender plays when people talk about Clinton and/or any other women who dare to step into positions that for so long have only been held by men.

What I do care about is how on my Facebook feed and elsewhere, I see well meaning folks called out as sexist jerks for simply offering legitimate critiques of Clinton and what a Clinton presidency might look like.

I like nuance. I like messy. I dont like soundbites and simplicity. So, lets play the nuance game. For folks who love Clinton, realize that not every critique poised against her is based in sexism. For those who love Sanders, realize that sexism is very alive in 2016, and that you can love your candidate AND embrace the reality that politicking while female is an incredibly difficult thing to do. Imagine that. Both/and. For those who havent yet made up their minds, or dont fall into either of these categories, this is for you, too.

So, here is my attempt to create a list of productive ways to critique Hillary Clinton without being a sexist jerk.

1). Do not talk about her voice. Really. Just dont. Earlier this week (and pretty much throughout Clintons existence), weve seen pundits and others criticize her shrillness, her voice, and her masculine speaking style. Soraya Chemaly argues, Anger in a man doesnt make the world wonder out loud if his hormones have taken over his brain and rendered him an incoherent idiot who cant be trusted with Important Things. How many words for angry men are there? Ones that have the powerful and controlling cultural resonance of , and ,, ? Or, yep, . Karlyn Kohrs Campbell wrote an incredibly thoughtful piece discussing how our culture has negatively responded to Clintons inability to fit within the parameters set in terms of how one should act and speak as a woman in the political sphere. She says Clinton symbolizes the problems of public women writ large, the continuing demand that women who play public roles or function in the public sphere discursively enact their femininity, and that women who do not or who do so to only a limited degree, women whose training and personal history fit them for the roles of rhetor, lawyer, expert, and advocate, roles that are gender coded masculine, will arouse the intensely hostile responses that seem so baffling (15). Overall, what Campbell is arguing is that women in the political sphere, in order to be taken seriously, must enact just the right amount of femininity and masculinity, and that Clintons failure to be appropriately feminine has hindered her for decades.

She continues to thoughtfully lay out a masculine and feminine rhetorical style of speaking and discusses what that sounds like. In rhetorical terms, performing or enacting femininity has meant adopting a personal or self-disclosing tone (signifying nurturance, intimacy, and domesticity) and assuming a feminine persona, e.g., mother, or an ungendered persona, e.g., mediator or prophet, while speaking. It has meant preferring anecdotal evidence (reflecting womens experiential learning in contrast to mens expertise), developing ideas inductively (so the audience thinks that it, not this presumptuous woman, drew the conclusions), and appropriating strategies associated with womensuch as domestic metaphors, emotional appeals to motherhood, and the likeand avoiding such macho strategies as tough language, confrontation or direct refutation, and any appearance of debating ones opponents. Note, however, that feminine style does not preclude substantive depth and argumentative cogency (5).

Presidents Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton use/used a feminine rhetorical style of speakingsomething which men can do and not be criticized for. Reagan was the great communicator. Both Clinton and Obama have been called some of the greatest orators in American history.

Hillary Clinton cannot perform femininity and her inability to play into this script Campbell argues reveals *our deficiencies*not Clintons. Campbell states, Our failure to appreciate the highly developed argumentative skills of an expert advocate, when the advocate is female, reveals our deficiencies, not hers. Legislation attendant on the second wave of feminism opened doors for able women who seek to exercise their skills in all areas of life, including the formation of public policy. If we reject all of those who lack the feminizing skills of Elizabeth Dole, we shall deprive ourselves of a vast array of talent (15).

2). Please dont talk about her likeability. As with the sound of her voice and her rhetorical speaking style, her likeability should have nothing to do with whether or not she would make a qualified president. Yes, I realize all candidates have to somewhat pass the likeability test, but for Clinton, because of the years long Hillary hating stemming from her time as first lady, this issue is in fact gendered, and to criticize her for not being likeable reeks of sexism. Henry Louis Gates Jr. argues, Hillary hating has become one of those national past times that unite the elite and the lumpen. Gary Wills notes, Hillary Hate is a large-scale psychic phenomenon. At the Republican convention there was a dismemberment doll on sale. For twenty dollars you could buy a rag-doll Hillary with arms and legs made to tear off and throw on the floor. .. . Talk shows are full of speculation about Hillarys purported lesbianism and drug use. Fine conspiratorial reasoning sifts whether she was Vince Fosters mistress or murderer or both. The Don Imus show plays a version of the song The Lady is a Tramp with new lyrics about the way the lady fornicates and menstruates and urinates, concluding, Thats why the First Lady is a tramp.’

