#it’s meant to be understood as a tool that oppresses people

[mxtxfanatic]

... Warning, rant in coming. Sorry.

Hot take, the only morally gray character in mess, that fits the exact definition of it, is Nie Huaisang.

I've seen more and more people trying to tone down Jiang Cheng's terribleness by saying that he's morally gray. I'very also seen those same people say that Wei Wuxian is morally gray because he did terrible things for good (and, no, lmao, he didn't. Most of those come from people not understanding how his cultivation works.) and that that was why he is so interesting. (Again, lmao. Lol even. Just say you don't appreciate depths and confuse "kind" with "boring", so you gotta give every character that you don't find boring a label to justify why you like them.)

I think the term "morally gray" has become a buzz word thrown around for any kind of character that isn't one dimensionally good or evil.

Jiang Cheng isn't morally gray. He is a bad person. Again, a PERSON. Not a monster, not some sort of creatures that has no concept of humanity, just. A bad person.

Society's habit of separating people that do bad things from themselves, that "us vs them" mantality, that dehumanization of bad people, it just leave a bad taste in my mouth. Even fucking serial killers have qualities, can be smart or charismatic or empathetic. Even pedophiles have hobbies and people that love them. Even rapists have people that they love and respect.

Being a terrible person doesn't mean that they're not human. There is no one in the world that has absolutely no redeeming qualities to them. But because of that separation that so many people take for the truth, because of that "they did this because they're a monster, but I'm not so I would never do this", people just cannot accept when a bad person isn't bad all the time.

They'll look at Jiang Cheng that, ultimately, loves his family and is arguably hard working, and they'll think that that means he's "morally gray", because he possesses good qualities, completely ignoring the fact that he's just a trash human being in general.

Low key, it pisses me off. Especially the people that relate so hard to him, and ask me if I wouldn't do the same in his shoes. Because no. I fucking wouldn't cause genocide. I wouldn't torture and kill complete strangers because they dared to have a surname I don't like or because they make me think of someone I resent from my past.

Like, I took can see myself in him, totally. He IS well written, and between the cartoonishly bad Xue Yang and the paragons of moral virtue that is Wangxian, he's definitely the one that feels closest to an everyday man, in personality if you ignore all the murders. I am petty, I hold grudges, I can be entitled and selfish, I am overall a massive rude cunt, but I do not want to hurt people and everyday I strive to be better than the last, even in infinitesimal ways. As should anyone. But that is something that Jiang Cheng doesn't even acknowledge, stuck as he is in his victim mentality and inferiority complex.

But Jiang Cheng is morally bankrupt. He is not morally gray. Not even dark gray. As an adult, he is painstakingly human and in general, a bad person.

And that is OK.

To make him a better person, you don't have to change his entire character with half assed head canons, just make him acknowledge his flaws and let him (finally) grow as a person, past that stubborn mentality he has had for decades.

He IS a bad person, but even bad people have a capacity for growth and change, of the moment they allow themselves to. If he ever gets forgiven for his past actions, that's on the people he has hurt, not that it should even be considered in his journey towards growth.

(Frankly, I don't think he would be. I think he shouldn't be, but that's not for me to decide. However, I can definitely JC finally making some tiny progresses but for all the wrong reasons, and get insulted when, if he ever even get to that point, his apologies don't end up fixing everything. He is totally the kind of person that would see you being mad at them and feel like he's the one being victimized because you didn't accept his half assed apologies. The emotional maturity on this man is below -100.)

(Also, Wei Wuxian isn't morally gray in the total opposite, in that he is such a good person, be it morally or emotionally, just. God, I envy his mental fortitude and his capacity for forgiveness and love.)

Sorry again for the ask, just had to rant somewhere about this and I am kind of curious about how you consider the "morally gray" argument. I think it's total bullshit, if the entire post didn't tell you, but yeah, I'm curious.

I hope I was coherent enough, I did not plan this ask at all, it was all streams of consciousness.

So before I get to the actual material of your rant—of which I agree with—I want to go on a tangent. Bad people as a category are not “dehumanized.” Dehumanization is the act of stripping someone or a group of people of their humanity as a tool of oppression, and it must come with material consequences. Saying that a continent of people are only capable of non-human animal intelligence to justify centuries of enslavement is dehumanization. Saying that a country of people are born terrorists to justify flattening their homeland and claiming it by a different name is dehumanization. Claiming that the man who called you out on your desires to be the new oppressors is a literal demon wanting to destroy your heritage in order to justify leading an army to kill him and his charges while attempting to remove their ability to reincarnate is dehumanization. Calling a child abuser a monster is not dehumanization. It is just an insult.

In fact, the “human traits” of terrible human beings do not need to be defended, because more often than not the absolute worst human beings are materially protected from the consequences of their actions by people who want to defend their “humanity.” In mdzs, I don’t give two fucks about Jiang Cheng’s one “human” trait of loving his nephew, because his “inhumane” traits of abusing said nephew and everyone else in his life intentionally overshadow that by his own design. Jiang Yanli loved her son just as much and lost much more than Jiang Cheng ever did, but she didn’t become an unrepentant monster. Humans are not “monsters-in-waiting” whereby we must act as if every individual is always one step away from committing unspeakable acts of depravity. If that was the case, we would not have survived as a community-dependent social species. Therefore, I do not find Jiang Cheng as the most relatable character ever because I do not find the way that he gives into anti-human behaviors to be relatable to me on a personal level or to be representative of most people’s actions throughout the course of their lives. To feel pain is human, and to have outbursts about it is understandable. To abuse about it? To murder about it? To mass murder about it??? Absolutely anti-human, anti-community, and the type of behavior that can only survive and thrive in an environment that privileges people with those specific “inhumane” traits above everyone else. (One might even call it the environment of a corrupt hierarchy of power that mdzs critiques.) The exact opposite of dehumanization. So if I choose to call Jiang Cheng a monster, it is to intentionally point out the ways that his conscious actions as a character in this story are a negation of human life and community.

On that note, I’ve discussed how this fandom uses “morally gray” in this ask (excuse the fact that I switch between “grey” and “gray” lmao). To bring back a point from my rant from above, Jiang Cheng has his one (1) good trait leveraged by fandom to whitewash his crimes under the guise of “morally gray,” while Wei Wuxian is the one actually being dehumanized by that same label as people use it to justify his literal murder (and those of the Wen remnants) in the story, so that’s my feelings on that. Whether Jiang Cheng can be redeemed or not, I frankly do not care to speculate because the story concludes his character arc at him regressing back into Jiang “hunter of Wen” Cheng, still rich, still single, and still only loved by his nephew. At the end of the day, he is not a real person and I’m only here for wangxian.

[peterpumpkinhead]

about yibo's recent controversy

it's bad!!!!!

I'm a black fan of his and needless to say, I'm devastated lol

Yes, I fully understood the context of the scene. Yes, I also understand there were many black people on set (and I will not hold them responsible or use them as tokens to justify what cannot be justified). Yes, I get that actors have contractual obligations and have limited say in what makes it in the film, in spite of what people might think.

That being said, there's a reason why blackface is 99% of time and abhorrent practice in the arts. I leave 1% out because, in certain instances, like in the show Mad Men, it appears for the sake of historical accuracy and it is MEANT to cause revolt and disgust in the audience.

The fact is - as much as the plot of the film is based in real life, blackface, as an aesthetic instrument, reinforces many negative stereotypes, it perpetuates itself in the collective imagination and is more so a tool of dehumanization and naturalization of the relegation of black bodies to the category of costumes, props, tools.

I don't even need to get into the paternalistic approach of foreign law enforcement, coming from powerful countries of the global north, working in developing countries and portraying themselves solely as heroes - which is the storyline of a film that has no main black characters and relegates the black cast to either victims, criminals or extras in the background.

The entire cast, crew and production company should be held responsible for this enormous error, so I won't single one person out.

Being critical and demanding a response is not the same as being a hater. I'm nobody's hater, or anti and I believe in measured, strategic responses to a situation like this. But being angry is a very, very valid feeling right now.

I myself work on television and ~believe it or not, am a socialist. You don't need to explain away the inner workings of the entertainment industry or the complexities of cultural impact and ongoing symbols of oppression. I'm *quite* aware.

But, as a good old socialist, I must ask the question: what do we do? My thought process is: I fear that the Chinese audiences will not give two damns about this, which does not mean we shouldn't mobilize ourselves to demand change, an apology and consequences.

Being someone's fan is not the same as joining a cult and my admiration for the actor involved is not larger than my responsibility to social justice and to my people.

So I suggest we contact and comment on posts made by international brands endorsed by the talents in this film - like Dior, Chanel, Lacoste, Pantene, etc. We need to ask them if they're ready the back actors who have agreed to this outdated, highly insulting practice.

This film will not be getting my support and I will not defend actions that need no defense. I'm nobody's attorney, I'm a working class artist and I know better than to infantilize a grown man, as much as I've a history of admiring him.

[fearofahumanplanet]

I wrote a little essay about Cluster B personality disorders a while ago, it was going to be in Serpents but probably isn't anymore and some people have asked me for it, so here it is in its own post (TW for discussion of ableism, ofc):

There are four Cluster B personality disorders – the supposedly “dramatic cluster”.

Antisocial personality disorder is defined in the DSM by a failure to conform to social norms and laws, indicated by repeatedly engaging in illegal activities; deceitfulness, indicated by continuously lying, using aliases, or conning others for personal gain and pleasure; exhibiting impulsivity or failing to plan ahead; irritability and aggressiveness, indicated by repeatedly getting into fights or physically assaulting others; reckless behaviors that disregard the safety of others; irresponsibility, indicated by repeatedly failing to consistently work or honor financial obligations; and a lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another person.

What the DSM does not mention is the numb-to-missing emotions and chronic emptiness an antisocial person feels. What it does not mention is that almost all research of antisocial personality disorder has been conducted with convicted criminals – often violent. What the DSM does not disclose is its prejudice.

Borderline personality disorder is defined in the DSM by frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment; unstable and chaotic interpersonal relationships, often characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation, also known as “splitting”; markedly disturbed sense of identity and distorted self-image; impulsive and reckless behaviors (e.g., impulsive or uncontrollable spending, unsafe sex, substance use disorders, reckless driving, binge eating); recurrent suicidal ideation or self harm; rapidly shifting intense emotional dysregulation; chronic feelings of emptiness; inappropriate, intense anger that can be difficult to control; and transient, stress-related paranoid or severe dissociative symptoms.

What the DSM does not mention is that borderline is an outdated term meant to designate an individual as “borderline psychotic”. What the DSM does not mention is that doctors and arbiters with a tenth of the trauma as borderlines are trying to fold it into the C-PTSD diagnosis, shoving the “problem” under the bed. What the DSM does not disclose is its prejudice.

Histrionic personality disorder is defined in the DSM by being uncomfortable in situations in which s/he is not the center of attention; interaction with others often being characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior; displaying rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions; consistently using physical appearance to draw attention to oneself; having a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail; showing self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion; suggestibility, i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances; and considering relationships to be more intimate than they actually are.

What the DSM does not mention is that the term “histrionic” is a reference to its near-exclusive diagnosis in supposedly “hysteric” and “dramatic” women from the Victorian era onward, another tool for oppression. What the DSM does not mention is that, just as the borderline diagnosis is almost exclusively given to women and the antisocial diagnosis is almost exclusively given to men, these diagnoses are used to do little more than persecute and put away “undesirable” extremes of gender norms. What the DSM does not disclose is its prejudice.

