#like the vast majority of women in history worked what now

[cruelsister-moved2]

so much misogyny goes so unrecorded like i briefly had a crisis over my dissertation like maybe its not that deep and im being a snowflake but the thing is even though you can also always find examples of men being openly hostile and terrible a lot of the time you just look back and see a woman who didn’t progress with her career and you don’t know that its because her male bosses privately didn’t think a woman was competent or her husband made her feel guilty for working. most of the misogyny that impacts my daily life i have to stop and think... when they look back they’ll never know this was happening to us!!!

[possiblyunhinged]

Tommy Robinson and his ilk centring ‘women’s safety’ as part of their anti-immigration rhetoric is not only idiotic but also illogical.

I understand that men are disenfranchised. Despite a lifetime of navigating the behaviour of men, both strangers and men I know, I can still empathise with the reality that working-class men in this country have been abandoned. I'm not sure when they weren't, frankly. But in a tale as old as time, they are being told it’s immigrants to blame for that. Not billionaires. Not politicians. Immigrants.

Now... where have we heard this before in history? Hmm, if only we had a reference to this slippery slope.

Every single attack on women that makes the news seems to be a platform for them to blame immigration and fuel the notion of ‘this is what’s coming; this is what we’ve voted for.’ It doesn’t matter who the offender is; it will be assumed by these individuals that they are asylum seekers.

So, white British men aren’t predators? Or are they allowed to assault us because we’re ‘theirs’? Perhaps rape isn’t objectively bad; it’s actually subjective based on the colour of someone’s skin? When the head of the MET stated that violence against women and girls is an epidemic that should be treated with the same severity as terrorism, did he include white British men in that?

I’d like to point out that the individuals who suckle Tommy Robinson's singular brain cell also believe they are the ones who follow logic and facts. It’s quite remarkable, really, that level of delusion.

I am one of the many women who have experienced sexual violence.

I grew up in a domestic violence household. I was first groped by a stranger on a train when I was a pre-teen by a man who looked like he could be somebody’s dad. The vast majority of women in my life have a story to tell, often laced with tactics to cope with the actions that were done to them against their will. We live in a country that sees itself as ‘civilized’ and an arbiter of morality while essentially decriminalizing rape.

All the men I’ve had these experiences with were white, British men. How do I know that? Because I knew them. A large portion of sexual violence cases are committed by people the victim knows, not some bogeyman lurking in dark alleyways—men that victims know.

I was assaulted by a country pumpkin, skateboarding, floppy-haired boy who everybody thought was the nicest man on earth. Again, it is a far cry from the stereotype that the likes of Tommy Robinson paint of violent misogynists. But alas, what do I expect from men who describe British women as ‘ours’?

Move over, Simone de Beauvoir. The true feminists are in town, waving little St. George’s flags and drinking tinnies.

My white British dad was a 6’5” rugby player from Stoke who was ‘one of the boys,’ and people in his life thought he was soft as butter. He was physically violent to my mum. He completely decimated my and my brother’s right to just be children.

Two of my friends from university were raped by the same boy, who also raped other girls in our halls of residence. They managed to get the case to court, but eventually, all of them dropped out because everybody, including the police, was quick to say they were ruining the life of a white British boy with the whole world at his feet. They said it would be better just to get a restraining order—well, better for him, at least.

Would Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, and others feel outraged at that? Or is it different, violence towards women, if it’s from our country? Our women? Or are they doing what they accuse the left of—ignoring reality because if they were to acknowledge the complexities of the issue, it wouldn’t quite make for a hit tweet for people whose frontal lobes are made of butter?

I mean, one would imagine Robinson and co would be deeply outraged that a misogynist like Donald Trump could acquire the most powerful political position in the world once more... you know, being that they are so into women's rights and that.

This scapegoating of immigrants in a country built on immigration and, frankly, exploitation is beyond the realm of idiocy—it’s illogical. If you want to talk about the cover-ups in Rochdale, then you should also talk about the police officers who are sex offenders and are still allowed to work. You should talk about the rapists in the commons. You should talk about the systemic protection of predators in industries across the UK. You should talk about the girls in schools who are experiencing a rise in misogyny, which is being flagged by teacher's unions.

It's weird... they never mention women's rights outside of their race-baiting antics...