As Nico Lang points out, She was a working woman and full political partner with (gasp) feminist tendencies. Among would-be first ladies in the early 1990s, these were exotic qualities. Clinton has continued to occupy thatsame space for the better part of three decades now, a one-woman culture war whoplays the political game the same way the men around her do. But unlike those men, Clinton is chided for being disingenuous and a political insider. Everyone else just gets to do their job. There are real reasons to have reservations about a Clinton presidency including her oft-cited ties to Wall Street and her hawkish foreign policy but how often are they the central force of the criticism lodged against her campaign? In an August poll, Quinnipac found that while political respondents felt that Hillary Clinton was strong and a candidate with experience, the words they most associated with her are liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy. These designations appear to be motivated by her Emailgate scandal and the ongoing questions about Benghazi but none of the myriad investigations into eitherhave turned up anything close to a smoking gun.

Rebecca Traister also notes, Recall the days following the 2008 Iowa caucus, when the media took advantage of Clintons defeat to let loose with their resentment and animosity toward her. That was when conservative Marc Rudov told Fox News that Clinton lost because When Barack Obama speaks, men hear Take off for the future! When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear Take out the garbage! It was in the days after Iowa that Clinton infamously got asked about how voters believed her to be the most experienced and the most electable candidate but are hesitating on the likability issue. In late January, columnist Mike Barnicle told a laughing all-male panel on Morning Joe that Clintons challenge was that she looks like everyones first wife standing outside of probate court.’ In Diana B. Carlin and Kelly L. Winfreys analysis of the various ways Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were portrayed during the 2008 campaign, they note, Women who exhibited too many masculine traits are often ridiculed and lose trust because they are going against type or play into male political stereotypes that voters are rejecting (328).

More recently, Sady Doyle argues that, This plays out on the level of personal expression, too: Women are supposedly over-emotional, whereas men make stern, logical, intelligent judgments. So, if Hillary raises her voice, gets angry, cries, or (apparently) even makes a sarcastic joke at a mans expense, she will be seen as bitchy, crazy, cruel and dangerous. (Remember the NO WONDER BILLS AFRAID headlines after she raised her voice at a Benghazi hearing; remember the mass freak-out over her emotional meltdown when someone thought she might be crying during a concession speech.) She absolutely cannot express negative emotion in public. But people have emotions, and women are supposed to have more of them than men, so if Hillary avoids them if she speaks strictly in calm, logical, detached terms, to avoid being seen as crazy we find her cold, call her robotic and calculating, and wonder why she doesnt express her feminine side. Again, shes going to be faulted for feminine weakness or lack of femininity, and both are damaging. Okay, so she can never be sad, angry, or impatient. Thats not a ban on all emotion, right? Youd think the one clear path to avoiding the bitchy or cold descriptors would be to put on a happy face, and admit to emotions only when they are positive. Youd think that, and youd be wrong: It turns out, people hate it when Hillary Clinton smiles or laughs in public. Hillary Clintons laugh gets played in attack ads; it has routinely been called a cackle (like a witch, right? Because shes old, and female, like a witch); frozen stills of Hillary laughing are routinely used to make her look crazy in conservative media. She cant be sad or angry, but she also cant be happy or amused, and she also cant refrain from expressing any of those emotions. There is literally no way out of this one. Anything she does is wrong. Given these constraints, Doyle argues it is impossible for Clinton to be likeable.

Look at how shes tried to address this issue. Dancing like a fool, talking about fashion, laughing more. What has it gotten her? Nothing but backlash.

Dave Holmes writes in , Youre not fun. Stop trying to pretend youre fun. writes an entirefaux op-ed from Clinton entitled I am Fun painting her attempt at being fun as insincere and manufactured.

In the eyes of the American public, Hillary Clinton will be fun. Or likeable. Or someone youd want to have a beer with. And it shouldnt matter. Period. So quit it with the likeability stuff, already. Its stupid and petty. I dont care if my president knows how to dance or even knows how to dress well. And you shouldnt, either.

3). Do criticize her on substantive issues. As Kevin Young & Diana C. Sierra Becerra argue, Clinton is the embodiment of corporate feminism. In their piece, they cite many areas where Clinton could have been and could still be a better advocate for womens rights. Its a fair critique but one that falls under the radar when were so concerned with her voice, appearance, and dance skills.

