#it's probably just subconscious trans radar

[aromanticduck]

I'm bad at making female friends. Not in the NLOG way or the cishet man 'women are a different species' way - just that of all the 'girls' I've befriended, more than half of them later came out as trans guys or nonbinary.

[caffeineandsociety]

The past few days on tumblr have been a fascinating albeit EXTREMELY frustrating case study in how bigotry spreads among people who think they're resistant to it.

Mattie-boy, shortly before....all of this, went on a whole screed about how he doesn't SEE race and he's so similar to MLK and anyway labels like race and gender and sexuality are just so divisive and uwu can't we all just be friends? He is not actively hateful on a group level, we will not see him go on a rampage about how trans women are ruining his precious website because by all evidence that's not what he CONSCIOUSLY believes, that's not what he BELIEVES he believes; he's just a giant egomaniac who thinks he has nothing left to learn about the world and the people in it.

But three things are very obviously true about him:

He experiences a lot of subconscious bias,

He doesn't care to take the time to learn basic sensitivity (again, he thinks he's already got that down), and

He is blissfully unaware that overmonitoring one group while letting others slide for the same infractions - if not making false accusations outright and letting the authorities come up with a post-hoc justification to explain why someone freaked out (because it WOULDN'T be for NO reason, right?) - is a form of both top-down and grassroots bigotry VERY popular on the internet, despite us telling him multiple fucking times over the course of 5 years.

I'm sure that Matt believes he would act the same way toward ANYONE who bruised his ego so severely. I'm sure he's wrong about that; I'm sure the intensity might be similar but the specifics would be very different given the number of blatantly transphobic and specifically transmisogynistic tropes he's invoked-

But more importantly, we're overlooking a core part of the problem that is much bigger than Matt and his ego: not many groups would ever get the CHANCE to bruise his ego so severely.

He prides himself on being a good and fair and just person who believes in equality...in the most center-right liberal chickenshit way. The exploitability of his moderation system - the automated nature of a good chunk of it, and the way the human staff is so overworked that they make constant obvious mistakes and often act as barely more than an extension of the machine, such that anyone with an axe to grind and a willingness to mass-report (you know, usually racists and terfs...who are largely the same people) effectively becomes a member of the FUNCTIONAL community standards team - shows in no uncertain terms that he is failing to live up to that ideal.

And he can't fucking STAND having that called out. He HAS to prove its not true...by constantly changing his justification for banning a trans woman who made too much of a stink about it, justifying taking down her SFW photos with claims that she totally DID post explicit ones elsewhere, then abandoning that justification to say she threatened him, then abandoning that justification to say she HARASSED him (AND, as an afterthought, other users), and THEN stalking her to another fucking website to double down on the already disproven explicit content allegation.

Again. This is a center-right milquetoast liberal loser. This is someone who believes that he treats everyone equally and doesn't see labels. Not only is this obviously not true, he is ignoring the role of systems of abuse in determining who pops up on his radar as a threat to that spun glass ego of his. Absolutely none of this would have happened had he been willing to take criticism and make even the SLIGHTEST effort with the SLIGHTEST bit of transparency to make the moderation system less exploitable, but because he hasn't - and, as he just admitted, hadn't even considered it until now - it was near inevitable that the person who would end up bringing it to his attention so loudly as to wound his ego this severely would be a victim of the system; i.e., probably a trans and/or Black woman - and sure enough, as it ended up, it was a trans woman...surprising absolutely no one but Matt himself.

And, frankly, we are doing a disservice by ignoring that aspect as well, especially since now there's yet another bullshit pedo callout circulating about yet another trans woman and the overlap between people who have been calling this bullshit for what it is and people who have been reblogging that callout uncritically is...significant.

The problem, in this case, is that entirely too many people here have not unlearned the stranger danger mindset. Of course, we believe, trans women are not especially likely to be 🚨 SEXUAL PREDATORS 🚨...but as a community we still do believe in the idea that the INTERNET as a whole has a massive problem with unchecked 🚨 SEXUAL PREDATORS 🚨 and callouts of them work. We talk about how the stereotype of trans women as predators is a problem - but every single time a callout comes along, as a community, we often think it's one individual exception; most trans women aren't child molesters...but THIS ONE totally is!

In reality, let's look at where CSA is common: in the nuclear family, and under other systems of authority that are held up as beyond questioning. The most likely child abusers are older immediate family members, religious authorities, cops, teachers, sports coaches, doctors and nurses - people who, for one reason or another, have power over the victim that manifests as a sense of ownership, be it permanent or temporary. Randomly acting opportunists are rare.

Many of us know this, some of us don't, but even among the people who do know, we also know that "rare" doesn't mean "nonexistent"...

So as a community, every time someone swears they've found that rare exception, people believe it. The fact that it's a trans woman about 80% of the time, another trans person about 19% of the time, a POC a good chunk of the time including most of the 1% of the time it's a cis person - as a community we don't even tend to consciously notice, because every time is yet another "rare isolated incident".

There's too much acceptance of the premise that the internet is just FULL of PEDOPHILES like all the stranger danger PSAs of the 2000s claimed, and too much trust that no one in THIS community would make such a callout in bad faith, or at least that a bad faith one would contain NO evidence but "dude trust me", so even the flimsiest "evidence" is accepted without question - and that's not even getting into how the kink community and the queer community intertwine, and yet a kink more taboo than light bondage is often seen EVEN among younger queer people as proof of predatory tendencies.

You see what happens? Even if you have fully managed to reject the idea, on a personal level, that trans women (or other trans people, or POC, or mentally ill people, or whatever other group painted with this brush, for that matter) are disproportionately likely to be A Predator, if you uncritically believe whatever callout crosses your dash, you will still disproportionately hurt marginalized people, because most if not all of them are going to be bullshit and you're not going to be given nearly as many targets who are NOT part of those groups - just like how Matt may indeed have had this nuclear meltdown on anyone who bruised his ego this badly, but the odds of him being pushed to that breaking point by anyone BUT a trans woman, or a member of at least one of a handful of other marginalized groups, were extremely slim.

And thus, bigotry finds a way to perpetuate itself even in communities and individuals who staunchly believe themselves to have rejected it.