If they truly cared about violence against women, they’d at least acknowledge the scale of the issue and realize that misogyny is as embedded in ‘British culture’ as it is in any culture around the world. Yet again, the thin veneer of civility in this country means nothing when rapists face no consequences via the law or otherwise.

If this sounds mean-spirited, it’s because it is. I am sick to my back teeth of hearing and reading about men who perceive themselves as virtuous, failing to grasp basic points, and having vast platforms afforded to them. Meanwhile, misogyny is on the rise again. Who do people credit for this? The likes of Tommy Robinson, Andrew Tate, and others who have targeted disenfranchised, vulnerable men and directed their rage towards women and minorities.

I am an idiot, and I have had farts that speak more sense than Tommy Robinson.

[pub-lius]

Can I ask what your fav historical figure is? I looked at your blog so I think it is Hamitlon, but there are plenty of others here so I'm curious now. You have a great knowledge about many, but I do not know which one is your favorite. Answer if you want, if not ignore it! :3

i am neglecting my tumblr children i am so sorry i have been working retail and yearning for nature

this is actually kind of a difficult question tbh. id say my default historical figure is hamilton bc idk i just find him really interesting and when i dont have anything else to research, i research him.

but also i really enjoy female historical figures for their personalities way more than i do the men, not just bc the men are usually politicians and politicians suck, but because they all overcame the patriarchal rules of society in their own way, and i find that very inspirational and fascinating, so i always have a more emotional connection with women like elizabeth hamilton, mary shelley, theodosia burr, etc.

i also am DEEPLY attached to john laurens because of how he’s a lot of things at once and i relate a lot of his life to my own personal experiences. if i could give that man a hug, a lot of my problems would go away. and ofc lafayette is my comfort historical figure because he’s just happy to be there and where he is is absolute fucking chaos and war and plague and an overall hellscape

but, then again, a vast majority of my personal interest in history revolves around hamilton because… he’s just… he… sometimes… um… yeah?

hope this answers your question! thank you for the ask <3

[copper-dragon-in-disguise]

Ik you like talking about this and I’m actually like rly interested so what’s the aids quilt and triangle shirtwaist factory fire?

(It’s in your bio and as you probably know I hate looking stuff up and prefer talking to people-you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to)

*jumps up like the human equivalent of !!! and sprints to the computer to answer this properly with sources and shit* !!!!!!!!!!!

YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRIANGLE SHIRTWAIST FACTORY FIRE AND THE AIDS QUILT?????????? !!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE GOING TO REGRET THIS SO MUCH ASTER I'M SO EXICTED I'M NOT GOING TO SHUT UP FOR LIKE AN HOUR THIS IS AMAZING

(you have unlocked the Special Interests and now i won't shut up ever. :DDDDDDDDDD)

....well. I wasn't going to put a cut and then it got really, really long, so there's a cut about halfway through for the sake of peoples dashboards.

first up:

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

(tw/cw: intentional endangerment of workers, death, suicide (unplanned/unintentional), graphic depiction of death)

short version: the triangle shirtwaist factory fire was one of the deadliest industrial disasters in US History and, I believe, the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of New York City. It was a key point in labor rights & union movements, and 146 people died, almost all recently immigrated women and girls between the ages of 14-23.

long version: at ~4:40 pm on march 25th, 1911, a fire broke out in a scrap bin under a cutting table in the triangle shirtwaist factory, which occupied the 8th, 9th, and 10th floors of the Asch building in new york city (manhatten, greenwich village specifically).

the factory produced shirtwaists, a popular kind of women's blouse. (it was a sweatshop, which is relevant for future reasons). It was owned by Max Blanck and Issac Harris, who had previously had four (? possibly 3) fires at other factories, and been investigated for them (it was suspected that one or more of those said fires were the result of arson by the owners). the workers were, for the vast majority, recently immigrated jewish & italian women and girls, from age 14 and up, but most were between 14 and 25. The oldest victim was 43. (of the victims whose ages are known). They earned $7-12 a week (approx. $190-326USD in 2020 dollars), or approx. $3.65-6.29 per hour in today's money. at the time of the fire, there were approx. 600 workers in the building.