4). Know your history, do some research, and when criticizing, be fair. One of the claims I often hear as to why some dont trust Clinton, or why some feel shes untrustworthy is because she sat on the board of Walmart. Ok. But lets dig a little deeper. Ann Klefstad notes, Not to take anything away from Bernie and Jane, but think what an advantage this is: to build a career in a location of your choosing, with the strong support of a highly qualified and intelligent person who is unconditionally loyal to you. This was also Bill Clintons situationafter Yale, finding Hillary, heading home to Arkansas, and building a brilliant career in politics. But heywhat about Hillary? After getting a law degree from Yale (an all-male institution a few years previously) she meets Bill. She dumps her career as a congressional aide to move to Arkansas with Bill. I can imagine her dilemma. This was the 1970s. If she wanted to be with Bill, she would be riding on the ship he was captain of. There were consequences to that. She would be a partner in creating a political career that would accomplish many of the goals she wanted to accomplish. Bill very much admired her superb intellect and political skills as well. So they embarked. Theyre in Arkansas. Vermont politics have a pretty clean record. Arkansas? Not so much. You do make your own choices, but the context youre in, well, it matters. The Arkansas economy was in the toilet. The only bright star was the Walton family and Walmart, which was on track to become the biggest retailer in the world. They provided (in Arkansas) an expanding number of well-paid jobs. Bill was governor. Should Hillary have dumped his political career for a chance to spit in Sam Waltons eye? Well, that wasnt going to happen. She sat on the Walmart board and did what she could to both ensure the prosperity of the state of which her husband was governor and to do the right thing. She has almost always chosen the path (sometimes not the one youd pick) that would enable her to accomplish some good actions, rather than the pure path that tends to lead to inaction, or to exile from the power than enables you to make change.

Still dont like the fact she sat on the board? Fine. Dont like her stances on foreign policy? Totally ok. But understand the choices Clinton made in the context in which she livednot in a vacuum. This goes for all of her political choices. Never assume anything about any candidate without doing a little research first. Its amazing how much you can find out on this magical thing called the interwebs.

5). Dont assume critiques against Clinton are automatically rooted in sexism, and when calling out someone for critiquing Clinton, dont assume they, are in fact, sexist either. Take the #BernieBro label, for example. According to Glenn Greenwald, Have pro-Clinton journalists and pundits been subjected to some vile, abusive, and misogynistic rhetoric from random, anonymous internetsupporters of Sanders who are angry over their Clinton support?. Does that reflect in any way on the Sanders campaign or which candidate should win the Democratic primary? . The reason pro-Clinton journalists are targeted with vile abuse online has nothing specifically to do with the Sanders campaign or its supporters. It has everything to do with the internet. There are literally no polarizing views one can advocateonline including criticizing Democratic Party leaders such as Clinton or Barack Obama that will not subject one to a torrent of intense anger and vile abuse. Its not remotely unique to supporting Hillary Clinton: Ask Megyn Kelly about that, or the Sanders-supporting Susan Sarandon and Cornel West, or anyone with a Twitter account or blog. Ive seen online TV and film critics get hauled before vicious internet mobs for expressing unpopular views about a TV program or a movie. Amanda Hess pushes further arguing as soon as the Bernie Bro materialized, the conversation around it deteriorated. As the meme gained momentum, some popularizers stopped bothering to marshal any kind of evidence that Sanders supporters were sexist … . This is a familiar online phenomenon. Just as mansplaining morphed from a useful descriptor of a real problem in contemporary gender dynamics to an increasingly vague catchall expression, ass Benjamin Hart put it in 2014,the Bernie Bro argument has been stretched beyond recognition by both its champions and its critics.What began as a necessary critique of leftist sexism has been replaced by a pair of straw men waving their arms in the wind.

If the label applies, absolutely use it. Call out sexism and misogyny-especially if its coming from someone who claims to be progressive. However, I worry the label is being thrown around loosely and being applied to many well meaning, non-sexist male critics of Clinton. And that only silences debate. I dont want anyone to feel as though they cannot legitimately critique Clinton for fear of being called sexist, a BernieBro, or other names.