Narcissistic personality disorder is defined in the DSM by a grandiose sense of self-importance; preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; believing that they are “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions); requiring excessive admiration; a sense of entitlement (unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations); being interpersonally exploitative (taking advantage of others to achieve their own ends); lacking empathy (unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others); often being envious of others or believing that others are envious of them; and showing arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

What the DSM does not mention is that narcissists are debilitated perfectionists, often developing an elevated persona to make up for an insecurity beaten into them since childhood. What the DSM does not mention is that narcissists are not inherently abusive, instead choosing to emphasize their undesirable traits like every other Cluster B personality disorder’s criteria.

These disorders have much in common, but it is not drama. What the DSM refuses to mention, at every turn, is that these disorders almost always stem from intense, ongoing childhood and/or adulthood trauma. What the DSM never acknowledges is the suffering and anguish of the persons with these “defects”, instead focusing the criteria on the suffering of those who are not the patient in question. What the DSM does is encourage a culture of viewing traumatized individuals in need of care and help as psychopaths, sociopaths, mass murderers, and chronic abusers.

It is an accepted fact in our society that anyone with these disorders are born to be evil, born to be the criminal on your television, and that is an undisputed, immutable fact, and that those who have spent their entire lives suffering righteously deserve to suffer until the day they die.

What they don’t tell you is how rarely these diagnoses are dispensed, “sparing” sufferers from knowing the source of their stigmatization and what they can do to form healthier relationships. What they don’t tell you is that sufferers of these disorders are on an unofficial blacklist, to be treated and acknowledged only when absolutely necessary, as they are considered impossible to “cure”.

What they don’t tell you is how easy it is to suffer like this, to have your brain warped like this. The next psychopath to “safely” torture and abuse could be your sister. It could be your best friend. It could be your child.

It could be you, and when you don’t perform as expected after pain rewrites your code, you will learn what it is like to no longer be accepted as human.

It could be you, and you’ll learn how lonely and loveless a life we lead.

[beannary]

hey abt your tags on the DID survey

I would say we were a little thrown off by them? The tone just came across as talking about systems like theyre some weird misunderstood creature that needs to be experimented on, and not you know, people with thoughts and feelings.

Being interested and having an open mind is good! I'm not saying it isn't, and I know this probably comes off as being very policing

Its just important to be careful how you talk about other people, especially when we have a history of being the "other"

We're genuinely not mad because I'm pretty sure this came from a super good place, I just thought I'd let you know!

Thank you!!

Thank you for sending me this! I did not consider how the tone of my comments could come across but I also think you are misunderstanding what an anthropology study would be but also

1. that is super understandable because anthropology is not super well understood by non anthropologists

2. anthropology has such a bad history when it comes to studying marginalized communities

3. i am so entrenched in the anthropology community so i definitely did not consider how what i said would come across to people who dont have the same set of knowledge that i do and

4.i did not like proofread my comments so i totally get that i may have written my thoughts in a way that was othering which I really didn't intend! so I am sorry for that

im including like a bunch of information about my like thought process and like a further explanation of what i mean under the cut my thoughts just ended up getting super long so i didnt want to like clog up peoples dashes

TLDR: I totally understand how the term anthropology study comes across as othering and seems as if i am reducing people with DID to some sort of oddity that needs to be studied, and I am sorry for that, I should have considered how it would be understood. What an actual anthropology study would entail (or at least a good anthropology study) is just asking people with DID questions about their lives and whatever other topics they want to talk about with the end goal of giving the people who were apart of the research as much control and say over the research questions and study itself if that makes sense.

when i say anthropology study i mean that in the sense that anthropology is the study of communities and culture. anthropology has been used in the past as a tool to oppress people of color, women, people with mental illnesses, and pretty much every other community that is not straight and white and male, but that is slowly but surely changing!

I'm currently doing a masters degree in anthropology so I have read a lot of academic anthropology literature and I have read studies on people with mental illnesses and psychiatric disorders but I haven't read anything about people with DID and so i think that is an area of research that could be expanded on

when i say it would be interesting to do an anthropology study on people with DID what I sort of have in mind is basically it would just consist of asking people with DID questions about literally whatever. anthropology is meant to be a study that at the end of the day helps the study group in whatever way they want or need, it isn't (or at least it shouldn't) be entirely motivated for academic achievements if that makes sense

if I were to do a hypothetical anthropology study on people with DID my first step to begin that research would be to reach out to people who have DID and 1. ask if they want me to do a study at all (if they don't then there's no point in me pushing for it because the end goal of my study should be to help them in whatever way they want), 2. explain to them the ways anthropology could help them if they want a study to be done at all and figure out if what they want is compatible with the discipline of anthropology

just thinking of some like research topics off the top of my head (and mind you this is just me spitballing without going through the actual research process which would be much more intensive and would involve me you know actually talking with people with DID to figure out what they want specifically so this actual research question would not be applied in an actual study but im just giving you this as a rough example of what I mean) but a research question could be how are people with DID living in the modern 21st century world? I would then ask them questions about how they live their life, what they feel about the way they live their lives, what struggles they face, what would make life easier for them, and essentially literally whatever else they want to talk about.

I literally cannot stress enough how whatever research I would hypothetically do would be entirely up to the people I'm interviewing they would literally be entirely in control of the entire thing. And also any hypothetical research would only be conducted if people with DID wanted me to, it would be entirely dependent on their wants and needs, my job as the anthropologist would just be to document what they are saying and helping them navigate the world of academia to help them achieve whatever goals they want

If you do end up reading all of this I hope this was all understandable and straightforward! If it isn't then that's on me and I will rewrite it to be easier to understand. But I really do hope this makes sense and if you have any more questions for me or really anything else to say to me about things I could have said better or with more consideration my ask box is always open and also im pretty sure my dms are open too so you can always message me there!

[scoutpologist]

none of thats fucked up, honestly i think its natural and makes a lot of sense to feel as a trans/nongendered person in this environment. no apologies necessary

i think its not really a controversial statement to say that the world would be better off without these ideas of gender weve built for ourselves because yeah it kind of would. gender can for sure be beautiful in the ways people interact with or change it but thats not really gender itself i guess but more the interpretation. the current idea of gender itself to me is a divisive thing that was mainly used to oppress people. i mean maybe if colonialism hadnt happened wed have a different popular form of gender that was built on celebrating and worshiping differences and that would be really cool but as it is i dont really see anything wrong with personally wishing it didnt exist so that it wouldnt have to apply to you.

also i dont think youre a girl just because youre often interacted with as one. as a multigender person whos constantly the brunt of misogyny i get why it might feel easier to just "accept" girlhood since thats how people want to label you but like, nah. you dont have to.

and even if youre totally fine being seen as a girl that doesnt mean you have to be one on the inside too. your gender can just be your own special thing if you want.

this was way too much talking but basically do whatever you want forever. its okay to hate gender its okay to want no part in it. its okay to try to escape it by dressing like a bog monster or really emo but its also okay to stay exactly the same and just tell people youre not really a girl. its all up to you

i wish you luck

thank you so much for sending such a long and in-depth response!!

you're right in that it's not fucked up. looking at it with a clear head i know it's not.

"gender can for sure be beautiful in the ways people interact with or change it but thats not really gender itself i guess but more the interpretation. the current idea of gender itself to me is a divisive thing that was mainly used to oppress people."

^^^ this is roughly how i feel about it but i was struggling to put it into words. i also hesitate greatly at times to say that gender is a tool of oppression because even though that's true, that line of thinking can very easily be misconstrued as trans people being oppressors forcing gender onto others, rather than victims of the social oppression. it's the reason i haven't really brought this up before as well. i'm very relieved to find that people have understood what i meant lol.

"also i dont think youre a girl just because youre often interacted with as one. as a multigender person whos constantly the brunt of misogyny i get why it might feel easier to just "accept" girlhood since thats how people want to label you but like, nah. you dont have to."

very true (and thank you for this <3). i think i feel the way i do because identifying that way used to be a very core part of my identity. and it always comes back to me as something that's difficult to let go of. i feel a kinship with other people who had the same formative experiences as me or who are going through them now.

i guess what gets me is that i understand and feel that gender is social, but i'm socially labeled a girl. so... technically that could make me a girl, in some way. and that's what i can't buck off - the fact that i'm seen that way means i have some connection to it that's socially definitely there. i'll never be able to get rid of my past and my childhood, too, and i wouldn't want to change those either. so does this make me a girl?

in my case specifically? it might, in some way defined solely by experience. and if it does make me, in some sense, a girl, what does that matter for how i view myself and my gender? it really would only matter for peace of mind and acceptance of how people see me. it's something different from my internal perception of myself. so i don't know. i'll have to think about it. but you've really got me thinking.

i think that people's internal perceptions of themselves and the outside perception are very different things, but they can interact to a certain extent based on the person. some people might not care at all and some do care. so it's a very individual thing that i'm talking about.

"and even if youre totally fine being seen as a girl that doesnt mean you have to be one on the inside too. your gender can just be your own special thing if you want."

very true. everyone do whatever you want forever <3

and as for the screenshot, yeah, i believe that gender is entirely social and made up as well. so do whatever the fuck you want. be free. maybe i should take that advice.

thanks again for the response, it means a lot, and i'm super happy to have this convo. talking about this is very freeing and it's always helpful and enlightening to hear others' thoughts!!

[magioftheseas]

Part of why Pokémon BW is such a provocative game and why Ghetsis in particular is such a despicable villain is definitely rooted in how N himself is framed and the specific mechanizations of Ghetsis’s relationship with him.

N is a pure-hearted hero. There’s no way around this. Not only is literal in the way N’s main goals are to protect and defend all Pokémon (who he considers his friends), it’s also put quite succinctly by the game itself:

“The king of this castle is the strongest Trainer in the world. He is accompanied by the legendary Pokémon. He has defeated the Champion. Added to all that, his heart burns with the desire to improve the world. If that's not what makes a hero, what more do you need?”

In many a hero’s journey, the hero is chosen be it by circumstance or a higher force. The hero is driven. The hero proves himself. The hero triumphs.

This line is from Ghetsis right before you go off to face N for one last battle within BW’s story mode. And it’s a chilling line to have your typical hero’s journey framed like this.

What makes Ghetsis such a monster isn’t just that he’s an abusive piece of shit father (although that certainly doesn’t help it’s case), it’s that he’s specifically a predator.

“The truth is this... I couldn’t become the hero and obtain the legendary Pokémon for myself.  So I found someone for that purpose, a warped boy who knew nothing but Pokémon.

“From that moment, I provided him with everything he needed to become a hero of legend and Team Plasma’s king.”

(Reworded game quote from Pokémon Evolutions Episode 4: The Plan.)

Ghetsis not only selected N for his nefarious schemes, he groomed him to ensure that N would follow his orders.

He isolated N from the rest of the world, surrounded him with stories of abuse and horror, and drilled into his head over and over that the world outside was horrific and cruel. That the relationships between people and Pokémon were inherently oppressive. In doing so, N would be motivated to change that world. Motivated to help those suffering and to sever those chains that kept Pokémon subservient.

A true heroic ambition nurtured by pure-hearted ideals, warped and corrupted by a deceitful, scheming man with twisted ambitions of grandeur.

Ghetsis preyed on N’s innocence, using fearmongering and exploiting victims of abuse to turn N on the world and to drive him down the path of ‘heroism’. And there may very well be nothing more motivating than the belief of righteousness. And if the rest of the world is cruel and corrupt, it not only makes a person with a sense of righteousness more driven, but also more dependent.

And the more dependent, the more malleable. A sense of right and wrong can be blinding. People don’t want to reason with much less give the benefit of the doubt with those they perceive to be villains. Ironically, this stubbornness makes those same people perfect prey for power-greedy narcissists who see them as perfect tools to build themselves up.