[freddiekluger]

Why Cap Being Internally Closeted Is Not Only Possible, But Valid Representation 

i wrote this to a lot of mitski and onsind, so you can’t blame me for any feelings that bleed through

now i don’t know if it actually exists, but i’ve heard of there being a lot of discourse surrounding the captains story arc regarding his sexuality- i believe the general gist is that having a queer character that remains closeted to themselves is either unrealistic or ‘bad’ representation, and as someone who really treasures the captain and relates to his story so far a lot, i thought i might break this down a bit. 

i’ve divded up every complaint i’ve heard about this into four main questions which i’ll be covering below the ‘keep reading’, because this is gonna be pretty comprehensive. full disclaimer i reference my experiences as an ex-evangelical non binary butch lesbian a couple times, and i spent a year studying repression and the psychological impacts of high demand sexual ethics for my graduating sociology paper, so this is coming with some background to it i swear

the big questions:

can you EVEN be gay and not know it????

but isn't this just ANOTHER coming out arc, and aren't we supposed to be moving beyond those?

but if cap can't have a relationship with a man because he's a ghost, what's the point?

since cap's dead, isn't this technically bury your gays, and isn't that bad? 

1. "but is it really possible to not know? Isn't that bad representation?"

short answer: no and no.

before i get into the validity of the captain's ignorance about his own orientation as 21st century rep, let's break down how the hell the captain can be so clearly attracted to men and still not even consider the possibility that he might be gay, as brought to you by someone who literally experienced this shit.

the captain's particular situation is both a direct result of the lack of information around human sexuality he would have had (aka clear messaging that it's actually possible for him to be attracted to men. i don't mean acceptable or allowed, i mean physically capable of happening- the idea that orientations other than heterosexual exist and are available to him, a man), and a subconscious survival mechanism. the environment in which he lives is outright hostile to gay people, while the military man identity he has constructed for himself doesn't allow for any form of deviation from societal norms, let alone one so base level and major. as a result of this killer combo of information and environment, instincts take over and the mind does it's best to repress the ‘deviant’ feelings until a. one of these two things changes, or b. the act of repression becomes so destructive and/or exhuasting that it becomes impossible to maintain. the key to maintaining a long-term state of repression of desire is diverting that energy elsewhere, and a high-demand group such as the military is the perfect place for the captain to do this (this technqiue is frequented by religions and extremist ideologies worldwide, but that’s not really what we’re here to focus on). 

while the brain is actively repressing ‘deviant’ feelings (aka gay shit), this doesn't mean you don't experience the feelings at all. when performed as a subconscious act of survival, the aim of repression is to minimise/transform the feelings into a state where they can no longer cause immediate danger, and something as big as sexual/romantic orientation is going to keep popping up, but as long as the individual in question never understands what they’re feeling, they’ll be able to continue relatively undisturbed. you know how in heist movies, the leader of the group will only tell each team member part of the plan so they can’t screw things up for everyone else if they get caught? it’s kind of like that.

this is how the captain appears to have operated in life AND in death, and it’s a relatively common experience for lgbtq people who’ve grown up in similar circumstances (aka with a lack of information and in an unfriendly-to-hostile environment), and accounts for how some people can even go on to get married and have children before realising that they’re gay and/or trans. 

personally, while i can now identify what were strong homo crushes all the way back to childhood, at the time i genuinely had no idea. there was the underlying sense that i probably shouldn't tell people how attached i was to these girls because i would seem weird, and that my feelings were stronger than the ones other people used to describe friendships, but like-like them in the way that other girls like-liked boys? no way! actually scratch that, it wasn't even a no way, because i had no idea that i even could. i even had my own havers, at least in terms of the emotional hold and devotion she got from me, except she treated me way less well than cap’s beau. snatches of the existence of lgbt people made it through the cone of silence, i definitely heard the words gay and lesbian, but my levels of informations mirrored those that the captain would have had: virtually none, beyond the idea that these words exist, some people are them, and that's not something that we support or think is okay, so let's just not speak about it. despite only attending religious schools for the first couple years of primary, until i got my own technology and social media accounts to explore lgbtq content on my own- option a out of the two catalysts for change- the possibility of me being gay was not at all on my radar. don’t even get me started on how long it took me to explore butchness and my overall gender, two things which now feel glaringly obvious. 

when shit starts to break down, you can also make the conscious choice to repress which can delay the eventual smashing down of the mental closet door for a time (essentially when the closet door starts to open, you just say ‘no thanks’ and shut it again by pointedly Not Thinking About It). in the abscence of identifying yourself by your attractions, it becomes quite common to identify with a lack- in my case, this meant becoming proud of how sensible and not boy crazy i was, and in the captain’s case, this means becoming proud of how sensible and not sensuous/wild (aka woman crazy) he was, identifying with his LACK of desire for women and partying (which, even in the 40s, involved the expectation of opposite sex romances and hook ups). i’m not saying that’s the only reason he’s a rule follower, but i think the contrast between About Last Night and Perfect Day pretty much support this. (the captain getting on his high horse about general party antics that he inherently felt excluded from because of underlying awareness of his difference & his tendency to project his regimented expectations of himself onto others, vs. joining in the reception party, awareness of how the environment supports difference in the form of clare and sam, and relaxing his own rules by dancing with men- the captain doesn’t mind a party when feels like he has a place there.)

so the captain was operating in a high demand, highly regulated environment (primarily the military, but also early 20th century England itself), with regimented roles, rules, and expectations. working on the assumption that he wouldn't have had out/disclosing lgbt friends, he would have had little to no exposure to lgbt identities, and what information he did receive would have been hushed and negatively geared. while my world started to open up when i started high school was allowed to have my own phone + instagram account, resulting in me realising something wasn't quite 'right' within a few years (making me a relatively early realiser compared to those who don't come out to themselves until adulthood), in life the captain never had that experience. he didn't receive the information he needed, his environment didn't grow less hostile. with the near-exception of havers related heartbreak, his well disciplined and lifelong method of repression never became destructive/exhaustive enough to permanently override the danger signals in his mind and allow him to put his feelings into words. neither of the most common catalysts for change happened for him, so he continued as usual, even after his death.