Overall, as with most of my writing, this piece was for me. Every time I read an article about Clinton or Sanders or sexism or the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party I find myself wishing for more nuance, less click-bait, and sound and civil discourse. Im tired of seeing the same soundbites repeated on my Facebook wall, seeing good friends of mine unfriend each other or worse because theyre on Team Sanders or Team Clinton and cant find common ground to have a legitimate debate about what this election is really about. In the words of my good friend Greg Wright, If you can imagine a better opportunity to demand the world we want, Id like to hear when you think it will come. When will better circumstances reveal themselves again? What political climate are you relying on to thrust the most unlikely candidate into the realm of possible? You want to know what will make this all the more likely to happen again? Demanding that it happen now.

We are at a historic moment in American history, not unlike the 2nd wave feminist movement. Gloria Steinem once said of Betty Friedan I believe that she was looking to join society as it existed, and the slightly younger parts of the movement were trying to transform society. And those were kind of two different goals. Like Friedan, I would argue that Clinton wants to work within the structure we have, while Sanders wants to transform society. He wants a revolution. In the words of Robert Reich, Ive known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, shes the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have. ButBernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because hes leading a political movement for change.

Sexism is real, and I love the fact that we are even talking about the ugly face of sexism in politics. However, we must be able to criticize a female candidate without resorting to sexist tactics, or be called sexist for critiquing her in the first place.

Overall, as many have pointed out, both Sanders and Clinton would be undeniably better as our next commander in chief than anyone currently running in the Republican arena. So I would caution democrats to get too entrenched within their teams that they refuse to see the bigger picture of the need to elect a Democrat in this next election. There are ways to disagree with one another that dont need to devolve into name calling or soundbite repeating. On Facebook and elsewhere, engage with those on either side in mindful and productive ways. This is an incredibly important election for so many reasons, but that doesnt mean we cant have thoughtful debates. So keep reading. Keep posting. Keep fighting for your team. Just dont embrace the ugly. Theres enough of that out there already.

from All Of Beer http://allofbeer.com/a-feminists-guide-to-critiquing-hillary-clinton/ from All of Beer https://allofbeercom.tumblr.com/post/169872294377

[allofbeercom]

A Feminist’s Guide to Critiquing Hillary Clinton

Fair warning: This blog is not going to be angry. It will not be written in all caps. There will be no vulgarity. And it probably wont go viral. I dont care.

What I do care about is the fact Ive read over 70+ articles in the past two weeks alone discussing the 2016 election and what I see is a total lack of nuance and a lot of critiques that overgeneralize or underplay the very real role gender plays when people talk about Clinton and/or any other women who dare to step into positions that for so long have only been held by men.

What I do care about is how on my Facebook feed and elsewhere, I see well meaning folks called out as sexist jerks for simply offering legitimate critiques of Clinton and what a Clinton presidency might look like.

I like nuance. I like messy. I dont like soundbites and simplicity. So, lets play the nuance game. For folks who love Clinton, realize that not every critique poised against her is based in sexism. For those who love Sanders, realize that sexism is very alive in 2016, and that you can love your candidate AND embrace the reality that politicking while female is an incredibly difficult thing to do. Imagine that. Both/and. For those who havent yet made up their minds, or dont fall into either of these categories, this is for you, too.

So, here is my attempt to create a list of productive ways to critique Hillary Clinton without being a sexist jerk.

1). Do not talk about her voice. Really. Just dont. Earlier this week (and pretty much throughout Clintons existence), weve seen pundits and others criticize her shrillness, her voice, and her masculine speaking style. Soraya Chemaly argues, Anger in a man doesnt make the world wonder out loud if his hormones have taken over his brain and rendered him an incoherent idiot who cant be trusted with Important Things. How many words for angry men are there? Ones that have the powerful and controlling cultural resonance of , and ,, ? Or, yep, . Karlyn Kohrs Campbell wrote an incredibly thoughtful piece discussing how our culture has negatively responded to Clintons inability to fit within the parameters set in terms of how one should act and speak as a woman in the political sphere. She says Clinton symbolizes the problems of public women writ large, the continuing demand that women who play public roles or function in the public sphere discursively enact their femininity, and that women who do not or who do so to only a limited degree, women whose training and personal history fit them for the roles of rhetor, lawyer, expert, and advocate, roles that are gender coded masculine, will arouse the intensely hostile responses that seem so baffling (15). Overall, what Campbell is arguing is that women in the political sphere, in order to be taken seriously, must enact just the right amount of femininity and masculinity, and that Clintons failure to be appropriately feminine has hindered her for decades.