“The reason we reawakened the legendary Pokémon now was to give MY Team Plasma more power! Power to control the fearful masses!”

Pokémon BW is not subtle about this. N was kind and driven. He had the makings of a hero and he understood little about the world. Ghetsis found this made him perfect as a puppet. So long as N remained ignorant and distrustful of other humans, Ghetsis could direct him as he saw fit.

But of course, this meant that Ghetsis would also discard him as he saw fit, leaving N behind with a shattered understanding of everything and feeling worthless after everything.

It’s cruel, it’s wretched.

It’s not unrealistic.

Make no mistake, the world is complicated. It is not black and white and though it can be cruel and unjust, there are still good and kind people all around. People who truly wish to help and better the lives of others.

And make no mistake, there are monsters who prey on such people with the intent of using them to bolster their status and power. Who will cultivate fear and righteous fury against scapegoats to make themselves look trustworthy, to drive scared, vulnerable people to look to them for guidance.

Monsters such as Ghetsis, who in truth only care about themselves and have no interest in changing for the better and will throw you away without hesitation if you are no longer seen as useful to them. Monsters who you can’t reason with, but that’s maybe a discussion for another time.

[leportraitducadavre]

Well at first I was thought saying a coward in a moral sense, because I don’t Kakashi is a coward in that he afraid of death. But what I mean is Kakashi is coward in that he doesn’t stand up for what he claims to believe in and is willing to allow others to suffer ( his students) under a Village that he know his corrupt, but does nothing about it. Moral cowardice is mostly about choosing the path of least overall effort regardless of the fact that this path is in some sense wrong.

Let’s go for parts:

“But what I mean is Kakashi is coward in that he doesn’t stand up for what he claims to believe”

Not sure about this, Kakashi clearly stands up for what he claims he does: He does think that the way he acts is exactly the correct manner to defend his ideals. The “those who break the rules are scum, but those who abandon their friends are worse than scum,” that he repeated non-stop in the manga was just a twisted version of the original meaning that Obito intended. For Kakashi, abandoning one’s friends means turning their back on them and the village that saw them born and represents them, therefore, someone like Sasuke is an example of a scum.

(Not even when confronted with Obito was Kakashi able to disentangle his twisted-nationalistic version of the quote, so he internalized Obito's implication in Akatsuki by convincing himself that it was Obito the one who had changed in his views, rather than admitting he never actually understood what the phrase truly meant).

Konoha is full of people Kakashi cares for (and of people the ones he likes, care for, as well), not only his students but also his comrades, therefore, defending Konoha and the (corrupt) system that holds everything together is key. If Konoha stands, then everything he fights for has a chance at surviving, and the death of those close to him are not meaningless.

He twisted Obito’s words in order to fit them in his nationalistic viewing; something that turned out to be the moral compass that later on Naruto and everyone in the K11 internalized.

“is willing to allow others to suffer ( his students) under a Village that he know his corrupt, but does nothing about it”

As I said before, he concocted a mindset that allowed him to see suffering/death as a necessary (if not inevitable) sacrifice to protect something far more important than individuals’ safety: a symbol. He doesn’t force people to endure anything he would be unwilling to should he find himself in that situation, because to him, everything has a major purpose: Konoha’s survival.

The system is corrupt and he knows it, but he ends up tying those flaws to human’s course of actions instead of questioning the bases on which those individuals acted, which both led and allowed such conducts to occur.

“Moral cowardice is mostly about choosing the path of least overall effort regardless of the fact that this path is in some sense wrong.”

But that’s the thing, Kakashi has all the tools to see the wrongness of the system, and yet decides that the structure in place is still the best of all evils, so instead of improving it, it’s better to just keep doing what has been working until now in order to maintain the power (im)balance -that ultimately benefits Konoha the most-, and the temporary peace.

Minorities aren’t that important to him, Kakashi belongs to none of them so he knows nothing about what they’re enduring. The system was dirty to him as well and yet he thrived because he twisted reality to make himself believe (not without the help of a well-established educational system) that all his suffering was his own problem. Konoha had nothing to do with it, he was the one with issues, not the structure itself that forced his father and Rin to commit suicide (one because of shame, the other for a sentiment of protectiveness over a village that forced her into combat).

And you know, that might have been a nice and understandable excuse for a thirteen-year-old boy, but when you’re twenty-six and you’ve seen everything he did during his time in the shinobi force, then you turn from victim to accomplice, because you’re an active participant in the oppression -not only he did nothing to change things, he vigorously pushed his students in the nationalistic mindset.

Summarizing, I'm not sure about the "coward" stand when it comes to Kakashi's moral mindset, because it implies that he was just too terrified (or like you said, unable/unwilling to make an effort to question his ideals) to change things even when knowing and acknowledging the problems. I think he knew about the consequences of the system in place and took a stance to support it and reproduce it because of his nationalistic mindset. It's not that I don't agree with your points, but is the term to describe his moral compass the one I'm not sure about.

[hillbillyoracle]

Some Thoughts on Why White Pagans Need to Heal Their Relationships with Christianity

Note: I've been trying to write a piece like this for months and the only way I know how to write this is to be very vulnerable and personal. So just please keep that in mind as you read this. It isn't very refined and it's something I'm still very much in process with, to borrow a phrase from my charismatic Christian upbringing. It's more a diary entry than a finished piece and none of these thoughts are original or eloquent. My hope it's helpful to see someone thinking through these things though.

If you're white and you don't want to further colonization and imperialism in your spirituality, then going back to Christianity in some form is pretty necessary; to do the work of decolonizing it's doctrines and to prevent taking from traditions that aren't ours.

This is just the conclusion I've arrived at after a lot shadow working in and around both my ancestors and my religious trauma. My ancestors aren't all white Europeans. But given that I'm white and I don't have any way to carry on the traditions of those that weren't, I feel like the best way to honor those non-white ancestors is to go back to the spiritual traditions I do have access to and doing the work of reshaping them into something less harmful.

I have read and intellectually understood that culture forms the foundation of spirituality and that when you remove something from it's originating culture, that concept or tool no longer works properly, if at all. In working with my non-white ancestors, I really got it on a practical and emotional level. There was this sense that they'd love for me to know their traditions but that it required an understanding that just isn't possible for me given my upbringing and disconnection - "you don't know the words and there's no way to find a person who can teach you" as one ancestor put it. It was an important reminder that "this isn't for white people" isn't merely a categorical assertion but a cultural and practical one.

They've generally asked I stick to practices I have a cultural grounding in when honoring them, even though it is not theirs - the cultural and linguistic element is that important to them. They would rather an authentic expression of gratitude and care through a ritual that isn't theirs rather than an imitation of one that is or being left out of my practice all together. Which makes sense to me in a relational way I hadn't fully grasped before.

In working with my white ancestors, I've come to more viscerally understand that the present understanding of Christianity is wildly different than other historical understandings. One thing that surprised me was that some of my more recent ancestors have expressed more discomfort around my queerness and transness than many of my older ancestors but both root their understanding in the Bible. I enjoyed one ancestor who, when I explained that I'm partnered with a woman, to mean that I would have a life of service - "no men to distract you from God" - which I mean is not wrong on several levels. It really highlighted for me that Christian doctrine is far more flexible than I'd initially thought. It challenged ideas I'd picked up through traumatic religious experiences. So much of what I'd assumed was Christianity itself seems to be more Christianity right now.

The historical angle is really important me. One of the things that drove my interest in Paganism was trying to understand what came before Christianity, to connect with whatever had been cut off in that process. The more I've come to learn about imperialism within Europe - how various empires conquered and destroyed localized traditions indigenous to parts of Europe - it clicked for me that my white ancestors did to others what had been done to them. It is intergenerational trauma in a nutshell.

It's also striking to me that so many people term the traditions pagans pull from as "dead" religions or at the very least "not living". For years I took that to mean they were "safe" to take from, that I wouldn't hurt anyone by doing so. But I hadn't really understood the weight of what "dead" meant - that there was no one left alive who could teach me, that I can't live in a context where all of the beliefs, tools, and traditions make intuitive sense. And if it was important to my ancestors who had had a connection to their traditions, then what was I missing by reanimating these traditions without that link?

I don't have a full visceral understanding of what I'm missing to be honest. I have a feeling that'll develop as my practice evolves. But that question alone has marked a pretty important change in how I understand myself spiritually.

The living and cultural element to my practice is more important to me now. For me, just given the family, community, and area I was raised in, that means Christianity is the living tradition I have access to and I've been revisiting it. I was reading an interview the other day with someone who is both a Catholic theologian and a practicing Buddhist. I liked the way he put it when he referred to Catholicism as "one of his sources of wisdom". That better captures my relationship with Christianity that's been unfolding over the last few months.

Making sure that intergenerational spiritual trauma stops as much as possible with me is really important. I had mistakenly thought that meant abandoning Christianity all together, that it was the problem. Which in hindsight, is fucking wild - I hugely fucked up there. There's nothing stopping me from just enacting the harm I learned in the context of Christianity in a different context, a Pagan context. It doesn't get to the root of the issue. At the end of the day, I just want to be sure I do not use my religion, any religion, to further the harms of structural inequality and colonial oppression. That's the goal.

In reading around about this, I've come to feel pretty strongly that one of the best ways to work toward that is to strive toward animism. Animism has been a great antidote to the spiritual entitlement that colonial religions cultivate (including white paganism). Animism also builds a relational spirituality rather than a goal/individual centered one. White paganism isn't inherently animistic since white culture teaches values that undermine quality relationships - individualism, competitiveness, and seeking domination of some fashion in order to feel safe. An animistic lens requires you unlearn those values and cultivate new ones - mutuality, respect, and accountability.

So all this is to say that given my current understanding, I think trying to build a practice out of New Age concepts while trying to avoid appropriation sounds impossible and hellish. I also think it doesn't deal with the work that needs done. I'm choosing to take an animist lens to the living traditions I do have to see if that's a better space for both my spirituality and my evolving understand of decolonizing to grow in.

People will rightly question my use of the term "shadow work" given this perspective. Shadow work is a problematic term for a lot of different reasons that are beyond the scope of this piece.  Where I'm at with it right now is that most western religious traditions seem to have some understanding of what we might call shadow work which points to it being important and useful. However they all used different terms given their contexts so I'm still unsure of what term might be the most appropriate given where I'm at. So for right now, you might see me use it less in the title or body of work I write from here on out, but I still might use it as a tag to make it findable. There's a good shot this doesn't go far enough and I'm not sold on this approach. Just know it's something I'm trying to figure out.

So that's where I'm at right now. I think white pagans really need to be more serious about animism at minimum and hopefully also looking at the role living religious traditions play in their current practice as well. I think white pagans' unhealed reactivity around Christianity too often serves as a justification for spiritual appropriation and furthering colonial harm. Changes are definitely needed. What that looks like in practice for individuals will likely vary a ton. I'd love to hear from other folks doing work in this vein. What's worked for you so far? What hasn't? Where are you in the process?

[pbscore]

Transmasc/butch Anon, thank you very much for your answer ! It makes sense, don't worry /0/ I was mostly asking because I was at a loss on wether I could opt out of the transmasc label, since while it describes my experiences in part but still feels too 'binary' too me (not that it is inherently binary, just my personal feelings !), but if it was like, another tool to discuss your relationship to oppression (like tme/tma) then my personal feelings wouldn't really matter !

(2/2) Also I hope I make sense and I apologise if I don't, English isn't my first language and even outside of that I tend to just. Skip words I general ^^'

You’re good, anon! I’m glad you asked because these concepts are hard to understand, especially when you have far too many ‘opinions’ on this site that try to come across as ‘facts’. Things are a little more complex than what a lot of people tend to think but in the end, as long as you’re taking accountability of your own actions and words, you should be fine.