BUT, and here’s where we come to why this is actually great representation, arrival of mike and Alison represents the opening up of new world. for the first time, the captain is actively made aware of the fact that his environment is no longer hostile, and better than that, it’s affirming. he’s also getting access to positively geared information about lgbtq people and identities, so option a of the two catalysts for change is absolutely present, and resoundingly positive. 

the captain’s arc is also relatively unique as it acknowledges the oppressive nature of his environment, but actually focuses on the internal consequences, and the way that systems like those that the captain lived in succeed because they turn us into our own oppressors. for whatever reason, we repress ourseslves, and often can’t help it, and i find that the significance of the journey to overcome that is often overlooked in more mainstream queer media. perhaps it’s just not very cinematic, or it remains too confronting for cishet audiences, but ghosts manages to touch on it with a lovely amount of humour and hope. Jamie Babbit’s But I’m A Cheerleader is another favourite piece of queer media for the same reasons.

not only does it show this, but as the captain continues to get gayer and lean into some of his less conventional traits (like an interest in fashion and the wedding planning), it shows lgbt people who have been or are going through this that there CAN be a positive outcome. it takes a lot to unlearn all the things that have painted you as wrong, especially when a massive institution is desperate to continue doing so, but you can do it, you can be happy, and it's never too late. (i've been meaning to say that last point for ages for ages, but a mutual beat me to it here)

2. not just another coming out arc

i absolutely support the demand for queer stories that don’t center around coming out (it’s like shrodinger’s queer: if you’re not coming out on screen, do you really even exist?), but i don’t align with the criticisms that the captain should already be out. for the reasons mentioned above, the captain’s particular story is fairly different to the ‘young white teenager who mostly knows gay is fine, it’s just everyone else that’s got the problem, but have a unremarkably straight sounding soundtrack, a trauma porn romance, and a cishet saviour’ that we keep seeing. the captain’s ongoing journey with his sexuality emphasises the overaching theme of the show: recovering from trauma and humanity’s endless capacity for growth, and i think that’s worth showing over and over again until it stops being true.

additionally, while the captain’s journey regarding his gayness is a big part of his character and story, ghosts makes it clear that it’s not the ONLY part, and being gay is far from his ONLY characteristic or dramatic/comedic engine. the fact that i’m even having to congratulate ghosts for doing that really shows how much film and television is struggling huh.

while all queer media is, and should be, subject to criticism, i think if it helps even one person then it absolutely deserves to exist, and i can say i’ve found the captain’s journey to be the lgbt story i’ve found that’s closest to my own, which says a lot considering he’s a dead world war 2 soldier who hangs out with other ghosts including a slutty Tory, a georgian noblewoman, and a literal caveman. 

3. if captain gay, why he no have boyfriend???? 

another complaint that’s been circulating is that since the captain doesn’t, and likely won’t, have a boyfriend, that makes him Bad Representation because it follows the sad single gay trope. i kind of get the logic from this one, and a lot of it is up to personal interpretation, but part of me really enjoys the fact that the captain’s journey towards accepting himself is separated from having a relationship.

coming out is often paired with having romantic/sexual relationships (either as the reason or reward for doing so). my own struggle with repression didn't end the second that came out, and i still struggle with letting myself develop & acknowledge romantic feelings as a result of actively shutting them (and most other feelings in general) down for years, and statistics show that lgbtq youth in particular tend not to live out their 'teen years' until their twenties. by not giving cap a relationship straight away, ghosts separates the act of claiming identity and sexual orientation from finding a partner (two things which are, more often than not, separate), and also provides some very nice validation to folks who have yet to have the relationship they want, especially when lots of mainstream queer media is now jumping on the cishet media bandwagon of acting as if every person loses their virginity and has a life defining relationship at sixteen. it’s essentially a continuation of the earlier theme of “it’s never too late”, and who’s to say the captain won’t get a gay bear ghost boyfriend to go haunt nazis with??? people die all the time, it could happen.

(also, i think him and julian will have definitely shagged at least once. it was a low moment for both of them and they refuse to speak of it.)

lots of asexual/ace spectrum fans have come out to say how much they’ve loved being able to headcanon cap as ace, and while that’s not a headcanon i personally have, i think it’s brilliant that ace fans feel seen by his character- we’re all in this soup together babey (and sorry for cursing everyone still reading this with that cap/julian headcanon. i’m just a vessel)

4. “okay, but cap’s a GHOST- doesn’t that make this Bury Your Gays?”

this is a bit of a complex one, but i’m going to say no as a result of the following break down.

Bury Your Gays (BYG), aka the trope where lgbtq characters are consistently killed off (and often with a heavy dose of trauma, while cishet characters survive) is probably one of my least favourite lgbt media tropes. BYG has two main points:

1. the lgbt character is killed, thus removing them from story entirely- hence the use of the phrase ‘killed OFF’ (killed off of the show/film)

2. the character’s death reinforces the perception that lgbtq people’s lives must end in tragedy, instead of being long and fulfilling, or are inherently less valuable. bonus points if the character is killed in a hate crime or confesses same-gender love right before they die (that one implies that queer love genuinely has no future!)

not every death of an lgbtq character is bury your gays, and i personally feel that the captain is an example of an lgbt death that isn’t. 

first of all, while the captain is dead, so are the vast majority of characters in ghosts. the premise of the show means that death is not the end of the line for its characters- for most of them, it’s the only reason we get to see them on screen at all. as such, the captain being dead doesn’t remove him from the story, so point one is irrelevant.

at the time of posting, we don’t know how or why the captain died, but we've had nothing to suggest his death was in any way related to his latent sexuality, so his mysterious death doesn’t actively play into the supposedly inherent tragedy of queer lives, nor the supposedly lesser value. that’s as of right now- since we don’t know the circumstances of his death it’s a little tough to analyse properly. while the captain’s life absolutely features missed opportunities and it’s fair share of tragedy, hope and growth (which seems to be the theme of this post) abounds in equal measure. the captain may not be alive, but we DO get to see him growing and having a relatively happy existence, that for the most part seems to be getting even better as he learns to open up and be himself unapologetically- that doesn’t feel like BYG to me.

while writng this, it’s just occured to me that death really is a second chance for most of the ghosts, especially with the introduction of alison. from mary learning to read, to thomas finding modern music, they’ve all been given the chance explore things they never could have while they were alive, and hopefully grow enough to one day be sucked off move on.

in conclusion,

i love the captain very much and i hope his arc lives up to the standards it’s set so far. i don’t know where to put this in this post, but i’d alo like to say i LOVE how in Perfect Day, the captain wasn’t used as an educational experienced for fanny at all. i am very tired of people expecting me to be the walking talking homophobe educator and rehabilitator, so the fact that it’s alison and the other ghosts that call fanny out while the captain just gets to have fun with the wedding organisation made me very happy.

here’s a few other cap posts that i’ve done:

the captain’s arc if adam and the film crew stayed

a possible cap coming out 

the captain backstory headcanon

if you’ve read this far,

thank you!

also check out @alex-ghosts-corner , this post inspired me very much to write this

[jeannereames]

Hi, Dr. Reames! I just read your take on Song of Achilles and it got me thinking. Do you think there might be a general issue with the way women are written in mlm stories in general? Because I don't think it's the first time I've seen something like this happen.