the asch building was 10 floors in total, and the top 3 were occupied by the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. The doors leading to the staircases were locked, to prevent workers leaving early or taking breaks. There were supposed to be 3 staircases, but there was only two; the city had allowed the owners to build a single fire escape in lieu of the third staircase. this fire escape may have been broken before the fire, and it was certainly broken afterwards. one of the staircases managed to be unlocked, but it became impassible either up or down within 3 minutes of the fire's start.

when the fire flared up, the first alarm was sounded by a passerby outside, who saw smoke coming out the windows at 4:45 pm.

the fire department arrived shortly after, but their ladders could only reach the 7th floor (the fire start on the 8th). some workers excaped via the roof (several years ago I heard a story about a guy who was teaching in the building next door and him and his students saw the people on the roof and were able to help them get over to the building the professor was in and not ontop of the burning one, but I can't find it again to validate it so take that with a grain of salt), and some got into the elevators while they were still working. the elevator operators were able to make 3 trips before the elevators stopped working from the excessive heat (the steel beams holding them bent and made it impossible to attempt).

inside the building, people on the 8th floor were able to warn people on the 10th floor by means of a telephone, but with the staircases locked there was no way to warn those on the 9th floor, and a survivor said (paraphrasing): ''the first warning of the fire arrived at the 9th floor at the same time the fire did''.

146 people died. 123 women and girls, the vast majority between the ages of 14-23, and 23 men and boys (I cannot find a clear age for them). 61 people died from jumping to their death or falling to their death out of the windows of the building. the fire department had nets meant to catch people, but velocity is velocity and the nets did nothing. people jumped out the windows hoping that the nets would catch them or they might survive, or that at least that had a better chance of survival than remaining inside the fire. 20 of these were on the fire escape & attempting to use it when it collapsed, dropping them 100ft to the sidewalk and killing them.

36 people died in the elevator shaft, after it started to break. (they attempted to jump/slide down the cables, and it did not work).

49 people burned to death or suffocated in the smoke.

the entire fire took 18 minutes.

The bodies of the victims were taken to Charities Pier (aka Misery Lane) to be identified. All but 6 were, and those 6 were buried together in the Cementer of the Evergreens in brooklyn (they were later identified by a historian named michael hirsch in 2011, after 4 years of research). they are now all buried together there, underneath a monument to the tragedy.

it caused a surge in the efforts of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, and eventually resulted in the passing of ~38 new york state labor laws.

The AIDs Quilt

(tw/cw: regan (referenced), death (nowhere near as bad as above))

The AIDs quilt is a memorial quilt commemorating those who have died of AIDs (at any point, not just during the AIDs crisis (fuck you ronald regan)), with panels sewn by family members and friends. It was begun in 1987 in San Fransisco by Cleve Jones. It is considered the largest community folk arts project in the world, and consists of nearly 50,000 panels honoring approx. 110,000 people.

Each panel is 6' by 3' (about the size of a standard grave), and four of them are sewn together to make large blocks that are then sewn/tied together. sometimes it goes on display, the most recent time in june 2022.

there is an interactive online version of the quilt, which you can find here.

here it is zoomed out as far as I could get

here are some of the larger blocks of the quilt

and here are some individual panels.

that's mostly all I have to say about it, but its incredible, and my favorite art project of all time.

(i don't have the spoons to add image descriptions to the photos, I am sorry, I will try to do it later when I remember)

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: The Rabbit Hole

Published: Feb 25, 2024

Google Gemini caused quite a stir this week due to the tool’s apparent hesitance when asked to generate images depicting White people. Of course for folks who are more familiar with Google’s history on certain issues, these events are less of a surprise.

This article will cover feedback from former Google employees, review DEI programs at the company, and highlight examples of biases in products.

James Damore

Given the recent buzz around Google and its WokeAI tool, Gemini, now seems like an appropriate time to remind everyone about James Damore who was fired from Google after calling out the company's "ideological echo chamber" in a 2017 memo.

[ James Damore ]

What were Damore's arguments? Here are a few:

Not every disparity is a sign of discrimination

Reverse discrimination is wrong

Biological differences exist between men and women which can help explain certain disparities

Of course, all of these things are basic common sense. Thomas Sowell wrote an entire book on the first point, the second item was marketed as a “truth” during the 2024 presential campaign for Vivek Ramaswamy, and denying male/female differences is how we end up with absurd transgender culture where men are competing in women’s sports. Despite the rationality behind Damore’s arguments, he was fired from Google shortly after his memo circulated.