If you have anymore questions or comments, feel free to ask! And if I don’t know the answer, I’ll usually ask someone else who may have more knowledge on a certain topic than I do 😂

Oh, also, you don’t have to apologize at all! I understood what you meant and I was just trying to make sure that my answer made sense and didn’t come across as rude or condescending.

[petr1kov]

i love the way better call saul constructed kim's character arc, going from a perfect upholder of law who seemed to genuinely believe in it's merits into someone who pretty much opposes it.

kim from the earlier seasons is someone who, by her own admission, wanted 'more' out of life, and saw that the way to do it was to follow the traditional 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' narrative. she got an opportunity to go to college and she made the most out of it. she is an extremely determined person who gave her all to become someone - the absolute best in her field - and she did!

.... except, she realized that it wasn't as simple as that. even after doing everything right and landing a great job, after reaching the top, she saw that 'the top', for someone like her, meant working herself to the bone so that so-and-so bank could open another branch and make a profit. and, even worse, it meant becoming the face for this sort of company. it meant being complicit in the oppression of people like acker - people who she knew she had a lot more in common with than she ever had with someone born into wealth like the head of mesa verde.

kim still had some naive faith in the judicial system, but she lost it once she really understood that it wasn't a fair arbiter of justice as much as it was a tool designed to be commonly used for the benefit of rich people, and that's when she began to fully embrace the slippin' jimmy ways; basically, intention over legality. now, she'll just do whatever it takes to make sure she does what she believes is right.

[thenovelartist]

His Greatest Gift - MLQC AU Headcanon

I was inspired by the “Double Seventh Time Travel” cards (and some other stories I’ve read.) After sitting on this for well over a month, I finally finished it.

Premise: The boys are given a gift; they just don’t expect that gift to be a person.

  Gavin

For his acts of bravery on the battlefield, Gavin was promoted in his rank as well as endowed with a gift.

He insisted it was not necessary; Gavin never had need for material objects unless they assisted him in completing his mission.

However, he was told by his lord that it would be in his bedchamber come evening.

Gavin didn’t know what sort of gift to expect, but a girl sitting on the edge of his bed was definitely one possibility he never thought of.

People aren’t gifts, after all. They aren’t meant to be traded like some material object.

So, he sent the woman away.

However, what surprised him was her thankfulness of his action.

It was clear she hadn’t a choice in the matter. Which pissed him off even more.

When he told his lord that he could not accept a human as a gift but that no other gifts were necessary, his lord said he understood.

“Then I suppose I’ll take her as mine.”

Gavin quickly retracted his words, which only pleased his lord. It was clearly a purposeful trick, but Gavin wasn’t about to let her be taken advantage of, either.

He soon learned that she had been orphaned, her father having passed on before paying off a debt to their lord, meaning she was at his service until she paid it off.

Gavin didn’t want his lord to take further advantage of her, so she became a servant-slash-attendant to him of sorts.

He didn’t have a large dwelling, but she kept it clean as well as cooked for him when he was home off the battlefield.

And she sang.

It was accident he found that out, but the moment he heard her mellifluous voice ring through the air of his home, he knew he wanted to hear it again and again and again.

So while he didn’t ask for much of her—their agreement consisted of he gave her protection and a place to live while she kept his house and cooked so he wouldn’t have to (her cooking skills far outranked his, anyway)—he did shyly ask for her to sing more frequently.

And she happily complied.

He’d actually fallen asleep to her voice many times. It soothed and comforted him, particularly after a long day.

Her smile had a similar affect, he soon realized. The burdens of his heart would ease at the sight of her smile.

He didn’t quite understand it; the only other person who could accomplish that was his late mother.

No one other than his mother had cared for him beyond caring how useful of a pawn he could be.

But now, MC was the exception.

The amount she fussed when he came home with scars or bruises made him feel valued.

It also made his little heart go “pitter patter.”

He never thought that he would dread going out to battles or skirmishes. He just didn’t want to leave her.

But, the boy is dense and didn’t realize what that feeling was for months.

However, when he gets it, he doesn’t waste much time. (He does not count time spent weighing the potential negative effects of admitting to the woman who worked for him that he had feelings for her as ‘wasting time’.)

Any fears of his confession putting her in an awkward or uncomfortable position vanished the instant she admitted she’d also grown feelings for him.

Que walks together, shopping trips where he carried the purchases, or horseback rides where he carried her all around the territory.

But Gavin’s favorite thing was to spend any warm afternoon together in a field outside the city, where there was only the two of them resting in the golden fields that waved in the breeze. Sometimes they talked, sometimes one or both of them took a nap. It didn’t matter to Gavin.

With things going so well, it was only a matter of time before he married her.

Occasionally, he did think about how she had originally been a ‘gift’ to him, only for the purpose of warming is bed and entertaining him. How ironic that she’d become the greatest gift he’d ever received.

  Kiro

He was a prince visiting a newly conquered territory.

He did hate the chaos and bloodshed of war, but he thought the cost worth it to liberate an oppressed territory.

And the people seemed to be thankful to be free of their ruthless dictator.

To show their thankfulness, they said they had prepared a gift for him.

Though he assured them it wasn’t necessary, he loved gifts and was always happy to accept.

However, he was less pleased to see that gift was a woman: the daughter of some noble family.

“She’s the finest lady in the land, your highness. For your harem.”

Except… he didn’t have a harem. And wasn’t looking to start one.

However, Savin, his advisor, accepted on the prince’s behalf.

He said something about ‘politics’ that basically meant ‘we’ll take her as a political tool.’

Kiro was not fond of it, but knew there wasn’t much that could be done.

So, he decided the only thing he could do was treat MC as well as he could.

However, she was not informed of his plan, nor was anyone else.

Which lead to MC ending up in his bedchambers that evening.

While…not where he wanted to have a conversation, he assured MC that he had no intention of using her in such a manner.

That resolve was fortified when he saw relieved tears come to her eyes.

He hated tears, so he did his best to cheer her back up and, thankfully, succeeded.

Later, she confessed to him that she’d been picked not because she was the prettiest girl in the land (her words, that Kiro strongly disagreed with; she was truly beautiful) but because her family was among the poorer of nobles, and she was not able to find a good match in time to avoid being given to the prince as a concubine.

Kiro was not happy to hear such a thing. Apparently, the nobles of this territory still needed close monitoring.

When they got back to his castle after leaving the one he’d acquired with the territory, Kiro was sure to treat her well, as well as ensuring that everything was up to her standards.

He had the ability to give her anything she wanted, but he soon discovered that material goods didn’t fascinate her as much as his kingdom itself.

So, Kiro designated a whole day to take her on a full tour of his castle and the city.

And seeing her eyes light up with wonder at their adventure was all that it took to get Kiro addicted to her smile.

From then on, he took her on any adventure he could think of. The pond behind the castle for a picnic? The kitchen for sweets? The town to escape Savin? They’ve been on all of them.

Kiro lives for these adventures. They seem to be better with her.

Her smile, her laughter, her expression of awe and wonderment… they did things to Kiro’s heart.

He’d do anything to get those little gifts from her.

Savin only gets mad when Kiro ditches his work for those adventures, which… is often.

As frustrating as it is, Savin is a little pleased to see Kiro so happy with a woman. It meant an heir might come sooner rather than later.

And when Savin voiced as such to Kiro, Kiro… couldn’t deny it.

He’d taken quite a liking to her. Her smile and laughter, how willing she was to go on adventures with him or just spend a quiet afternoon together. Don’t get him wrong, he loved it all, but it just didn’t seem like enough anymore.

The possibility of more… of taking her as his wife and having a family with her…

That was the end of Kiro’s heart. It had been stolen by a very beautiful thief.

So, with a new determination, he confessed.

His heart soared when she confessed back.

They didn’t date longer than a week before they started making plans for a wedding.

There really was no point in waiting any longer than that. Not when Kiro knew he wanted her to be his princess.

He wanted to bet that all the ladies back in from her territory were jealous now.

Though, to be fair, he didn’t realize just how precious of a gift she’d be to him back then, either. But he swore to never, ever take that for granted again.

  Victor

As Emperor of his region, he knew marriage would be inevitable. He had an obligation to produce an heir.

He had plenty of women throwing themselves at him, practically begging for his attention.

And he found all of them severely lacking.

It exasperated Goldman, his right hand man.

At this point, the emperor’s court decided that it no longer mattered her status, if the emperor showed even the slightest interest in a woman, even if that was just the hint he didn’t hate her, they would make her his bride immediately.

So, a poor, unsuspecting MC arrived at the castle with a plea for her village for the emperor.

And her stubbornness, passion, and determination caught his attention.

Goldman about fainted when Victor smiled at her and answered that he would send his answer within the week.

A week later, Goldman was the one to deliver the supplies. However, unbeknownst to a certain emperor, he may have added a condition to her village receiving those supplies.

And that was how she became a bride presented to him by the court.

Victor was not amused. And he certainly was not amused that said presented bride had been coerced into his bed chambers that night.

But when he tried to send her back, she snapped. “You called me here as your bride in return for the supplies to my village, and then you have the audacity to turn me away?”

Victor’s brow furrowed as his face turned red in anger. “What do you mean ‘in return for supplies’? That was never part of the condition.”

Needless to say, a very pissed Victor had to refrain from sending people to execution right then and there.

After having rectified the situation in his court, the situation remaining was what to do with the girl.

He knew he couldn’t send her back because her village was waiting anxiously for her to become the new empress.

Which meant striking a deal with MC.

“We will keep up appearances. I will marry you in name only, but you must learn how to act like a true noble lady in order to act perfectly as my wife.”

Que lessons.

Victor supervised, AKA, micromanaged.

And MC was always fiery enough to shoot insults in retaliation.

Actually, it became the highlight of his day.

One day, Victor took over her lesson.

Oof, strict teacher.

But the pressure became too much, and MC finally snapped. “I’m doing everything I can! I can’t give you anything else. If you disliked me this much, you shouldn’t have agreed to marry me.”

Shocked at the tears in her eyes, Victor finally composed himself enough to swipe them away. “It’s not because I dislike you. It’s because I know that you’re strong enough to meet my challenge that I demand so much.”

A mutual understanding passed between the two of them then. Victor did his best to not be so strict, realizing too late that she was under so much pressure already that his strictness was not helping her.

He stopped interfering with her normal lessons, causing him to almost… miss her… a bit.

He decided to satisfy that longing by giving her quick, private lessons at the end of the day. She would show him what she learned, and he would gently correct anything he saw wrong.

And afterwards… they couldn’t bring themselves to part.

So, they would simply walk around the gardens and talk.

And soon, as a way of keeping her around even longer, Victor showed her his secret of actually enjoying using the kitchen.

While it originally surprised her, MC quickly became a more than willing taste tester.

Despite the increased amount of time together, Victor still hated parting with her.

Which was why Victor was very pleased at MC’s sudden new habit of bringing tea to his study when he was working.

It was both a blessing and a curse, because when she did, he got the honor of spending time with her, yet he also neglected his work in the process.

Eventually, Victor found that in the span of just a few months while a proper wedding ceremony was being put together, he’d come to regret the deal he made with MC for their marriage to be name only.

He… actually could see himself happy with her.

He debated telling her or not, and in the end, he was a man and confessed his feelings to her a few days before the wedding was set to take place.

He was surprised by her tears at his confession, only to be met with a confession of her own.

The deal was thrown out that night.

And on the wedding night, their marriage became one of not just name, but body and soul.

He would thank Goldman later because—while Victor still did not approve of Goldman’s methods—had it not been for his interference, Victor would not have such a precious gift in his arms now.