She continues to thoughtfully lay out a masculine and feminine rhetorical style of speaking and discusses what that sounds like. In rhetorical terms, performing or enacting femininity has meant adopting a personal or self-disclosing tone (signifying nurturance, intimacy, and domesticity) and assuming a feminine persona, e.g., mother, or an ungendered persona, e.g., mediator or prophet, while speaking. It has meant preferring anecdotal evidence (reflecting womens experiential learning in contrast to mens expertise), developing ideas inductively (so the audience thinks that it, not this presumptuous woman, drew the conclusions), and appropriating strategies associated with womensuch as domestic metaphors, emotional appeals to motherhood, and the likeand avoiding such macho strategies as tough language, confrontation or direct refutation, and any appearance of debating ones opponents. Note, however, that feminine style does not preclude substantive depth and argumentative cogency (5).

Presidents Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton use/used a feminine rhetorical style of speakingsomething which men can do and not be criticized for. Reagan was the great communicator. Both Clinton and Obama have been called some of the greatest orators in American history.

Hillary Clinton cannot perform femininity and her inability to play into this script Campbell argues reveals *our deficiencies*not Clintons. Campbell states, Our failure to appreciate the highly developed argumentative skills of an expert advocate, when the advocate is female, reveals our deficiencies, not hers. Legislation attendant on the second wave of feminism opened doors for able women who seek to exercise their skills in all areas of life, including the formation of public policy. If we reject all of those who lack the feminizing skills of Elizabeth Dole, we shall deprive ourselves of a vast array of talent (15).

2). Please dont talk about her likeability. As with the sound of her voice and her rhetorical speaking style, her likeability should have nothing to do with whether or not she would make a qualified president. Yes, I realize all candidates have to somewhat pass the likeability test, but for Clinton, because of the years long Hillary hating stemming from her time as first lady, this issue is in fact gendered, and to criticize her for not being likeable reeks of sexism. Henry Louis Gates Jr. argues, Hillary hating has become one of those national past times that unite the elite and the lumpen. Gary Wills notes, Hillary Hate is a large-scale psychic phenomenon. At the Republican convention there was a dismemberment doll on sale. For twenty dollars you could buy a rag-doll Hillary with arms and legs made to tear off and throw on the floor. .. . Talk shows are full of speculation about Hillarys purported lesbianism and drug use. Fine conspiratorial reasoning sifts whether she was Vince Fosters mistress or murderer or both. The Don Imus show plays a version of the song The Lady is a Tramp with new lyrics about the way the lady fornicates and menstruates and urinates, concluding, Thats why the First Lady is a tramp.’

As Nico Lang points out, She was a working woman and full political partner with (gasp) feminist tendencies. Among would-be first ladies in the early 1990s, these were exotic qualities. Clinton has continued to occupy thatsame space for the better part of three decades now, a one-woman culture war whoplays the political game the same way the men around her do. But unlike those men, Clinton is chided for being disingenuous and a political insider. Everyone else just gets to do their job. There are real reasons to have reservations about a Clinton presidency including her oft-cited ties to Wall Street and her hawkish foreign policy but how often are they the central force of the criticism lodged against her campaign? In an August poll, Quinnipac found that while political respondents felt that Hillary Clinton was strong and a candidate with experience, the words they most associated with her are liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy. These designations appear to be motivated by her Emailgate scandal and the ongoing questions about Benghazi but none of the myriad investigations into eitherhave turned up anything close to a smoking gun.

Rebecca Traister also notes, Recall the days following the 2008 Iowa caucus, when the media took advantage of Clintons defeat to let loose with their resentment and animosity toward her. That was when conservative Marc Rudov told Fox News that Clinton lost because When Barack Obama speaks, men hear Take off for the future! When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear Take out the garbage! It was in the days after Iowa that Clinton infamously got asked about how voters believed her to be the most experienced and the most electable candidate but are hesitating on the likability issue. In late January, columnist Mike Barnicle told a laughing all-male panel on Morning Joe that Clintons challenge was that she looks like everyones first wife standing outside of probate court.’ In Diana B. Carlin and Kelly L. Winfreys analysis of the various ways Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were portrayed during the 2008 campaign, they note, Women who exhibited too many masculine traits are often ridiculed and lose trust because they are going against type or play into male political stereotypes that voters are rejecting (328).