And my next question is, could you delve further into this thing you mention about modern female authors writing women? How could we, beginner female writers, avoid falling into this awful representations of women in our writing?

Thank you for your time!

[It took a while to finish this because I wrote, re-wrote, and re-wrote it. Still not sure I like it, but I need to let it go. It could be 3xs as long.]

I’ll begin with the second half of the question, because it’s simpler. How do we, as women authors, avoid writing women in misogynistic ways?

Let me reframe that as how can we, as female authors, write negative (even quite nasty) female characters without falling into misogynistic tropes? Also, how can we write unsympathetic, but not necessarily “bad” female characters, without it turning misogynistic?

Because people are people, not genders, not all women are good, nor all men bad. Most of us are a mix. If we should avoid assuming powerful women are all bitches, by the same token, some women are bitches (powerful or not).

ALL good characterization comes down to MOTIVE. And careful characterization of minority characters involves fair REPRESENTATION. (Yes, women are a minority even if we’re 51% of the population.)

The question ANY author must ask: why am I making this female character a bitch? How does this characterization serve the larger plot and/or characterization? WHY is she acting this way?

Keep characters complex, even the “bad guys.” Should we choose to make a minority character a “bad guy,” we need to have a counter example—a real counter, not just a token who pops in briefly, then disappears. Yeah, maybe in an ideal world we could just let our characters “be,” but this isn’t an ideal world. Authors do have an audience. I’m a lot less inclined to assume stereotyping when we have various minority characters with different characterizations.

By the same token, however, don’t throw a novel against the wall if the first minority character is negative. Read further to decide if it’s a pattern. I’ve encountered reviews that slammed an author for stereotyping without the reader having finished the book. I’m thinking, “Uh…if you’d read fifty more pages….” Novels have a developmental arc. And if you’ve got a series, that, too, has a developmental arc. One can’t reach a conclusion about an author’s ultimate presentation/themes until having finished the book, or series.*

Returning to the first question, the appearance of misogyny depends not only on the author, but also on when she wrote, even why she’s writing. Authors who are concerned with matters such as theme and message are far more likely to think about such things than those who write for their own entertainment and that of others, which is more typical of Romance.

On average, Romance writers are a professionalized bunch. They have national and regional chapters of the Romance Writers of America (RWA), newsletters and workshops that discuss such matters as building plot tension, character dilemmas, show don’t tell, research tactics, etc. Yet until somewhat recently (early/mid 2010s), and a series of crises across several genres (not just Romance), treatment of minority groups hadn’t been in their cross-hairs. Now it is, with Romance publishers (and publishing houses more generally) picking up “sensitivity readers” in addition to the other editors who look at a book before its publication.

Yet sensitivity readers are hired to be sure lines like “chocolate love monkey” do not show up in a published novel. Yes, that really was used as an endearment for a black man in an M/M Romance, which (deservedly) got not just the author but the publishing house in all sorts of hot water. Yet misogyny, especially more subtle misogyny in the way of tropes, is rarely on the radar.

I should add that I wouldn’t categorize The Song of Achilles as an M/M historical Romance. In fact, I’m not sure what to call novels about myths, as myths don’t exist in actual historical periods. When should we set a novel about the Iliad? The Bronze Age, when Homer said it happened, or the Greek Dark Age, which is the culture Homer actually described? They’re pretty damn different. I’d probably call The Song of Achilles an historical fantasy, especially as mythical creatures are presented as real, like centaurs and god/desses.

Back to M/M Romance: I don’t have specific publishing stats, but it should surprise no one that (like most of the Romance genre), the vast bulk of authors of M/M Romance are women, often straight and/or bi- women. The running joke seems to be, If one hot man is good, two hot men together are better. 😉 Yes, there are also trans, non-binary and lesbian authors of M/M Romance, and of course, bi- and gay men who may write under their own name or a female pseudonym, but my understanding is that straight and bi- cis-women authors outnumber all of them.

Just being a woman, or even a person in a female body, does not protect that author from misogyny. And if she’s writing for fun, she may not be thinking a lot about what her story has to “say” in its subtext and motifs, even if she may be thinking quite hard about other aspects of story construction. This can be true of other genres as well (like historical fantasy).

What I have observed for at least some women authors is the unconscious adoption of popular tropes about women. Just as racism is systemic, so is sexism. We swim in it daily, and if one isn’t consciously considering how it affects us, we can buy into it by repeating negative ideas and acting in prescribed ways because that’s what we learned growing up. If writing in a symbol-heavy genre such as mythic-driven fantasy, it can be easy to let things slip by—even if they didn’t appear in the original myth, such as making Thetis hostile to Patroklos, the classic Bitchy Mother-in-Law archetype.

I see this sort of thing as “accidental” misogyny. Women authors repeat unkind tropes without really thinking them through because it fits their romantic vision. They may resent it and get defensive if the trope is pointed out. “Don’t harsh my squee!” We can dissect why these tropes persist, and to what degree they change across generations—but that would end up as a (probably controversial) book, not a blog entry. 😊

Yet there’s also subconscious defensive misogyny, and even conscious/semi-conscious misogyny.

Much debate/discussion has ensued regarding “Queen Bee Syndrome” in the workplace and whether it’s even a thing. I think it is, but not just for bosses. I also would argue that it’s more prevalent among certain age-groups, social demographics, and professions, which complicates recognizing it.

What is Queen Bee Syndrome? Broadly, when women get ahead at the expense of their female colleagues who they perceive as rivals, particularly in male-dominated fields, hinging on the notion that There Can Be Only One (woman). It arises from systemic sexism.

Yes, someone can be a Queen Bee even with one (or two) women buddies, or while claiming to be a feminist, supporting feminist causes, or writing feminist literature. I’ve met a few. What comes out of our mouths doesn’t necessarily jive with how we behave. And ticking all the boxes isn’t necessary if you’re ticking most of them. That said, being ambitious, or just an unpleasant boss/colleague—if its equal opportunity—does not a Queen Bee make. There must be gender unequal behavior involved.