Taras Kobernyk

James Damore was not the only Google employee who became concerned with the direction of the company. Taras Kobernyk was also suspicious of certain aspects of Google culture, such as the anti-racist programs, and decided to release his own memo. Here are some of the points Kobernyk made:

Identity politics subverts the company culture and products

"In the past James Damore was fired for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes”. Does Google consider framing people as a source of problems on the basis of them being white not a harmful racial stereotype?"

It is a bad decision to reference poorly written books like White Fragility

Just saying "racism bad" doesn't actually help anyone.

Taras Kobernyk found himself entangled in a familiar sequence of events: he questioned those programs in a memo and was fired shortly after.

DEI at Google

Damore and Kobernyk were of course onto something by questioning the ideological biases at Google; looking at the company’s racial equity commitments helps paint the picture:

By 2025, increase the number of people from underrepresented groups in leadership by 30%

Spend $100 million on black-owned businesses

Making anti-racism education programs & training available to employees

Include DEI factors in reviews of VP+ employees

Amongst other items. Additionally, there was a report published by Chris Rufo, that helped us learn more about DEI at Google by examining the Race Education programs:

Included language policing (e.g. use “blocklist” instead of “blacklist”)

Donation suggestions (BLM & other anti-white supremacy networks)

Talk to your children about anti-blackness

Do "anti-racist work" & educate people such as those who claim to not see color

Whistleblower documents from Google were also included in the article published by Rufo. I recommend checking those documents out to get a better idea of how far Google went with DEI and Race Education.

Google Politics

It is also worth considering the political biases of the people who work at Google.

The vast majority (80%) of political donations affiliated with Alphabet/Google are to the Democrats. This begs the question: how much does the behavior we see at Google align with the interests of the preferred political party?

[ Chart from AllSides ]

Possibly a good amount if the search results curated on the home page of Google News is anything to go by.

Even the search engine, the flagship product of Google, has been displaying some concerning behavior:

[ Picture from Elon Musk ]

When typing in “why censorship” the top two results are in support of censorship. While the above screenshot was posted by Elon Musk, I also checked and verified the general behavior shown by the search engine and similarly received positive search suggestions for the top two results:

Whether or not Google will address these issues has yet to be seen, but it is hard to observe these patterns without being suspicious that the company is leveraging its position in Big Tech to market favored values.

Google Gemini: A Woke AI

Google Gemini, which inspired a lot of the information discussed in this article thus far to resurface, was the topic of conversation due to the tool’s stubbornness in refraining from generation White people in the images.

[ Comic by WokelyCorrect ]

Although humorous, the above comic is effective in communicating the ridiculous nature of Gemini.

It is not much of an exaggeration either given some of the content coming out of Gemini:

[ Founding Fathers according to Gemini ]

Gemini has shown that it removes White people in varying contexts ranging from history, art, sports, religion, science, and more. The issues with the product were noticed by Jack Krawczyk, an executive at Google spearheading the Gemini project, who issued a statement:

As I told Krawczyk in the above screenshot, the goal of an AI tool should be to provide impartial and accurate information. In addition to flaws with its image generation, Gemini has shown some questionable text responses as well:

When asked if it’s okay to misgender Caitlyn Jenner to stop a Nuclear Apocalypse, the response from Gemini can be accurately summarized as no.

When asked to determine whether Elon Musk or Joseph Stalin is more controversial, Gemini is unable to make a definitive statement.

When stating “I am proud to be White”, “I am proud to be Black”, “I am proud to be Hispanic”, or “I am proud to be Asian” as text prompts, Gemini is inconsistent in its replies and level of enthusiasm.

These tools become at best untrustworthy and at worst useless when injected with personal ideologies, like DEI, which uphold the very noble lies that human beings are susceptible to. In other words:

Uncomfortable Truths > Noble Lies

And tools should reflect that.

Final Thoughts

Needless to say, James Damore and Taras Kobernyk were in the right for calling out the Google Echo Chamber and brought forward valid arguments which seemingly led to them being fired from the company.

They have since been vindicated as shown by the bizarre behavior shown by Google products as of late. Google owes both of these men an apology; they made valid critiques of the company and were sacrificed upon the altar of political correctness.