More recently, Sady Doyle argues that, This plays out on the level of personal expression, too: Women are supposedly over-emotional, whereas men make stern, logical, intelligent judgments. So, if Hillary raises her voice, gets angry, cries, or (apparently) even makes a sarcastic joke at a mans expense, she will be seen as bitchy, crazy, cruel and dangerous. (Remember the NO WONDER BILLS AFRAID headlines after she raised her voice at a Benghazi hearing; remember the mass freak-out over her emotional meltdown when someone thought she might be crying during a concession speech.) She absolutely cannot express negative emotion in public. But people have emotions, and women are supposed to have more of them than men, so if Hillary avoids them if she speaks strictly in calm, logical, detached terms, to avoid being seen as crazy we find her cold, call her robotic and calculating, and wonder why she doesnt express her feminine side. Again, shes going to be faulted for feminine weakness or lack of femininity, and both are damaging. Okay, so she can never be sad, angry, or impatient. Thats not a ban on all emotion, right? Youd think the one clear path to avoiding the bitchy or cold descriptors would be to put on a happy face, and admit to emotions only when they are positive. Youd think that, and youd be wrong: It turns out, people hate it when Hillary Clinton smiles or laughs in public. Hillary Clintons laugh gets played in attack ads; it has routinely been called a cackle (like a witch, right? Because shes old, and female, like a witch); frozen stills of Hillary laughing are routinely used to make her look crazy in conservative media. She cant be sad or angry, but she also cant be happy or amused, and she also cant refrain from expressing any of those emotions. There is literally no way out of this one. Anything she does is wrong. Given these constraints, Doyle argues it is impossible for Clinton to be likeable.

Look at how shes tried to address this issue. Dancing like a fool, talking about fashion, laughing more. What has it gotten her? Nothing but backlash.

Dave Holmes writes in , Youre not fun. Stop trying to pretend youre fun. writes an entirefaux op-ed from Clinton entitled I am Fun painting her attempt at being fun as insincere and manufactured.

In the eyes of the American public, Hillary Clinton will be fun. Or likeable. Or someone youd want to have a beer with. And it shouldnt matter. Period. So quit it with the likeability stuff, already. Its stupid and petty. I dont care if my president knows how to dance or even knows how to dress well. And you shouldnt, either.

3). Do criticize her on substantive issues. As Kevin Young & Diana C. Sierra Becerra argue, Clinton is the embodiment of corporate feminism. In their piece, they cite many areas where Clinton could have been and could still be a better advocate for womens rights. Its a fair critique but one that falls under the radar when were so concerned with her voice, appearance, and dance skills.

4). Know your history, do some research, and when criticizing, be fair. One of the claims I often hear as to why some dont trust Clinton, or why some feel shes untrustworthy is because she sat on the board of Walmart. Ok. But lets dig a little deeper. Ann Klefstad notes, Not to take anything away from Bernie and Jane, but think what an advantage this is: to build a career in a location of your choosing, with the strong support of a highly qualified and intelligent person who is unconditionally loyal to you. This was also Bill Clintons situationafter Yale, finding Hillary, heading home to Arkansas, and building a brilliant career in politics. But heywhat about Hillary? After getting a law degree from Yale (an all-male institution a few years previously) she meets Bill. She dumps her career as a congressional aide to move to Arkansas with Bill. I can imagine her dilemma. This was the 1970s. If she wanted to be with Bill, she would be riding on the ship he was captain of. There were consequences to that. She would be a partner in creating a political career that would accomplish many of the goals she wanted to accomplish. Bill very much admired her superb intellect and political skills as well. So they embarked. Theyre in Arkansas. Vermont politics have a pretty clean record. Arkansas? Not so much. You do make your own choices, but the context youre in, well, it matters. The Arkansas economy was in the toilet. The only bright star was the Walton family and Walmart, which was on track to become the biggest retailer in the world. They provided (in Arkansas) an expanding number of well-paid jobs. Bill was governor. Should Hillary have dumped his political career for a chance to spit in Sam Waltons eye? Well, that wasnt going to happen. She sat on the Walmart board and did what she could to both ensure the prosperity of the state of which her husband was governor and to do the right thing. She has almost always chosen the path (sometimes not the one youd pick) that would enable her to accomplish some good actions, rather than the pure path that tends to lead to inaction, or to exile from the power than enables you to make change.