What does any of that have to do with M/M fiction?

The author sees the women characters in her novel as rivals for the male protagonists. It gets worse if the women characters have some “ownership” of the men: mothers, sisters, former girlfriends/wives/lovers. I know that may sound a bit batty. You’re thinking, Um, aren’t these characters gay or at least bi- and involved with another man, plus—they’re fictional? Doesn’t matter. Call it fantasizing, authorial displacement, or gender-flipped authorial insert. We authors (and I include myself in this) can get rather territorial about our characters. We live in their heads and they live in ours for months on end, or in many cases, years. They’re real to us. Those who aren't authors often don’t quite get that aspect of being an author. So yes, sometimes a woman author acts like a Queen Bee to her women characters. This is hardly all, or even most, but it is one cause of creeping misogyny in M/M Romance.

Let’s turn to a related problem: women who want to be honorary men. While I view this as much more pronounced in prior generations, it’s by no means disappeared. Again, it’s a function of systemic sexism, but further along the misogyny line than Queen Bees. Most Queen Bees I’ve known act/react defensively, and many are (imo) emotionally insecure. It’s largely subconscious. More, they want to be THE woman, not an honorary man.

By contrast, women who want to be honorary men seem to be at least semi-conscious of their misogyny, even if they resist calling it that. These are women who, for the most part, dislike other women, regard most of “womankind” as either a problem or worthless, and think of themselves as having risen above their gender.

And NO, this is not necessarily religious—sometimes its specifically a-religious.

“I want to be an honorary man” women absolutely should NOT be conflated with butch lesbians, gender non-conformists, or frustrated FTMs. That plays right into myths the queer community has combated for decades. There’s a big difference between expressing one’s yang or being a trans man, and a desire to escape one’s womanhood or the company of other women. “Honorary men” women aren’t necessarily queer. I want to underscore that because the concrete example I’m about to give does happen to be queer.

I’ve talked before about Mary Renault’s problematic portrayal of women in her Greek novels (albeit her earlier hospital romances don’t show it as much). Her own recorded comments make it clear that she and her partner Julie Mullard didn’t want to be associated with other lesbians, or with women much at all. She was also born in 1905, living at a time when non-conforming women struggled. If extremely active in anti-apartheid movements in South Africa, Renault and Mullard were far less enthused by the Gay Rights Movement. Renault even criticized it, although she wrote back kindly to her gay fans.

The women in Renault’s Greek novels tend to be either bitches or helpless, reflecting popular male perceptions of women: both in ancient Greece and Renault’s own day. If we might argue she’s just being realistic, that ignores the fact one can write powerful women in historical novels and still keep it attitudinally accurate. June Rachuy Brindel, born in 1919, author of Ariadne and Phaedra, didn’t have the same problem, nor did Martha Rofheart, born in 1917, with My Name is Sappho. Brindel’s Ariadne is much more sympathetic than Renault’s (in The King Must Die).

Renault typically elevates (and identifies with) the “rational” male versus the “irrational” female. This isn’t just presenting how the Greeks viewed women; it reflects who she makes the heroes and villains in her books. Overall, “good” women are the compliant ones, and the compliant women are tertiary characters.

Women in earlier eras who were exceptional had to fight multiple layers of systemic misogyny. Some did feel they had to become honorary men in order to be taken seriously. I’d submit Renault bought into that, and it (unfortunately) shows in her fiction, as much as I admire other aspects of her novels.

So I think those are the three chief reasons we see women negatively portrayed in M/M Romance (or fiction more generally), despite being written by women authors.

------------------------------------

*Yeah, yeah, sometimes it’s such 2D, shallow, stereotypical presentation that I, as a reader, can conclude this author isn’t going to get any better. Also, the publication date might give me a clue. If I’m reading something published 50 years ago, casual misogyny or racism is probably not a surprise. If I don’t feel like dealing with that, I close the book and put it away.

But I do try to give the author a chance. I may skim ahead to see if things change, or at least suggest some sort of character development. This is even more the case with a series. Some series take a loooong view, and characters alter across several novels. Our instant-gratification world has made us impatient. Although by the same token, if one has to deal with racism or sexism constantly in the real world, one may not want to have to watch it unfold in a novel—even if it’s “fixed” later. If that’s you, put the book down and walk away. But I’d just suggest not writing a scathing review of a novel (or series) you haven’t finished. 😉

[opiatemasses]

The ‘Perfect’ Docile Athlete: An Insight into Power, Surveillance and Performance

According to Foucault “power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere”. Foucault’s work is unavoidably complex. However, can the way he conceptualised power be useful to analyse coaching? And can we apply his ideas for coaches?

Firstly, Foucault indicates that power is exerted throughout all aspects of life and similarly sport, therefore it doesn’t just exist with authoritative figures e.g. coaches.

Secondly, Foucault understood that power operates through the use of discourses, whereby knowledge that is related to a certain discourse generates power.

Thirdly, Foucault’s work regarding surveillance holds importance. Bentham’s Panopticon prison design was central to Foucault’s analysis and the overarching concept highlights that surveillance occurs without the knowledge of those subject to the surveillance. This allows for self-regulation and the creation of docile bodies that are used, transformed and improved.

Surveillance in sport: A technological advancement or downfall?

Whilst sport surveillance doesn’t always take the form of the Panopticon prison design, it draws parallels to Foucault’s analysis on modern institutions, as sport is often a microcosm for society.

Studies have shown the extent to which surveillance and power operates within elite sport, highlighting the lengths academies and coaches strive for the creation of the ‘perfect’ athlete. Academies often make use of video surveillance, human observation and physiological testing. Specifically, linked to some of my own experiences, more common examples of surveillance in a range of sporting contexts may include:

Heart rate measurements

GPS

Exercise intensities

Body fat percentage

Arguably that surveillance and the resultant data may be revolutionary to sport due to the knowledge the data holds. And as we know, knowledge is power. Can this be understood as a bid to gain more power for coaches? Or a genuine attempt to improve performance? Coaches regularly find comfort in the fact that knowledge accumulated from surveillance allows for the regulation of athlete’s behaviour, so they may improve their performance. Is this such a crime? As Stratton and colleagues highlighted, most academies’ purpose is to “develop players for the first team or (at least) generate income through the sale of ‘marketable assets’”. Therefore, it becomes apparent to criticise the institutions and our coaching practices rather than surveillance itself. Are these academies - a capitalist production line - whereby power through the use of surveillance is the ultimate goal?