  Lucien

He was part of a group of war lords aiming to increase their territory.

He’d conquered a large portion of territory, gaining an army that could then overthrow a comrade’s territory.

Lucien gladly did, taking on the man with no remorse or shame. In fact, he conquered with a smile.

“How dare you turn against me, Ares.”

“Forgive me, Hades,” he said, tone holding no remorse whatsoever. “But I grew tired of your… rather chaotic ambitions.”

Upon defeat, Hades was forced to surrender everything. Land, army, resources,

And a woman he kept very much hidden in his private castle.

Lucien remembered the fear in her eyes the first time they met. She was trapped in one of the rooms, and he’d caught her trying to break the lock on the window.

That fear didn’t dissipate even as a fire lit in her eyes. “I won’t cower to you!” she shouted, glaring at him even though she trembled.

In that moment, Lucien found her easily the most fascinating woman he’d ever seen. Was she driven by courage… or naïve hope?

Either way, it was clear Hades hadn’t broken her yet. Which Lucien was thankful for. She seemed far more interesting like this.

“You could waste time trying to break that lock before certainly injuring yourself in your escape from this third story room. Or, you could just let me show you the way out.”

She looked utterly shocked at that.

He chuckled. “Let’s just say your former master no longer has hold on you. Or anything, really.”

It took a moment for her to process those words. “Are you saying he’d dead?”

“No, not dead. But I do own everything he has as of now.”

“Including me?”

“Including you.”

The fire went out of her eyes a bit at that—what a shame, he quite liked it blazing so brightly—as she eventually followed him from the castle.

He did not dare stay in that castle. Frankly, burning it down would please him the most, which was what he did. He set free those who wanted to find work elsewhere and promised work at his own castle to those who wanted it.

Only a few stayed with him, most unwilling to work for a rogue warlord, but surprisingly, the girl was among them.

“I don’t have anywhere else to go,” she admitted when asked. “If you’re promising work, I’ll take it.”

Lucien found himself very pleased at that. But at the resigned look on her face, he couldn’t help tease her a bit. “Even if I assign you the job of warming my bed?”

She froze, her eyes wide with shock before a fire sparked inside them again. He liked that fire quite a bit. “I tease,” he assured before promising legitimate work for her.

Even after that, she still followed him.

How fascinating a woman she was.

It took three months to learn just how fascinating she was.

He came home wounded after a scuffle on his border. He’d already seen a battlefield doctor to treat them. He would heal just fine.

He asked MC to bring him new bandages. She did so quite quickly, and then she offered to change them for him.

Curious, he accepted.

“Don’t you fear me?” he questioned.

“Why should I?”

“I am no better than your former master.”

“That’s not true!” she cried, looking at him. “You are ruthless, but fair. The people in your territory are able to thrive under your rule.”

He paused, surprised at her words. “And what do you think of me?”

“I think you are gentler and more trustworthy than you present yourself to be. I never worry about my safety or the safety of any other maids here in your home.”

That was all it took for new feelings to spark in Lucien’s chest. Feelings that were so foreign to him yet fascinating to explore.

And he started that exploration by calling on MC to keep him company frequently.

Those meetings varied from walks in his garden to keeping company over tea.

Over time, it became clear just what those feelings in his chest were.

One day, he called her to join him in the library, where they could talk privately.

He wouldn’t confess first. He would talk in a roundabout way that got MC to admit that maybe she felt similarly close to him before he would admit his feelings for her.

He wouldn’t trap her. He would ensure that she felt like she could leave without consequences. But he also knew that if she felt at all similarly, she wouldn’t leave.

And in the end of that conversation that made MC blush bright red and Lucien smirk triumphantly, she agreed to date him.

Which would result in marriage six months later.

Lucien easily felt like the luckiest man alive. He’d conquered many territories and accumulated wealth and riches, but he could say that the only true treasure he’d ever acquired from his efforts was her.

[crossdreamers]

What's the difference between radical feminism and liberal or intersectional feminism? I'm confused ^.^"

What is the difference between liberal, radical and intersectional feminism, and what does this mean for transgender people?

Any attempt at reducing feminism to distinct, neat, types or categories will ultimately fail, as there is much diversity and feminism is in constant development. That being said, here is a very simplified presentation of various types of feminism, as they are often understood in an American and North European context. 

Note that these categories are overlapping, both in space and time.

FIRST WAVE -> Liberal Feminism

There has been a female liberation movement going as far back as the 18th century, but in the Anglo-Saxon context the first wave is considered the one that started in the 19th century with the suffragettes and the women’s right to vote movement.

Suffragettes, London.

Many of the ideas of first wave feminism is found in what these days is  referred to as liberal feminism. The idea is that you may gradually change the system from within, making people see that women are in no way inferior to men, and that they deserve the same rights as men, both as regards property, work, education, political influence and pay.

Liberal feminism does not challenge liberal, capitalist, democracy as such. These feminists want to improve it. They share the individualism of liberal democracy, and fight for women’s right to personal autonomy and freedom. 

In many ways this approach has been a success, as is seen in the increasing participation of women in working life, culture and politics.

The limitation of this kind of feminism is, as I see it, that these feminists tend to think of the social system as a rational system. The point is to make people understand that the current system is unfair and oppressive. When people do understand, they will change their behavior. 

As we have seen with the recent traditionalist backlash, many people – both men and women – do not care so much about facts or rational discussions. They see traditional gender roles as a part of their identity, reality be damned, and feel threatened by anything that may weaken their fragile view of the world.

These days most liberal feminists support the rights of transgender women. However, it should be pointed out that there was a time when  liberal feminists argued that even lesbians should be excluded, as their presence might undermine the legitimacy of the feminist movement. Betty Friedan did not want to allow what she called “the lavender menace” into the US National Organization for Women back in 1969. 

I have no idea what she thought about trans women at the time, but you will sometimes see the same kind of embarrassment among some liberal feminists today as regards the presence of trans women.

SECOND WAVE -> Radical Feminism

The second wave appeared in the 1960s. Radical feminists believe that the system that oppresses women, by them referred to as “The Patriarchy”, is a system created by men to control and exploit women. You cannot achieve victory within this system, they argue, as it permeates everything around us: laws, language, mythologies, art, entertainment. 

The Ladies’ Home Journal sit-in 1970

The system makes it hard to think differently, as the oppression is integrated within social institutions like marriage, the traditional nuclear family, and the health care system, as well as in the words we used (”woman” understood, for instance, as someone who is assigned female on the basis of genitalia). 

In the Patriarchy, being a man is the default. Women are “the Other”. The goal of radical feminism is a society where your genitals no longer define your role and influence in society. 

Radical feminists see pornography and prostitution both as signs of, and tools for, the oppression of women. Some lesbian radical feminists even see heterosexual sex as a tool of oppression. Lesbians have freed themselves from male domination by not having sex with men, they say.

Radical feminists have criticized the liberal feminists for wanting to become like men. The point is not to gain the right to do what men do, they argue, because that leads women to devalue what women do.

Influential radical feminists like Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, John Stoltenberg and Monique Wittig, recognize  trans women as women, which makes sense in a movement who is based in the idea that genitals should not define your worth, your role or your status.  

Radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin viewed surgery as a right for transgender people.

There is another strand of radical feminism, however, known as trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERF), people who argue that trans women are men in disguise, and that they  perpetuate the ideals of the Patriarchy. The trans women want to take over “womyn’s spaces”, they say. 

In order to prove that trans women are men, the TERFs point to the fact that some trans women are sexually attractive (thus living up to the sexism of the Patriarchy). At the same time they use stories and photos of those that are not living up to the aesthetic standards of the fashion industry to prove that all trans women are men. 

The fact that many cis women try equally hard to please the male gaze is ignored. The diversity of transgender women is ignored. Nor do the TERFs consider that trans women who have been raised as men have been harrassed and bullied for their female identities and feminine expressions throughout their lives. In other words: That they are also victims of the Patriarchy. 

Recently much of the transphobic radical feminism has degenerated into biological determinism, as in “genitals or chromosomes determine whether you are a man or a woman”. Many of these “radical feminists” also deny the existence of gender, as in the cultural definition and expression of gender roles and gender identities. This is the exact opposite of what radical feminism was meant to be. These “gender critical” activists are, as I see it, not true radical feminists.

Among the transphobic radical feminists we find people like Germaine Greer, Janice Raymond,  Sheila Jeffreys, Julie Bindel, and Robert Jensen. They have very little support in the US, but have managed to gain some influence in the UK. The Norwegian organization for radical feminists, Kvinnefronten, welcomes transgender women.

THIRD WAVE -> Intersectional Feminism

The third wave of feminism began in the early 1990s (although you will find its roots back in the 1970s). It embraces individualism and diversity.

Both the first and the second waves of feminism have been dominated by white, cis, middle and upper class women from “Western” countries. Many of them are academics. They are not representative of women in general. 

Because of this they have  been criticised for generalizing about the female life experience on the basis of their own lives, ignoring the unique experiences of – for instance – women of color, women in developing countries and trans, nonbinary and queer women.

Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw.

The term intersectionality was introduced by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in 1989, and it was soon adopted by third wave feminists. Intersectionality reflects  postmodern insights into the way the current social and cultural systems creates  hierarchies of oppression. 

This oppression is not only about men oppressing women (or the upper class exploiting the working class). In a world dominated by privileged white, straight, and “masculine” men, everyone who does not live up to their ideals are oppressed, whether their “otherness” is caused by sex, skin color, sexual orientation, homeland, religion or gender identity. 

The third wave has also been strongly be influenced by queer theory and gender theory, which look at  the social and cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity, sexualities and gender.

The third wave is often seen as sex positive. There are “girly”, “lipstick”, feminists who embrace feminine gender expressions and female sexuality and who argue that noone, not even feminists, have the right to to define or control how they should dress, act, or express themselves.

Needless to say you won’t find many transphobes among third wave feminists.

Some have also coined a fourth wave of feminism. It seems to me to be a continuation of third wave, intersectional, feminism, with a strong focus on the use of modern media. Some TERFs have tried to appropriate the term, joining right wing extremists in their attacks against queer gender theory, but do not be fooled by this. They are, at best, to be considered an offshoot of the second wave. They do not represent women. They do not represent feminists. They do not represent radical feminism.

Top illustration: iStock 

See also:

On lesbians,transgender people and feminism.

Transadvocate on transgender feminism.

The rise of anti-trans “radical” feminists, explained

Idol Worship: Julia Serano Talks To Autostraddle About Fixing Feminism

Andrea Dworkin Was a Trans Ally

[tiga-ilog]

Introduction

It has been awhile since I last used tumblr. It may have been years, I originally used it as a thought dump and random reblogs of posts I liked. My high school years can’t be complete without the participation of tumblr, wattpad, group texts and all the sorts that made early 2010s at its peak.

However, life happened and I grew alot during the span of the decade. I did not survive the test of time that weighed my faith as a Christian. I failed and, thus, here I am enlightened with my newfound freedom of independence.

I used to hate the growth of my soul because I was slowly becoming more different than who I started as. I used to abuse the phrase, “I wish my old self.” However, younger version of me was unaware that this death was necessary for renewal and that death does not mean dead end.

I thank all the pain and stupidity I brought to myself and grew out of. I thank all the unnecessary heartaches I endured from my childhood, it taught me forgiveness. I thank the people I regarded as friends but treated me indifferently and atrociously for the prejudice they have given me, I learned compassion and empathy. I thank the failed love and the shame I experienced for expressing my sexuality in the gender I was born with, I learned to love myself more. I thank the illnesses I overcame, may it be physical and mental, for how I adored life more.