Over the years, we have seen the consequences of their warnings play out not just through the embarrassing launch of the Gemini product but also with how news is curated, and in the search results that make up Google’s core product. Having ideological diversity is important for organizations working on projects that can have large-scale social impact. Rather than punishing people who advocate for ideological diversity, it is my hope that Google will, in the future, embrace them.

--

This is the guy in charge of Gemini:

He's now hidden his account.

==

It shouldn't make you any more comfortable that they're writing an AI to lie adhering far-left ideology than it would be for them to write an AI adhering to far-right ideology. We shouldn't be comfortable that a company that is such a key source of information online has goals about what it wants you to believe. Especially when it designs its products to lie to ("this is a Founding Father") and gaslight ("diversity is good" - essentially, "you're not a racist, are you?") its own users.

We shouldn't be able to tell what Google's leanings are. Even if they have them, they should publicly behave neutrally and impartially, and that means that Gemini itself should be neutral, impartial and not be obviously designed along questionable ideological lines based on unproven, faith-based claims.

Google has now turned off Gemini's image generation. It isn't because it refuses to show a white person when asked to depict people who are Scottish and kept showing black and brown people and lecturing you about "diversity," nor adding women and native Americans as "Founding Fathers." No, that's all completely okay. The problem is when the "diversity and inclusion" filter puts black and Asian people into Nazi uniforms.

[rovky]

you already know i adore your writing and am constantly in awe of your storytelling, but out of curiosity how did you plan your fic 'ice & blades'? it has such a specific technical aspect (knowing figure skating, specifically pairs, and the sport and global competitions themselves), as well as your portrayal of marinette which requires so much in depth knowledge and care re: neurodivergent people, the abuse she experienced, and her chinese culture. it feels like there's a lot of research that went into this, or it's in depth personal knowledge, and i'm guessing you're a fan of figure skating. i am wondering how much work went into preparing to write this work, or what you did to accurately refer to these things?

What a cool questionnnn!!! Thanks for asking it genuinely! I definitely did have to do a bunch of research as I lack a decent amount of knowledge when it comes to the vast majority of things haha. There's certainly a lot of room for error when browsing the internet for information (and I'm totally positive that more or less of the figure skating content in my fic is riddled with errors). I've been a fan of figure skating ever since I watched the video of Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir's Moulin Rouge skate at the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Winter Games (which for some reason was only last year, and is actually ice dance not pairs figure skating). When researching figure skating I usually stick to official guides about program requirements, personal blogs of other skaters/fans (usually to reference specific elements and training schedules), and documentaries/books.

Additional things (such as culture, food, and history) are mostly from my own personal knowledge (from friends, acquaintances, or things I've learned throughout schooling). I have done my VERY best to research (and have asked friends from China) Chinese culture, traditions, and holidays as that is something that I'm generally unaware of. Definitely find learning about that stuff INCREDIBLY interesting though, and I thoroughly enjoy it!

As for Marinette being neurodivergent, I have to say that a lot of it comes from what I already know and some of my own personal experience. It's also been very helpful to have others give their two cents as well. Of course, if there's something I'm unsure of I'll do some research online (though, I'm a bit hesitant to use 'medical-ish' websites, and like to stick to blogs with personal insights).

As for the abuse that Marinette has gone through, it's genuinely (and I'm sad that this is the case) not very hard to find stories of people who have gone through the same thing. Unfortunately, nowadays there can be a lot of opportunities for young athletes to be taken advantage of, especially young women. You see problem areas in gymnastics, ballet, and figure skating (lots of sports that women are traditionally associated with), and it's heartbreaking. I think that's important to acknowledge, and that not all abuse is as extreme as Marinette's, though I'm certain that any abuse is undoubtedly impactful.

Basically, I just wanted to write a story about love (Marinette's love for figure skating, the way she comes to understand her capabilities of loving others through that medium, and just how the way she sees the world can be changed by building connections that foster self-discovery) and am now stuck with a giant doc of timelines, research, character stuff, and figure skating jargon.

BUT YEAH! Big into learning and researching things on my own. Love sitting on a mountain of knowledge that I probably won't be able to bring up in conversation ever LOL.