As a coach a primary goal is to keep athletes healthy and happy. But what emotions spring to mind if your recent weighing is being displayed on a gym wall? If your sprint speed isn’t up to scratch? Or if your shooting technique is constantly being replayed to highlight every little fault? I certainly wouldn’t feel happy. So why do we allow our athletes to be subjected to this repressive surveillance? As coaches we need to question these surveillance practices which may lead to disorders or conforming to certain gender identities.

Are we creating docile athletes?

Whilst the demotivated athlete is considered to be far from perfect, it is questionable if the same can be said for a docile athlete? After all, when drawing upon Foucault, the idea that a docile human can be used, transformed and improved, can appear essential qualities for coaches to observe from athletes. However, although this may appear ‘perfect’ for some, others may disagree, as a coaches’ subconscious actions can lead to this docility.  

You may now be wondering which of your coaching practices demotivates and makes your athletes docile. Whilst you have probably guessed that the use of surveillance is in the mix, the other practices found by Denison’s research may seem less obvious…

Training environments e.g. a gym, and planned sessions, may be a way for coaches to control their athletes. Having a specified training environment can hold characteristics of a tightly controlled disciplinary space, where hard work and training is inevitable. This, along with the need to create strict timetables, may lead to docile, unmotivated athletes. Whilst these practices provide you with an athlete that turns up to training prepared and obedient, there is a downside. It leaves athletes with a limited ownership of their training and generates conscious or subconscious feelings of discomfort from the tightly controlled training environments. Ultimately this will create your ‘perfect’ docile athlete, but this isn’t to say they will be a high performing, nor a motivated one.

What is the ‘perfect’ athlete?

There is confusion around coaching practices and the quest to create the ‘perfect’ athlete. Consequently, an analysis of what the ‘perfect’ athlete entails is necessary. Unsurprisingly, there is no agreed definition. Despite this, it is essential to understand that factors such as docility and demotivation, and less discernible aspects such as obedience and compliance are attributes which do not blend well when seeking the ‘perfect’ athlete. Coaches and other authoritative figures within sport need to look less at themselves and more to their athletes on how to create ‘perfection’. That said, the ‘perfect’ athlete, ironically, is far from perfection itself, and equally cannot be quantified. From my perspective, qualities of athlete perfection represent motivation, autonomy and happiness. Qualities that cannot exist with the constant subjection to power and surveillance use in repressive ways.

The ‘curse’ of normalisation  

It may appear nonsensical that coaches are accepting of practices which demotivate their athletes. Or, why you have let this slip under your radar as a coach? The simple answer is the cultural norms that exist around coaching. We can examine this in two ways: Firstly, by understanding that norms created over time show coaching to be led by the coach. Secondly, by addressing that power is lateral and not just top-down. The athlete’s power exists to ensure the coach’s knowledge is up to scratch, therefore, it is clear from this that coaches can easily fall under the ‘curse’ of normalisation. The fear that they must conform to athlete’s expectations could be the reason for the lack of change when it comes to using surveillance and power. There is an irony which surrounds these coaching practices that are in need of change, one that initially appears to release athletes from repressive cultural norms, but instead it is the coaches who need to break from these norms for any real change to occur.

What can be done?

Change needs to occur. But how? What is crucial to understand is that surveillance and power use doesn’t need to be eliminated from coaching but utilised in different ways. Surveillance shouldn’t solely dictate coaching practice. Instead, empowering athletes to improve their performance, based on the surveillance collected, is more efficient. Also, the need for coaches to adapt certain practices to equal out power relations is essential. E.g. the discussion of tactics should be less focused around the coach displaying his or her knowledge, and more about generating scenarios to allow athletes to develop their own decision-making.

In some cases, we can consider these practices to take an athlete-centred approach whereby your role as a coach is to act as a facilitator. Other characteristics can include:

Supportive

Encourages discussion

Adaptable

Allows shared decision-making

These kinds of approaches allow for autonomous individuals, a characteristic that we have previously linked to gaining perfection within athletes. Why have we let the technology of surveillance control our sessions? And why does a top-down approach to power appear to be an essential part of coaching? As coaches I urge you to address these questions and challenge what you may have previously considered to be normal. How else can we adapt these coaching practices for the better? Approaches such as the athlete-centred one needs to be the new normal. Is this possible? Or is coaching falling into a repressive trap?

N0786846

References

Denison, J. (2007). Social Theory for Coaches: A Foucauldian Reading of One Athlete’s Poor   Performance. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2(4), 369-383. doi: 10.1260/174795407783359777

Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of The Prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.

Kidman, L. (2005). Athlete-Centred Coaching: Developing Inspired and Inspiring People. Christchurch: Innovative.

Stratton, G., Reilly, T., Williams, M., & Richardson, D. (2004). Youth Soccer: From Science to Performance. London: Routledge.

[mwitchipoo]

In a previous post, I talked about the passing of Genesis Breyer P-Orridge. Gen passed away almost a month after S/He celebrated h/er 70th Lesser Feast, aka birthday.

  I first heard about Psychic TV way back during high school. This was during the ’80s. It was nearly the height of my Siouxsie wannabe phaze, which actually last a few years. (During high school, I was a Siouxsie clone.) By this point I was hopping around all the import record shops down in NYC’s Greenwich Village area. I remember all of the Temple Record releases. I believe this might’ve been the era where Psychic TV tried to release 23 albums, on the 23rd day for 23 months. Already the PTV brand caught my eye.

  One day, a friend told me a mutual friend of ours took her to see Psychic TV over at The (old) Ritz, which is where Webster Hall now stands. Her assessment wasn’t much. She called them ‘pretentious.’ Looking back, her attention span probably was due to the lack of the ‘cute’ guy factor. Despite her negative review, this only peaked my interest more. My disregard for her scoffing was proven correct. This ‘friend’ later went from being Goth to chasing after all those tacky hair metal glam bands of the late ’80s. Don’t ever trust a Guns n Roses fan.