I know it’s far from over. I just turned 24 twelve days ago since I posted this. There are more that I have to learn. But atleast, I’m stronger to face them than I was a decade ago. And now, I acquired new beliefs that will help me along the way:

I fully understood feminism as a whole. I can’t call myself a feminist without fully supporting the equality of women in all aspects. I understood that being a feminist is not just for fighting my right and the right of women to exist but also to continue the legacy that the women and men before us fought for.

Being pro-choice meant that I support whatever choice a woman wants for her body. I understood that what makes us human is our ability to choose may it be because of our need or our want. The nature of our animalistic side can not interfere with our humanity, our ability to choose. We have to guard that ability and right. May the women who were forced to take unwanted fetuses to term and the women who were forced to abort wanted fetuses be able to fight for their right to bodily autonomy.

Sexuality is not a choice. My failure in love made me realize that no matter how I disgust the majority of the male population, my brain is wired as straight as it is and sometimes I hate it. The LGBTQ+ community did not choose who they want to love or who they are. Their existence is everything a living being is because they embody courage and naturality. They are not a disease that should be cured, they are humans that just want to express who they are without harm and prejudice. I learned that love meant kindness. I love my friends who are part of the LGBTQ+ community, therefore, I will fight for their rights.

Equality does not stop within the bounds of gender we identify with, sexuality we express and the sex we were born with. Equality also meant color and race. Limiting a person’s opportunities and capabilities based of the color of their skin, the texture of their eyes and hair, the height of their bodies, is the most disgusting and immature act a person can do to another human being. The color of our skin can not define the talent we possess nor the intelligence we acquire. The color of our skin is a history of our ancestors. The color of our skin should not be a source of discrimination but rather a source of celebration. We are more than our race, we are humans.

Activism is a way to keep our rights in check. It’s not anarchy. It’s not a form of terrorism. Activism is the key to keep our oppressors from stealing our identity as humans, our right to exist, choose and free will.

Belief is not a sustainable source in decision-making. Belief continuously adapts, changes and shifts through the tides of time. It is necessary for sanity but it is not the beacon it’s advertised as. Separation of church and state is necessary because the interest of the country as a whole can not rely in a system where its sacred texts is dependent on the interpretation of the reader. Belief and religion are dangerous tools of oppression. May we continue to roar for separation of the state from the church.

Being an agnostic gave me new insight and respect for all religions that were founded and followed. Demanding for separation of the church and state does not mean discrimination to religion. It only meant that your respect for their belief is so great, you don’t want politics to stain a holy and sacred practice. Being an agnostic gave me the opportunity to become an omnist. And slowly, become an occultist.

Witchcraft is my symbol of endurance and resiliency. The practice of a powerful matriarch has been discriminated and persecuted many times in history by the patriarchy. However, their efforts were in vain for witchcraft and its traditions (although some of it were destroyed) are still alive and well.

I am still a Swiftie (taylor swift fans) even if I grew from my old self. She embodies everything I stood for and I overcame.

I kill my old name for it symbolized my ties to my colonizers. I rename myself today and evermore as Hiraya Naapuhap.

Welcome! This is my blog/tumblr.

[dicecast]

One thing annoys about genre fiction is "everybody on evil side is in it for themselves and doesn't give shit about the ideology" thing, at least in war narratives. Yes, people do fight for and use agendas they don't believe in for personal gain, but more often than not, it makes the group just generic bunch of villain cliches and makes whatever they are meant to represent loose meaning. "They stand for being jerks and being jerks is bad!"

Overly Sarcastic Production actually summed it up very well one of the problems with morality in genre fiction, most of it comes out of War Morality, aka

Our Team

vs.

There Team

Everybody else needs to be understood on the grounds of are they helping our team against their team, or if visa versa.  Think about a very limited view of WWII, the Axis are the bad guys, and anybody who helps you fight them (Stalin, de Gaul) are the good guys.  That example actually works out pretty well because the Axis were some of the worse regimes in human history, but if you take that same narrative and apply it to a less morally straightforward war, like WWI or The Cold War and it gets ugly real fast.  

(whoops) 

Its morality just whose team is going to win, but with much more world ending consequences.  Which sometimes is the right take for a story, like again...WWII or the American Civil War, wars which I think are far more justified than most, though I think of each as Grey vs. black morality than White and Black morality.  

The problem is that most genre fiction is still using this moral framework even if they aren’t necessarily aware of it, so the evil characters are kinda...written backwards.  Like, they exist to be the antagonists for the heroes and justify the wartime framing of morality, and then to make that framing feel less...creepy you need to then make the other team be evil not just “in the way of our team”. So you give them negative qualities, they are sadistic, they are mass murderers, they oppress women, blah blah blah.  So it can be tricky to give them ideologies because...they exist to be antagonists. 

The original Star wars does this, its basically just a “our team there team” movie, the Empire’s role in the story is to be the enemy army that the heroes can fight against cause its a war movie.  And to make that ok, and not have the audience thinking that war might be an ugly business, we need to make the other team be bad.  So they are given fascist imagery, and do war crimes, and have a bunch of British officers being super snobby, but there isn’t really an ideology to the empire beyond “vague order and be massive dicks”  

The Dark Side has an ideology in the trilogy, but both Sith seem to view the Empire as a tool.  

(....are you the baddies?)

An interesting twist to this Fire Nation from Avatar.  In the first Season they are the Star Wars Empire: Imperial Japan Edition, though the show makes a lot more effort to humanize individual Fire Nation people.  But as an institution they were the bad guys and Ozai is just a giant black hole of evil and they all have evil boats ect ect.  

(I feel like between these and Star Destroyers, there is a whole specific evil empire aesthetic” 

Season 2 and early season 3 actually play with this though, by showing us how the Fire Nation justifies their imperialism to their own citizens, which is...remarkably similar to the actual justifications used by real life Imperial Japan, turning the comparison from an aesthetic similarity to an actual commentary on Imperial Japan.  Ozai being such a black hole of evil though did undermine it. 

(The greater Four Nation Co-Prosperity Sphere) 

Also not all good/evil narratives are actually doing wartime morality, even if they are set in a war. Pan’s Labyrinth is a super moralistic movie, with a very clear cut objective bad guy in the character of Captain Vidal, who is contrasted with our protagonist Ophelia.  But it isn’t a war movie, its instead a morality focused fairy tale, so Vidal is more a representation of the evils of fascism, and his destruction at the end is tied to the main theme of the movie.  

The point i’m getting at here is that there is a difference between the antagonist and therefore have negative traits, vs. people having negative traits and thus  being antagonists.   The way you can tell the difference is this.

Are the antagonists here so that the hero can have somebody to fight?  

or

Are the antagonists there because the story is about the rejection of what they represent?

(cough)

[adriennemareebrown]

what do we do with unthinkable thoughts?

who are we in our unthinkable thinking moments?

how do we adapt together if the clues to our next pivot are unthinkable?

maybe sharing these unthinkable thoughts will help?

i’ll start with the scariest unthinkable thought for me, which is that maybe we are in a state of collective suicidal ideation – the state of thinking about, even planning, the end of us. i have thought this thought many times, for years.

i have ideated suicide in the past, thought it didn’t much matter if i was here or not, and so it didn’t much matter how i treated myself or others. when i was in that phase of ambiguous commitment to life, i took risks with my mind and body that i couldn’t imagine taking now. i practiced cynicism and hopelessness, as if they were the measures of humor, of intelligence. it was a brief phase of my life, but during that time i believed in nothing.

i tried to exit.

i then had to choose life from deep within me. that’s why i’m still here. i want to live. i want to want to live. i think everyone chooses to move towards life or away from it, though some don’t realize that they are making the choice. capitalism makes it hard to see your own direction.

as i have watched the world respond to the pandemic, the borders between nations shift meaning in my mind. i can see which countries choose life, and which don’t. which countries have a majority life-minded citizenship, which countries/regions elect leaders who care for them. which countries pivot at the highest governmental level to protect their people, to guide their people to protect themselves – places with a variety of economies and exposure have found ways to move towards life.

i wonder about the movements in those countries, what it might feel like to live and organize in a place that chooses life.

choosing life means being able to admit we are wrong when new information presents itself about the dangers around and amongst us.

choosing life means committing to the adaptations to stay alive, rather than the stubbornness to stay the same.

the u.s., as a nation, does not choose, or love, life. not yet, and possibly never before now.

other nations, many amongst the most developed in the world, initially shrugged at COVID-19. then they adapted.

the u.s. response has been more egregious than a shrug; it’s been a flagrant disregard, running towards a category five pandemic tornado. it’s meant that those of us who want to live are watching in horror as the mutating coronavirus fills in the pre-existing grooves of collective suicidal ideation and the resistance of those who love life – with climate deniers and corporate polluters on one side, environmental and climate justice movements on the other. white supremacists and patriarchs on one side, solidarity movements in race, ethnicity, class, gender, ability and sexuality arenas on the other.

we are a nation not divided but torn – pulled towards life and pulled towards death.

when i get that torn feeling within, which in recent years comes very rarely, in twinges and whisps, i now recognize it as the suicidal tendency in me. it’s not the truth, not the only truth, not my truth, not the choice i want to make. but the tendency is wiley, using the voices of people i love to make itself heard. i have to be vigilant, listen between the lines, ask: who would benefit from my absence? who benefits from my self-doubt?

our nation has a tendency towards its own destruction, a doubt of its right to exist, that is rooted in our foundation.

i think our movements struggle inside this larger national suicidal tendency – we want to grow, but at the same time some of us don’t believe we will all get there, or get anywhere better, in time. that we can’t, and won’t, put forth the effort.

maybe the idea of our future generations experiencing peace and abundance is not enough to keep us going.

maybe we just need some more immediate signs of life.

maybe we are terrified.

i, we, have to be able to discern what is me/us, and what is fear.

which leads to my next unthinkable thought: do i really know the difference between my discernment and my fear?

my dear friend Malkia teaches me that there is the fear intended to save your life, vs fear intended to end it. what i mean by discernment is the set of noticings, fears, wisdoms, deductions, and gut tremblings that want to save, or even just improve, my life, versus the fear that makes me unable to do anything, which makes me unable to draw on my life force to take action.

do i think i am being discerning when i am actually frozen in place, scared to change?

am i too scared of standing out from the crowd to pause and discern right action?

am i acting from terror?

am i able to discern a decision or action that makes sense?

i was in italy when the pandemic really became clear as a threat to my well-being. i went to one of the places i felt at home. and once i got there, i again found myself freezing, in denial of next moves, as everyone asked me where i was and when i was going home-home or elsewhere.

in my frozen state i would hear just a bit of the news, the new numbers of crisis, and shake my head at the idiots in office, and then numb back out. having quickly identified who i blamed, i was even less able to feel any agency in me. i froze and delayed and froze until i was overwhelmed by the inquiries.

then i had an excellent therapy session where i noticed:

oh. i am afraid. i am afraid that the pandemic is on the rise everywhere and i am going to leave safety for a dangerous unknown. oh! i don’t know what to do!

as soon as i acknowledged i was afraid i was able to move into discernment. my fear became data – i am afraid because the numbers are clear that i am in a safer place than any of the locations i am considering going to. i should stay put, not because i am afraid, but because, as my fear is actually screaming on behalf of my informed intuition, this is the best place to be in this moment.

my fear made me freeze until i had to move. therapy helped me notice i was afraid, deepen my breath, and return to discernment.

i see the same vacillation between fear and discernment in our movements right now, with no therapist in sight.

we are afraid of being hurt, afraid because we have been hurt, afraid because we have caused hurt, afraid because we live in a world that wants to hurt us whether we have hurt others or not, just based on who we are, on any otherness from some long-ago determined norm. supremacy is our ongoing pandemic. it partners with every other sickness to tear us from life, or from lives worth living.