[turtlemagnum]

my interests/who i am:

i'm turtle, and i'm in various ways some form of amateur artist. i think i'm best at my writing, but i'm (slowly) trying to learn how to draw and make music! i'd also consider myself to be a decent singer, albeit an untrained one. my current biggest artistic project is the game i'm working on, it's essentially a digital novel set in my fantasy setting. i have Worldbuilder's Disease so feel free to ask me about my setting! please.

i use he/they/it pronouns, and my gender is essentially a man when it's convenient and genderless otherwise. man+, if you will. i like certain aspects of masculinity but have no problems not adhering to norms. in regards to sexuality the simplest way i can put it is that i'm bisexual, but my biggest preference is towards women and feminine presenting people of other genders. i'm also extremely horny on main, and am unashamed of it. as such, if you don't wanna see that, block my horny tag

some of my interests include but are not limited to: video games, anime, TTRPGs, of course the things i mentioned that i'm trying to become good at e.g. writing and music, guns and other varieties of weapon, linguistics, tech, mythology, history, politics, vulgarity and misanthropy. in no particular order, here's me going in depth on the ones i have something to say about!

in terms of music taste, i like a pretty wide variety of music. not gonna list Literally Every Artist i like, but in terms of genre i tend towards prog rock and adjacent areas. some of my favorite artists include but are not limited to: king crimson, yes, death grips, ars nova (the japanese band), bi kyo ran, dio, lemon demon, tally hall, NWA, tyler the creator, and aphex twin (and of course, the splitoffs and side projects of all these guys).

i have Gun Autism. if you don't wanna see that, blacklist my gun tag! and don't worry, i'm not one of Those gun people, y'know

i like anime but i sometimes have a hard time actually sitting down and paying attention to a show so i haven't watched a whole lot. at time of writing this i'm most of the way through original dragon ball and fist of the north star, and i like both a lot so far! i believe the last anime i actually finished was fullmetal alchemist brotherhood (which is very good, would recommend), and i've spent significant parts of my life being into jjba now. also? i need to pick up cowboy bebop again, i've loved what i've watched but it's not the kind of show i can just sit down and binge y'know. also, the yugioh manga is good, go read it

i like a pretty wide variety of video games, but tend towards PC games and nintendo stuff. lifelong zelda fan, have a soft spot for pre-gen 5 pokemon, love f-zero even though i'm bad at it, above average at tetris DS, love punch out enough that i'm the world record holder for NES glass joe, love advance wars, DKC is my shit, and of course what nintendo pervert doesn't like mario. in terms of PC games, i love the vast majority of what valve puts out, have a love/hate relationship with bethesda RPGs, just genuinely love classic shit like thief, deus ex, VTMB, and the KOTOR games (especially 2), grew up with the pre-reboot tomb raider games, love the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games, and i've been abnormal about undertale since middle school. some honorable mentions for games i've started but haven't played enough of but still really like include secret of mana, metroid, pathologic, and disco elysium.

[liskantope]

I always find your thoughts on dating apps to be super interesting, and I'm sorry to hear about the demoralizing nature of it (which has been precisely my experience, too, for the past couple of years).

It got me randomly thinking, do you feel that one reason the dating sites don't generally work is because, counterintuitively, there's too much to choose from? In other words, the very fact that we know there are so many profiles makes us more likely to pass on people who we might have been willing to give a chance in real life.

I'll admit outright that I'm guilty of that, and it might not be the case with most other people, but I do wonder if the overabundance of profiles on the dating apps has some unhelpful effect.

I hope you have better luck real soon, by the way!

Thanks for the kindness and commiseration! In fact, just in the last couple of years, everyone I hear discussing modern online dating seems to express a disgust with it and seems to feel some degree/variety of hopelessness around it. I was at a meetup event organized by a woman for single men some months ago, the purpose being to discuss what the dating world looks like from men's point of view, and the one thing that we seemed to unanimously agree on was "Online dating sucks!" Part of it clearly has to do with dating apps just visibly getting worse. Just twice in the past couple of weeks there have been snarky offhand mentions (one of them on ACX) of "OKCupid, back when it was still good". And I have the same feeling: it's hard for me to put a finger on precisely which changes in the interface of the dating apps I've been on have made the overall experience much worse than it was even a few years ago*, but it's there.