The turning point was a purchase of the seminal RE/Search book Modern Primitives. Before tattoos, piercings and body modification were accepted in the mainstream, the underground movement was documented by V.Vale. After purchasing the book from See/Hear, I discovered a new world. Among those interviewed were Genesis P-Orridge and his first wife, formerly known as Paula P-Orridge. It wasn’t just tattoos they discussed. Through this book, I discovered many other worlds. I believe this was one of the first times I heard about Alister Crowley and William S. Burroughs. After reading about the frequency of the number 23, I started seeing 23s everywhere. Maybe it was my subconsciousness bringing it on. Later I discovered The 23 Current. It was my introduction to the esoteric, or occulture.

After barely graduating high school, I started collecting Psychic TV albums. Similarly I learned about the Thee Temple Ov Psychick Youth. I sent away for information. The instructions received wasn’t something I was prepared for – although I kept that manual for many years. (Might even still own it)

Finally had a chance to see Psychic TV live in NYC, year 1991. This was during their ‘Acid House’ era. To this day it still remains one of the best concerts I saw in my life. Why I say this. Looking back on the concert, it wasn’t the performance, but the vibe, the energy. It’s only now I realize that concert might’ve altered my life. My perceptions slowly started to change. Still, it wasn’t until many years later when I decided to act upon my influences.

As the ’90s went on, my life switched directions. Psychic TV wasn’t on my radar so much. Occasionally I brought scattered PTV releases, such as a (now) rare spoken word CD which was later *stolen* (a-hem).  In the meantime, Gen, Paula and their two daughters had to go into exile. After settling in California, Gen and Paula divorced.

In California, Genesis P-Orridge later got into a nasty accident while hanging out with the British band Love & Rockets. Escaping a fire, Genesis later sued record producer Rick Rubin, winning a large financial sum.

Didn’t get into Psychic TV again until maybe around the early 2000s. By then, Gen had moved to NYC, met Lady Jaye, and a new chapter developed. It was known as the ‘Pandrogeny Project.’

In summer 2007, I saw Psychic TV live for the second time. The concert was at The Bowery Ballroom. I had just arrived back from Kansas City to NYC. It was the end of a chapter in my own personal life. During this gig, Lady Jaye was in the background playing the tambourine, as the latest incarnation of Psychic TV, now known as PTV3, embraced a more guitar psychedelic vibe. Video montages of the Pandrogeny couple flickered on stage as the band performed.

NEW YORK STORY (2007) originally made as a video projection to be projected behind the band Psychic TV during their live performances. Breyer P-Orridge, also known as Genesis P-Orridge and (recently deceased) life partner Lady Jaye, have garnered attention in recent years by undergoing medical procedures to eliminate their physical differences. “One of the central themes of our work is the malleability of physical and behavioral identity,” they explain, giving rise to their merged identity. The two intended to create a new gender, the “pandrogyne” called Breyer P-Orridge. This video takes Breyer P-Orridges exploration of the fictional self one step further. A video about identity and trans/formation that blurs the line between fantasy and reality. A video by Nicolas Jenkins

Unfortunately Lady Jaye dropped her body that same year. I managed to catch this incarnation of PTV3, just in time.

After Lady Jaye’s death, Genesis Breyer P-Orridge continued with Psychic TV. I saw Gen’s spoken word performances numerous times during this period. (One spoken word project was known as Thee Majesty.) Once was when Gen was on the same bill as (early) Cold Cave and Boyd Rice. It was commemorating the anniversary of the Manson murders. The last spoken word GPO performance I saw was in 2015. S/He opened up for Japanese noise musician Merzbow. Gen’s whole set was really about Lady Jaye, eight years after her death. It was the saddest I’ve seen Gen. Afterwards, Gen walked on stage in the middle Merzbow’s set, no reason given. S/He stood there for a few minutes, then walked off. That was it. The concert version of “photo bombing.” My words the next day: ‘Gen is not a well woman.’ 

In 2016, Gen had an extensive exhibit at the Rubin Museum, Try To Altar Everything.

Winter 2019. I decided to see Cold Cave in concert again, partly because Psychic TV was booked to be the opening act. This was never meant to be. At this point, Gen was diagnosed with leukemia. The night of the concert, Genesis was much too ill to perform. PTV had no choice but cancel their set last minute.

That’s when I knew Gen didn’t have too long to live.

Luckily, Gen found a new love, who supported not only Gen emotionally, but was comfortable living with Lady Jaye’s memory.

Now it’s 2020, a year of chaos and uncertainly. While COVID-19 was just starting to be acknowledged as a serious threat, news broke about Gen’s passing. Just happen to be cruising through Instagram, when I stumbled upon a post by Cold Cave. Genesis Breyer P-Orridge went on to H/She’s Greater Feast on  Gen’s death was expected, but it still left a void. Despite all the controversies, (people have told me over the years how S/he screwed many people over), Gen still broke boundaries, influencing many worldwide. It’s this blog post that I acknowledge the crucial influence GPO had upon me.

Here’s an illustration I did the other night. It’s Genesis P-Orridge from s/he early PTV days. Around the time Thee Temple of Psychick Youth was formed.

Poor-trait of Genesis Breyer P-Orridge from the early Psychic TV days. Illustration by Michele Witchipoo. March 2020. 

The next and final GPO post will focus on COUM Transmissions and mainly, Throbbing Gristle. Stay tuned.

Psychic TV (R.I.P. GPO) In a previous post, I talked about the passing of Genesis Breyer P-Orridge. Gen passed away…

[ganymedesclock]

So basically, Keith (and possibly Acxa if they're related) has some kind of internal magic-sensing radar?? Or quintessence-sensitivity? Or something supernatural going on, anyway. I'm really curious what the implications of that ability may be in the long run.

Let’s talk about Keith’s energy sense and how it works! (I’ll also talk about Acxa here)

So far, what we know for sure is that Keith sometimes exhibits a heightened ability to perceive certain elements in his surroundings. In s1e1, major examples of this are when he felt “called” first to the shack, and then felt a kind of ‘field’ around the Blue Lion that he was able to triangulate.

This map and “triangulate” would suggest that Keith can tell when he’s near certain things, and by turning in place he can identify which way will get him closer to it- the three ‘x’es are places he went to, and, from there, identified which way the energy was. By going to three different places, he was able to pin down the energy to a very specific location, which he marked in the smaller circle, and probably found the bigger circle by similar means.

So Keith’s “energy sense”, as I prefer to call it, is a pretty fine-tuned and reliable instrument. It’s not a power that comes and goes, but something very predictable. It operates similarly to Hunk’s Voltron detector, and what they later upgrade to track the comet and thus Lotor- only for Keith, who had no idea what Hunk was talking about with the Fraunhofer line, he has this piece of equipment functionally built into his head.