so we stay put and scream into the void, moving our rage across the internet like a tornado that, without discernment, sucks up all in its path for destruction.

our emotions and need for control are heightened during this pandemic – we are stuck in our houses or endangering ourselves to go out and work, terrified and angry at the loss of our plans and normalcy, terrified and angry at living under the oppressive rule of an administration that does not love us and that is racist and ignorant and violent. grieving our unnecessary dead, many of whom are dying alone, unheld by us. we are full of justified rage. and we want to release that rage. and one really fast and easy way to do this is what i experience as a salem witch trial, a false bid for justice, or the even faster method of lynching.

before i move on, i need to acknowledge that these are extreme terms, terms that refer to systems of death. i know that i am speaking of a social destruction, a significantly less extreme consequence – and i am trying to place my finger on a feeling of punitive justice unleashed in our movements.

in our movements, this feeling of punitive justice comes in the wake of call outs of leaders or those with some increased exposure or access. in the past week i have seen people called out for embodying white supremacy in the workplace, for causing repeated or one-time sexual harm, for physical, emotional or digital abuse, for appropriation of ideas and images, for patriarchy, for ableism, for being dishonest, for saying harmful things a decade ago, for doing things that were later understood as harm – for embodying all of the pain that supremacy holds. the call outs generally share one side of what’s happened and then call for immediate consequences. and within a day, the call out is everywhere, the cycle of blame and shame activated, and whoever was called out has begun being punished.

we are afraid, and we think it will assuage our fears and make us safer if we can clarify an enemy, a someone outside of ourselves who is to blame, who is guilty, who is the origin of harm. we can get spun into such frenzy in our fear that we don’t even realize we are deploying the master’s tools.

ah, audre, come in.

we’ve always known lynch mobs are a master’s tool. meaning: moving as an angry mob, sparked by fear (often unfounded or misguided) with the power to issue instant judgment and instant punishment. these are master’s tools.

we in movements for justice didn’t create lynch mobs. we didn’t create witch trials. we didn’t create this punitive system of justice. we didn’t create the state, we didn’t choose to be socialized within it. we want to dismantle these systems of mass harm, and i know that most of us have no intention of ever mimicking state processes of navigating justice.

the master’s tools feel good to use, groove in the hand easily from repeated use and training. but they are often blunt and senseless.

unless we have a true analysis of abolition and dismantling systems of oppression, we will not realize what’s in our hands, we will never put the master’s tools down and figure out what our tools are and can be.

oh – but you can’t say it’s a salem witch trial if it’s all Black and Brown and queer and trans people doing it…

oh – you can’t call it a lynching, because of the power dynamics! it’s a move against someone with more power.

but then – my third unthinkable thought – why does it feel like that? why do our movements more and more often feel like angry mobs moving against ourselves? and what is at stake because of it? why does it feel like someone pointing at someone else and saying: that person is harmful! and with no questions or process or time or breath, we are collectively punishing them?

sometimes we even do it with the language of transformative justice: claiming that we are going to give them room to grow. they need to disappear completely to be accountable. we are publicly shaming them so that they will learn to be better.

underneath this logic i hear: we are dunking her in the water to see if she drowns, because if she drowns then we know she wasn’t a witch. we are hanging him from the tree because then we can pretend we have exorcised ‘bad’ from our town. we are lynching to affirm our rightness.

which isn’t to say that some of the accused aren’t raging white supremacists in movement clothing. or abusers who have slipped through the fingers of accountability. or shady in some other way.

which isn’t to say that a public accounting of harm, and consequences, aren’t necessarily the correct move.

which isn’t to say we don’t believe survivors. because we must.

but how do we believe survivors and still be abolitionist? and still practice transformative justice?

to start with, i have been trying to discern when a call out feels powerful, like the necessary move, versus when it feels like the witch trial/lynch mob energy is leading.

it feels powerful when there have been private efforts for accountability. it feels powerful when survivors are being supported. it feels necessary when the accused has avoided accountability, particularly (but not exclusively) if they have continued to cause harm. it feels necessary when the accused person has significantly more power than the accuser(s) and is using that power to avoid accountability. it feels powerful when the demand is process and consequence based.

it feels like a lynch mob when there are no questions asked. when the survivor’s healing takes a back seat. when there is no attempt to have a private process. when there is no time between accusation and the call for consequences. and when the only consequence is for the accused to cease to exist. when the accused is from one or more oppressed identities. when it feels performative. when the person accused of causing harm does what the survivor/crowd demands, but we keep pulling up the rope.

no inquiry, no questions, no acceptance of accountability, no jury, no time for the learning and unlearning necessary for authentic change…just instant and often unsatisfactory consequences.

a moment on this: one of the main demands i see in call outs is for a public apology. to expect a coherent authentic apology from someone who has been forcibly removed from power or credibility feels like a set up. usually they issue some pr sounding thing and we use that paper as more fuel for the fire at their feet.

i have seen the convoluted denial-accountability-nonapology message from many an accused harm doer, especially when physical or sexual harm is involved. sometimes they are claiming innocence, sometimes they are admitting to some harm, rarely at the level of the accusation. sometimes they say they tried to have a process but it didn’t work, or they were denied. who knows what they mean by process, who knows if the accuser was ready for a process, who knows what actually happened between them, the relational context of the instance or pattern of harm, who knows?

the truth about sexual assault and rape and patriarchy and white supremacy and other abuses of power is that we are swimming in them, in a society that has long normalized them, and that they often play out intimately.

the truth is, sometimes it takes a long time for us to realize the harm that has happened to us.

and longer to realize we have caused harm to others.

the truth is, it isn’t unusual to only realize harm happened in hindsight, with more perspective and politicization.

but there’s more truth, too.

the additional truth is, right now we have the time.

the additional truth is, even though we want to help the survivor, we love obsessing over and punishing ‘villains’. we end up putting more of our collective attention on punishing those accused of causing harm than supporting and centering the healing of survivors.

the additional truth is, we want to distance ourselves from those who cause harm, and we are steeped in a punitive culture which, right now, is normalizing a methodology of ‘punish first, ask questions later’, which is a witch trial, lynching, master’s tool methodology. which, because we are in the age of social media, we now have a way to practice very publicly.

supremacy is the original pandemic, an infectious disease that quietly roots into each of us. we might have supremacy due to race, citizenship, gender, class, ableism, age, access, fame, or other areas where we feel justified to cause harm without consequence, sometimes without even realizing we’ve caused harm, because supremacy is a numbing and narrowing disease.

i want us to let go of the narrowness of innocence, widen our understanding of how harm moves through us. i want us to see individual acts of harm as symptoms of systemic harm, and to do what we can to dismantle the systems and get as many of us free as possible.

often a call out comes because the disease has reached an acute state in someone, is festering in hiding, is actively causing harm. i want us to see the difference between the human and the disease, to see what we are afraid of, in others and in ourselves, and discern a path that actually addresses the root of our justified fears.

this is not a case against call outs – there is absolutely a need for certain call outs – when power is greatly imbalanced and multiple efforts have been made to stop ongoing harm, when someone accused of harm won’t participate in community accountability processes, the call out is a way of pulling an emergency brake.

but it should be a last option. the consequences of being called out at this point are extremely dire and imprecise. the presence of infiltration in our movements is so documented and prevalent. call outs are an incredible modern tool for those who are not committed to movements to use against those having impact.

right now calling someone out online seems like first/only option for a lot of people.

i can’t help but wonder who benefits from movements that engage in public infighting, blame, shame and knee jerk call outs? i can’t help but see the state grinning, gathering all the data it needs, watching us weaken ourselves. meanwhile, the harm continues.

i don’t find it satisfying, and i don’t think it is transformative to publicly call people out for instant consequences with no attempt at a conversation, mediation, boundary setting or a community accountability process with a limited number of known participants.

it doesn’t make sense to say ‘believe all survivors’ if we don’t also remember that most of us are survivors, which includes most people who cause harm. what we mean is we are tired of being silenced, dismissed, powerless in our pain, hurt over and over. yes. but being loud is different from being whole, or even being heard, being cared for, being comforted, being healed. being loud is different from being just. being able to destroy is different from being able to generate a future where harm isn’t happening all around us.

we are terrified of how widespread and active harm is, and it makes us want to point the finger and quickly remove those we can identify as bad. we want to protect each other from those who cause harm.

many of us seem to worry that if we don’t immediately jump on whatever mob wagon has pulled up in our dms, that we will be next to be called out, or called a rape apologist or a white person whisperer or an internalized misogynist, or just disposed of for refusing to group think and then group act. online, we perform solidarity for strangers rather than engaging in hard conversations with comrades.

we are fearful of taking the time to be discerning, because then we may have to recognize that any of us could be seen as harmdoers. and when we are discerning, when we do step up to say wait, let’s get understanding here, we risk becoming the new target, viewed as another accomplice to harm instead of understood as a comrade in ending harm.

perhaps, most dangerously, we are, all together now, teetering on the edge of hopelessness. collective suicidal ideation, pandemic burnout, 45-in-office burnout, climate catastrophe burnout and other exhaustions have us spent and flailing, especially if we are caught in reactive loops (which include the culture of multiple daily call outs) instead of purposeful adaptations. some of us are losing hope, tossed by the tornado, ungrounded and uprooted by the pace of change, seeking something tangible we can do, control, hold, throw away.

the kind of callouts we are currently engaging in do not necessarily think about movements’ needs as a whole. movements need to grow and deepen, we need to ‘transform ourselves to transform the world’*, to ‘be transformed in the service of the work’**. movements need to become the practice ground for what we are healing towards, co-creating. movements are responsible for embodying what we are inviting our people into. we need the people within our movements, all socialized into and by unjust systems, to be on liberation paths. not already free, but practicing freedom every day. not already beyond harm, but accountable for doing our individual and internal work to end harm, which includes actively working to gain awareness of the ways we can and have harmed each other, and ending those cycles in ourselves and our communities.

knee jerk call outs say: those who cause harm cannot change. they must be eradicated. the bad things in the world cannot change, we must disappear the bad until there is only good left.

but one layer under that, what i hear is:

we cannot change.

we do not believe we can create compelling pathways from being harm doers to being healed, to growing.

we do not believe we can hold the complexity of a gray situation.

we do not believe in our own complexity.

we can only handle binary thinking: good/bad, innocent/guilty, angel/abuser, black/white, etc.

it is a different kind of suicide, to attack one part of ourselves at a time. cancer does this, i have seen it – oh it’s in the throat, now it’s in the lungs, now it’s in the bones. when we engage in knee jerk call outs and instant consequences with no process, we become a cancer unto ourselves, unto movements and communities. we become the toxicity we long to heal. we become a tool of harm when we are trying to be, and i think meant to be, a balm.

oh unthinkable thoughts. now that i have thought you, it becomes clear to me that all of you are rooted in a singular longing: i want us to want to live.

i want us to want to live in this world, in this time, together.

i want us to love this planet and this species, at this time.

i want us to see ourselves as larger than just individuals randomly pinging around in a world that will never care for us.

i want us to see ourselves as a murmuration of creatures who are, as far as we know right now, unique in all the universe. each cell, each individual body, itself a unique part of this unique complexity.

i want us not to waste the time we have together.

i want us to look at each other with the eyes of interdependence, such that when someone causes harm, we find the gentle parent inside of us who can use a voice of accountability, while also bringing curiosity – ‘why did you cause harm? do you know? do you know other options? apologize.’ that we can set boundaries that don’t require the disappearance of other survivors. that we can act towards accountability with the touch of love. that when someone falls behind, we can use a parent’s voice of discipline while also picking them up and carrying them for a while if needed.