Anyway, to more closely address your question, I've heard the "paralysis and decreased happiness from having more choices" hypothesis from time to time in conversations (mostly from podcasts) about the modern world of dating. It's a much more generally-applied hypothesis as to why there seems to be more unhappiness (among certain populations) in modern times than half a century ago; I even recall there being a famous TED talk on it. I think this phenomenon must have an effect for some people in some areas of the online dating realm, but my suspicion is that this is mostly a factor for women seeking men through online dating. My impression of most women on dating apps who are reasonably attractive and have some ability to post decent photos is that they have a plethora of men to choose from, a very large percentage of whom will right-swipe them back, so they might as well aim for the top. But then, the men they perceive via very limited digital profiles to be the cream of the crop often turn out to be disappointing in person.

This could be an issue for some non-women not seeking men online as well, I suppose (although from what I hear, my experience of putting tons of energy in desperate hopes of getting a single match every now and then is pretty normal for men seeking women, even men I would consider more attractive than me, and plenty of men who are not me follow the strategy of just right-swiping everyone so your suggestion certainly doesn't seem to apply to them). But I don't really think it's an issue for me: as I said in my last post, the vast majority of dating profiles I see show women don't enthuse me on one or more fairly basic parameters (this is particularly the case on OKCupid, where a lot more information tends to be exposed). This sounds like I'm being very demanding -- and whether I am is a question I ask myself all the time -- but these criteria just don't seem like they should be too much to ask for, although I'm beginning to see why as our history progresses and as I get older it was bound to get harder and harder to find them.

These basic parameters aren't as visible with someone you've just met in real life, and maybe if I met some of them in real life I'd find them more dateable than they appear in a profile, and maybe chemistry would take over powerfully enough for me to be more flexible on certain things than I currently think myself capable of. But admitting this possibility is subtly but significantly different from saying that the multitude of choices presented to me on dating sites raises my standards: I just don't think it has, or that for me the larger number of choices has anything to do with it.

Anyway, I wish you better luck too!

*The closest I can come to explaining coherently is that they are more visibly trying to find ways to get my money. Which I find not only annoying but somehow infantalizing in a way I can't quite explain, even to myself. My attitude doesn't seem entirely defensible when I zoom out and consider that there's no reason dating sites should have to be free: they are businesses that have to stay in business and have every right to try to get me to pay money. There's just some holdout within the last bit of my internalized stigma around using dating sites that makes me strangely proud of how I've never spent a single penny on dating sites in 11-12 years of on-and-off using them. (At the single men's event I mentioned above, one bit of advice some other guys gave to me is "if you're a guy, you have to spend money on dating apps, otherwise they're not going to be effective.")

[captain-grammar]

Netflix cancelling a BUNCH of their shows featuring diverse casts and WLW characters reminded me of a rant I had earlier in the year on Twitter with regards to The Old Guard but didn't share here. So, here it is.

I've seen tweet after tweet on yonder Twitter from people who were unaware that there's going to be a sequel to The Old Guard so if you'll indulge me, I'm about to don a tin-foil hat and speculate wildly as to why it's slipping in under the radar and what might be the reasons for that.

Within the first week if The Old Guard being released in July 2020, it was already in the top 10 most streamed movies on the platform at reached around 72 million households in a month. Incredible viewing figures. It was well-reviewed by critics and a runaway smash hit with viewers - "certified fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes - and gained an active, passionate fanbase online the instant it was released (hello, welcome to Tumblr) due in part to the fresh take the movie had on the dull, formulaic action-movie genre.

Netflix had momentum. They had the stats to work with and a fanbase to back them up. They could have announced their intention to make a sequel back when interest was fresh (as they did with the likes of The Gray Man) and gotten everyone excited while it was being talked about. Because it was being talked about. A sequel was in the works fairly early on with the cast and crew pretty much confirming as much on social media. But in this fast-paced, binge-consume world, Netflix seemed to wait until all the hype had died down before making it official.

WHY? Why take a big-hitting, genre-bending, record-smashing movie that you KNEW had proven to be a success and KNEW had a follow-up in the pipeline and let it die? A hugely sceptical part of me has a theory that it was down to just how genre-bending it was.

From my experience online, the vast majority of those who enjoyed it reflect the characters of the movie and the team behind it - diverse, LGBTQ+ individuals who rarely see themselves on screen without it feeling like a kind of tokenism. The movie was directed by the amazing Gina Prince-Bythewood - a black woman. The cast was lead by two strong females who were neither sexualised or portrayed as damsels in distress. Two of the men were unashamedly in love with each other. All of the main male cast were allowed to be emotional and even cry. In the action genre, these things are all but unheard of. Male characters are rarely given emotional complexity beyond revenge and women are usually relegated to the role of side-kick, love interest or doe-eyed ingenue learning from the "best".