While we don’t have explicit confirmation, my personal hypothesis is that in s1e10, and parts of s3, this “sense” of Keith’s was also what guided him to focus heavily on the druid and on Lotor.

This would suggest that, rather than Hunk’s tracker, which operates on the specific material of the trans-reality comets, Keith is able to track large volumes of quintessence. Voltron is a perpetual motion machine that radiates vast amounts of energy- so what Keith is picking up here, is simply the large amounts of energy that Blue gives off, rather than a connection between him and the Blue Lion. 

But when it comes to the Lion he is connected with, Keith is able to simply sense Red’s position once he gets close enough- while the others require equipment and glowing carvings to guide them to the spot, Keith simply takes a deep breath and experiences a vision of Red’s position.

In s1e10, he focuses first, intently, on the glowing canisters, and then becomes determined to follow them. This draws him to follow the druid, and discover the room full of quintessence. He also tries to take some of it with him, though he doesn’t explain why. He also lasers in on Lotor- when in s4e3, Haggar remarks that Lotor has an unusual energy around him, presumably Sincline itself, though Keith focuses on Lotor before that time.

Also, in s4e6, while he has other reasons to be suspicious, Keith becomes suddenly, incredibly tense about Haggar’s ship and actually says, “I don’t know why, but we have to attack that ship.” At a point in which Haggar is gathering a massive volume of magical energy to destroy Naxzela.

This is the first portion of Keith’s ability, and the most well-documented.

But I suspect there’s another element to this- Keith functionally has a kind of spidey sense.

Allura states that Red requires a pilot that “relies more on instinct than skill alone.” This raises something interesting when we consider Lance is not shown to be a bad pilot- he takes to flying Blue easily, and by s3e1, before he switches to Red, he’s shown to pull off some very complicated maneuvers and be a powerful dogfighter.

And yet he runs into not just problems with Red, but a very specific problem: he’s never able to react in time because Red moves too quickly.

A problem Keith has never had, even though Red would be leagues faster than anything Keith has ever flown.

On several occasions, in combat, Keith can be observed to preemptively orient himself to face an enemy he has no way of knowing is there. Most obviously, this happens in s1e10, fighting the druid, and also in s3e3, fighting Lotor. In the former case, the druid keeps teleporting around him, soundlessly, and attacking from blind angles. Each time, Keith pauses, sometimes appears to glance around his surroundings, and then looks at, or turns to face, his attacking enemy.

In s3e3, Keith, despite being explicitly on a planet that destroys all conventional sensors without specific adjustments- where Black is functionally blindfolded- finds Lotor repeatedly, at one point verbatim says, “He’s around here somewhere, I know he is,” and on another occasion, suddenly snaps his head upright to look above him- and seconds later Lotor dives the team from exactly where Keith was looking.

This is where I’m gonna mention Acxa, because Acxa herself seems to do this! Most noticeably on s3e2, when the generals first arrive on Puig, Acxa is disseminating orders, facing her left. A Puigian rebel shoots a laser at the back of her head, standing in the opposite direction from which she’s looking- the laser makes no sound until it crosses in front of the screen. However, Acxa dodges it by pulling her head back. Which casts suspicion overall on her incredible aim, and that she rarely properly steadies herself while shooting- if anything, she’s prone to shooting rapidly while tumbling or flipping through the air, which makes her actual marksmanship unusual- especially when the other sharpshooter in our cast, Lance, is shown to take time, aim carefully, and/or use a scope or sighting along the barrel to make his shots precisely. 

(though, admittedly, he’s also made some downright amazing shots that we haven’t seen Acxa- precise distance shots are more his area while Acxa’s more impressive for her ability to shoot while moving)

Other scenes that become suspect in this would include s1e6, when Rolo leads the Lions into an asteroid field to escape them- Keith, and Red, go inside, and navigate the field of moving and colliding rocks with little difficulty.

This also becomes suspicious with the strong emphasis on instinct for the Red Lion- because “instinct” refers to intuition, having a ‘gut feeling’ about things, or processing information minutely on a subconscious level. Consider Alfor, Keith’s predecessor, in s3e7, and how he’s the conduit for understanding Voltron- its name, its capabilities, how it operates, and what must be done. He does not obtain this information by conventional means.

Red also forms a set with Green, who is all about conventional means of gathering information- technology, science, investigation, communication. As both of the legs are tasked with supporting and protecting the team, it makes sense the arms also share a task- and the task of the arms is gathering intelligence to return it to the head.

Alfor also responds with great animosity and discomfort to the rift creature when he first sees it, before it ever turns aggressive, and in contrast with his nature before then, where he’s established as almost brash to a fault.

As an aside, it’s also worth noting that Keith has some very stereotypically oracular traits. Out of the team, he’s the only one with a particular striking, unusual eye color- his distinctive indigo irises. He also is first encountered living in seclusion in the desert, focusing on a subtle, but insistent “calling” that he can’t explain and is unfamiliar with the science that validates his bizarrely potent gut feeling. Something Lance calls “Mumbo-jumbo”

There appears to be another side to this ability- something Keith hasn’t exhibited much on his own but someone else before him seems to have in Blue’s cavern.

That being clairvoyance. The ability to predict events before they actually happen, or that happened far away from you.

Keith tells us that someone wrote down, in the carvings and paintings around the Blue Lion, about “some kind of arrival happening last night. Then you showed up.”

So, at some point, before Keith found the carvings, someone knew Shiro would arrive, on a specific day, and marked it down.

One of the big things about s2e8 and the Trial of Marmora, while this was explicitly bequeathed by the suit, is that visions are a big deal to Keith, especially when it comes to his history, and his family. What he’s seeing, what’s real, and what’s born of his fears. Because sometimes Keith is able to pull genuine information from a nebulous source- as I’ve listed before- but other times, like his dream in s2e6, is completely inaccurate, and the trial is explicitly tinted by his fears and not what’s really there.

So I have to wonder if this is an exercise in character development for Keith- that maybe his murky nightmares contain valuable information or warnings, but he has yet to refine that ability as much as it could- to the level of whoever left the warning for him in the cave.

Perhaps another mysterious figure who seems to be linked to that area and has purple eyes just like Keith does... and who would have a connection to both Keith and Acxa if the theory of them being siblings is true.