i want us to adapt from systems of oppression and punishment to systems of uplifting and transforming.

i want us to notice that this is a moment when we need to choose life, not surrender to the incompetence and hopelessness of our national leadership.

i want us to be discerning.

i want our movement to feel like a vibrant, accountable space where causing harm does not mean you are excluded immediately and eternally from healing, justice, community or belonging.

i want us to grow lots and lots of skill at holding the processes by which we mend the wounds in our communities and ourselves.

i want satisfying consequences that actually end cycles of harm, generate safety and deepen movement.

i want us to hold Black humanity to the highest degree of protection, even when we have caused harm. i want us to see each other’s trauma-induced behavior as ancestral and impermanent, even as we hold each other accountable.

i want us to be particularly rigorous about holding complexity and accountability well for Black people in our movement communities who are already struggling to keep our heads above water and build trust and move towards life under the intersecting weights of white supremacy, racialized capitalism, police brutality, philanthropic competition culture, and lack of healing support.

i never want to see us initiate processes for Black accountability where those who are not invested in Black life can see it, store it, weaponize it. replace Black in that sentence with any other oppressed peoples and i still feel the same way. it is not strategic, and, again, it is rarely satisfying.

i want us to ask who benefits from our hopelessness, and to deny our oppressors the satisfaction of getting to see our pain. i want them to wonder how we foment such consistent and deep solidarity and unlearning. i want our infiltrators to be astounded into their own transformations, having failed to tear us apart.

i want us to acknowledge that the supremacy and suicidal ideation and hopelessness and harm are everywhere, and make moves that truly allow us to heal into wholeness.

because against all odds in space and time? we. are. winning.

we are winning in spite of the tsunami of pressures against us. we are moving towards life in spite of everything that wants us to give up.

we in movement must learn to choose life even in conflict, composting the bad behaviors while holding the beating hearts.

choosing life includes asking: do i have the necessary information to form an opinion? do i have the time to seek understanding? what does the survivor need? did a conversation/process already happen? is a conversation/process possible? how do we be abolitionist while gaining accountability here? who benefits from me doubting that movement can hold this? who could hold this well? what will end the cycle of harm here?

we must learn to do this before there is no one left to call out, or call we, or call us.

….

thank you deeply to shira hassan and malkia devich cyril for loving feedback on this piece.

* grace lee Boggs ** mary hooks

[questionsonislam]

Can you explain the role of “khalifah” (vicegerent) attributed to man by the Quran from an ecological point of view?

Man is the vicegerent of Allah on earth (al-Baqara 2/ 30) and he is not left uncontrolled (without purpose) (al-Qiyama 75/ 36) according to the statements of the Quran. What is meant by the word vicegerent is to improve the world for and on behalf of Allah, to rule people, to apply the orders and recommendations of Allah among people, animals and non-living things.

The wise power that created nature created all of the means in it abundantly enough to meet the normal needs of all of the beings. “And He giveth you of all that ye ask for. But if ye count the favors of Allah never will ye be able to number them: verily, man is given up to injustice and ingratitude.”

The only being that can consume things beyond his needs excessively without knowing any limits in extravagance is man. On the one hand, the Sublime Creator gave man an ambition of excessive consumption in order to test him but on the other hand, He gave man the duty to limit his desires in accordance with his needs through the mind He gave man and the light of the religion He sent. As a matter of fact, while meeting his needs, man paid attention not to disturb the balance of the living and non-living nature that surrounded him and even tried to protect it as long as he used those two means properly; thus, he became mercy for his environment. However, in the communities where science and technology have developed unprecedentedly, religious life and the feeling of deep responsibility gained through religion have weakened; on the other hand, in this period, which is called “the age of intelligence”, the mind has been seen as a simple tool for serving man’s desires of domination and hedonism; man has been blinded to such an extent that he cannot see that the conditions for man’s existence are being eliminated. Therefore, man cannot notice that his vital connections with nature are being cut off. Consequently, man has dragged the world into disasters from global warming to environmental pollution and to the destruction of species in order to satisfy his excessive desires that have been freed from religious and ethical bonds and his desires of consumption and domination.

When it is taken into consideration that the ecological balance was disturbed, that the environment was destroyed and that living species were made extinct in a very short time, 30-40 years, due to the desire of excessive consumption, it is clearly understood how valuable the importance that religions give to restricting desires is in terms of both environmental ethics and other issues and how vitally important it is in terms of nature and humanity. As this main problem exists, that is, as long as man sees satisfying his desires as the first goal in life and as long as the systems, arrangements and rules regarding man are designed in such a way to encourage him to reach that devastating goal directly or indirectly, the positive effects of all of the other measures taken for the environment will be temporary and misleading; such unproductive measures will perhaps prevent real measures from being seen.

When the Islamic teaching and its manifestations in the civilization of Islam are studied thoroughly, it can be said that this teaching has established a trilateral relation between man, nature and environment and therefore man is burdened with responsibilities from three sides toward nature.

1. Ontological relation

It is necessary to look for the basic approach and principles of Islam regarding the environment in the relationship that it proposes to be established between Allah, man and nature. Islam is a religion of unity, as it is widely known. Ontologically everything is based on One (Allah). According to its deep expression in sufism, everything consists of the manifestation of His attributes of jalal (majesty) and jamal (beauty). Therefore, nature is the “signs of Allah”, the indications and evidence of His existence and power. He is the owner of man, nature, the environment, the skies and the earth, and the reason of existence for everything. Therefore, those who harm the things we have just mentioned are regarded to have harmed His works. Since all of the beings are his “signs”, what breaks off the existence breaks off Him; what breaks off Him breaks off the existence. As Ghazali examines and explains in the chapter allocated to love in his immortal book “Ihya Ulum ad-Din”, in the real sense of love, a person who loves Him loves the beings and a person who loves the beings loves Him. All beings go to Him; therefore, all loves go to Him, too. Man becomes a part of unity when he establishes his connection, which exists ontologically, with Him and the beings ethically. The issue is expressed as follows: in a hadith: “Show mercy to those on earth so that those in the sky will show mercy to you.”. The origin of man is soil; the one who created man is Allah. Then, man needs to love the Creator, the soil, the beings on and in the soil and in the world. He needs to show this love by his attitudes and deeds that show respect to Allah and mercy to the beings around. Islamic scholars gather all of the orders of Allah in two principles: “respect to the orders of Allah and compassion for the beings that Allah created.”

That short explanation shows that unlike the approach of the modernist mentality that breaks off the ontological bond between man and nature and therefore eliminates the ethical responsibility of man toward nature, the spirit (man) that the Quran educates does not regard himself outside nature and as an alien or enemy that he declares war against and tries to conquer, invade and use as he wishes and as an enemy that he punishes when it does not obey him. On the contrary, in his opinion, nature is a friend that he shares the destiny of being a slave, a guide that takes him to the secret of the existence of Allah. Therefore, he has responsibilities toward nature. The greatest unluckiness of the last few centuries has been the development of the science and technology in conditions and media that are away from such a noble and ethical spirit.

2. Administrative relation

As we have stated in the beginning, the Quran states that man was created as “the vicegerent on earth” and this expression is usually interpreted as “being the vicegerent of the Creator, that is, ruling the world in compliance with His laws”. The attributes of the Creator mentioned in basmala, which is the first verse of the Quran, and in the chapter al-Fatiha, which is the first chapter of the Quran, are “ar-Rahman and ar-Rahim” (the All Merciful, the All Compassionate); those two words tell us that His mercy and compassion encompass all of the beings. Accordingly, the first duty of the vicegerent, which means “the being in charge of executing His laws on earth” is – as it is pointed out in a hadith – to take that encompassing mercy and compassion and reflect it on the beings. This is the fundamental mission of man on earth and what beautifies man, makes him effective and makes him “created in the best mold” as it is expressed by the Quran and “the most honorable creature” as it is mentioned in the Islamic thought is the same mission. The superior faculties like the mind and intelligence that distinguish man from all of the other living and non-living beings were given to man so that he will understand and execute this mission correctly. There are many verses in the Quran that point it out and that criticize man because he does not use those faculties correctly.

3. Interest relation

In many verses, it is stated that many natural beings and happenings were given to his service, that is, they were created in appropriate way for him to use. However, man is asked to pay attention to two criteria while making use of them. The first one is to make use of nature in a legitimate way; the second one is not to act like a harmful creature to break and harm the order that Allah has established in nature. This issue is emphasized in many verses and hadiths mentioning that man needs to check his desires, not to deify his soul, to avoid extravagance, to try to feel contented and not to go to extremes.

The global environmental problems that are seen today show clearly how important those Islamic principles that we have tried to present briefly are for global issues like natural balance and healthy environment. In the past, there were some periods when some human communities violated those principles, deviated from the mission of vicegerency, disobeyed Allah and harmed human beings, other beings and the natural environment. However, because of Western modernism and its encompassing effect on all of the cultures in the process of globalization through positivist man, who is a product of Western modernism, and his approach to the world, for the first time in the known history of man has man entered into a process of breaking off the bond of oneness between him and nature and Allah. He claimed that he would dominate, overcome and use nature as he wishes to the extent that he is freed from the domination of Allah. In parallel with this, he broke off all of the ethical bonds that the divine law imposed for his benefit and discarded them. Thus, he claimed that he would be free by disobeying Allah and that he would prove his power by using nature as he wished and oppressing his fellow beings that were weaker than him. He idolized his soul and started to be a slave of his soul and worship its desires and wishes; he made it the sole goal of his life to satisfy the desires of his soul, to establish domination and take pleasure. As a philosopher puts it, the fetishistic characteristic of goods enslaved today’s man. A disease of addiction that put man into the service of goods and made him inferior to goods has encompassed man.

Modern man uses the achievements that he thinks he has gained against nature in order to satisfy two coarse feelings: domination and pleasure, from which the real ethical problem of man regarding nature originates. The Quran attracts attention to this problem of man by using the definition, “takes his desires for his god” . Thus, man has become the only earthly being that is at odds with nature because of deifying his desires. He dared to fight against nature by using the scientific and technological achievements that he has gained; in this war that is still going on, man is burning, destroying, polluting, consuming, killing and eliminating his environment to the extent of his power in order to satisfy his desires of domination and pleasure.

The natural disasters that we call as environmental problems are the harbingers of the fact that, on the one hand, man is being enslaved though he thinks “he is becoming a master” and the fact that, on the other hand, he is approaching defeat though he thinks “he is overcoming nature”. “Mischief has appeared on land and sea because of (the meed) that the hands of men have earned that (Allah) may give them a taste of some of their deeds: in order that they may turn back (from Evil).”

In the main interpretations of this verse regarding “mischief appearing on land and sea” in tafsir resources, the increase in misfortunes like land becoming infertile, water being polluted, spring waters diminishing, famine, fire, flood and deaths, the disturbance of the natural balance and the consequent problems related to the environment and health are mentioned. There are also some interpretations that the mischief and corruption in the society are meant by the verse. It is possible to deduce both meanings from the verse. All of them are an inevitable result of the unheeding and even rebellious attitude of man against Allah and the ethical and moral laws and values imposed by Him and the consequent excessiveness like the desire of consumption. “If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption”

While interpreting this verse, one of the scholars the century XI, reminds us that if each man (or community of man) had been able to attain his personal desires, the order of the world would have been upside down due to those selfish desires – since other people would have wanted to be rich, to hold the highest ranks and to have limitless property in the world.11 The same author reminds us that the fundamental mission of man, who was created as the vicegerent on earth, is not to cause mischief on earth but to improve it, that is, to preserve the balance in the living and non-living nature and therefore to maintain his consciousness of slavery and heed the warnings of the Quran.