Still dont like the fact she sat on the board? Fine. Dont like her stances on foreign policy? Totally ok. But understand the choices Clinton made in the context in which she livednot in a vacuum. This goes for all of her political choices. Never assume anything about any candidate without doing a little research first. Its amazing how much you can find out on this magical thing called the interwebs.

5). Dont assume critiques against Clinton are automatically rooted in sexism, and when calling out someone for critiquing Clinton, dont assume they, are in fact, sexist either. Take the #BernieBro label, for example. According to Glenn Greenwald, Have pro-Clinton journalists and pundits been subjected to some vile, abusive, and misogynistic rhetoric from random, anonymous internetsupporters of Sanders who are angry over their Clinton support?. Does that reflect in any way on the Sanders campaign or which candidate should win the Democratic primary? . The reason pro-Clinton journalists are targeted with vile abuse online has nothing specifically to do with the Sanders campaign or its supporters. It has everything to do with the internet. There are literally no polarizing views one can advocateonline including criticizing Democratic Party leaders such as Clinton or Barack Obama that will not subject one to a torrent of intense anger and vile abuse. Its not remotely unique to supporting Hillary Clinton: Ask Megyn Kelly about that, or the Sanders-supporting Susan Sarandon and Cornel West, or anyone with a Twitter account or blog. Ive seen online TV and film critics get hauled before vicious internet mobs for expressing unpopular views about a TV program or a movie. Amanda Hess pushes further arguing as soon as the Bernie Bro materialized, the conversation around it deteriorated. As the meme gained momentum, some popularizers stopped bothering to marshal any kind of evidence that Sanders supporters were sexist . . . . This is a familiar online phenomenon. Just as mansplaining morphed from a useful descriptor of a real problem in contemporary gender dynamics to an increasingly vague catchall expression, ass Benjamin Hart put it in 2014,the Bernie Bro argument has been stretched beyond recognition by both its champions and its critics.What began as a necessary critique of leftist sexism has been replaced by a pair of straw men waving their arms in the wind.

If the label applies, absolutely use it. Call out sexism and misogyny-especially if its coming from someone who claims to be progressive. However, I worry the label is being thrown around loosely and being applied to many well meaning, non-sexist male critics of Clinton. And that only silences debate. I dont want anyone to feel as though they cannot legitimately critique Clinton for fear of being called sexist, a BernieBro, or other names.

Overall, as with most of my writing, this piece was for me. Every time I read an article about Clinton or Sanders or sexism or the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party I find myself wishing for more nuance, less click-bait, and sound and civil discourse. Im tired of seeing the same soundbites repeated on my Facebook wall, seeing good friends of mine unfriend each other or worse because theyre on Team Sanders or Team Clinton and cant find common ground to have a legitimate debate about what this election is really about. In the words of my good friend Greg Wright, If you can imagine a better opportunity to demand the world we want, Id like to hear when you think it will come. When will better circumstances reveal themselves again? What political climate are you relying on to thrust the most unlikely candidate into the realm of possible? You want to know what will make this all the more likely to happen again? Demanding that it happen now.

We are at a historic moment in American history, not unlike the 2nd wave feminist movement. Gloria Steinem once said of Betty Friedan I believe that she was looking to join society as it existed, and the slightly younger parts of the movement were trying to transform society. And those were kind of two different goals. Like Friedan, I would argue that Clinton wants to work within the structure we have, while Sanders wants to transform society. He wants a revolution. In the words of Robert Reich, Ive known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, shes the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have. ButBernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because hes leading a political movement for change.

Sexism is real, and I love the fact that we are even talking about the ugly face of sexism in politics. However, we must be able to criticize a female candidate without resorting to sexist tactics, or be called sexist for critiquing her in the first place.

Overall, as many have pointed out, both Sanders and Clinton would be undeniably better as our next commander in chief than anyone currently running in the Republican arena. So I would caution democrats to get too entrenched within their teams that they refuse to see the bigger picture of the need to elect a Democrat in this next election. There are ways to disagree with one another that dont need to devolve into name calling or soundbite repeating. On Facebook and elsewhere, engage with those on either side in mindful and productive ways. This is an incredibly important election for so many reasons, but that doesnt mean we cant have thoughtful debates. So keep reading. Keep posting. Keep fighting for your team. Just dont embrace the ugly. Theres enough of that out there already.

from All Of Beer http://allofbeer.com/a-feminists-guide-to-critiquing-hillary-clinton/