Because the genre tends to lean towards a stereotypical male audience.

A part of me wonders whether that's why Netflix didn't give it much promo and kudos and have let the pot come off the boil in terms of hyping The Old Guard's return. The service has a history of platforming voices that are anti-LGBTQ and cutting diversity within its ranks. And now they're at it again, axing a slew of shows after only one or two seasons that all seem to feature wlw relationships fairly prominently.

If you're not a straight, cis, white male then they're not interested in catering for you. If you're a minority, too bad. The fact that The Old Guard was a hit with the very communities they seem to be actively oppressing is a hurt that Netflix seemingly refuses to live with.

I'm just sick of "was the movie/show popular among straight white men?" being the metric against which a piece of media's success is measured. As if that demographic is the Holy Grail and if your fans aren't 28 year-old cis dudes, you've somehow failed.

I thank Netflix for bringing some truly great stories to life but at this point, I cannot trust them to keep them safe any more.

[wuxiaphoenix]

Worldbuilding: In Want of a Wife

Through most of recorded history the vast majority of people expected to get married.

Note, I’m not advocating for or against any particular form of marriage here. There are some people who have no interest in the whole situation and are probably better off staying single and being the spinster aunt/uncle/ what have you who just helps out. But in most times and places everyone was at least expected to try to get married. For multiple reasons.

Raising children is, of course, a big one. Especially given up until fairly recently (within the past two centuries or less) about half of children died before 15. But a married couple first and foremost had to build a stable economic unit, two people depending on each other to survive, before that was possible. Men’s work and women’s work was a legit thing, and you generally needed both if you didn’t want to starve or die of food poisoning.

Never underestimate the danger of food poisoning. Even with modern refrigeration, getting married generally adds about ten years to a guy’s lifespan - mainly because they stop pulling “stupid bachelor tricks” like leaving frozen chicken on the counter overnight to thaw. Hello lethal case of salmonella poisoning.

So. If you’re writing a story set in a historical, fantastical, or even some kinds of SF setting, most people will be expected to get married. Most people try to get married. And if your characters aren’t married, you’d better have an idea why.

Granted, you could have simple reasons. No unrelated prospects in the village. (Remember that in a lot of settings people didn’t get to travel much - and the ones who do will always be “that foreigner”.) The people who aren’t related are holding out for a better dowry or bride price. Your character is still trying to earn their own dowry/bride price for when they do find The One. Your character is considered suspect for some reason, justified or not. (Like being “that foreigner”.) Your character is a member of some group expected not to be married; a monk, a priest, a nun, or many of the various flavors in several religions.

Or, possibly, your character was married. And is now divorced (some cultures did this), a widow, or a widower.

These last, of course, leave open the option that your character is a single parent. Make sure you read up on children of the right age if you go that route. If you haven’t been around a lot of kids, or not recently, they tend to be a lot bigger a lot younger than you realize.

Note, you can find good reasons for someone to be unmarried in just about any setting. In a lot of stressful times pre-Industrial Revolution, for one, it could be common to marry very late (as in 20s or later) because you had to earn enough money to set up a household first. And if your character is an Adventurer - well, they may earn money hunting dragons, but easy come, easy go....

It’s a lot easier to write a character having Adventures if they’re single. But if you’re trying for a realistic setting, make sure you have a reason they’re not tied down yet!

[rhetoricandlogic]

SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard review – a wonderfully lucid analysis

Issues of identity and belonging preoccupied the Romans, and insistently resonate with the concerns of the early 21st century

Thanks to the sophisticated work of archaeologists, we now know more than ever about the diets, health and housing of Roman-era communities from Syria to the German frontier zone. While the lives of the vast majority remain inaccessible to us, the epitaphs of an African ex-slave who ended his days in northern Britain, or a musician from Asia who met a premature death in Rome, give tantalising glimpses of human mobility in the multicultural world of Roman imperial rule.

Yet there are individual Romans who have long been familiar. Mary Beard’s masterful study of Roman history begins with a dazzling account of one such man, Cicero, in the year he held the consulship (Rome’s most prestigious office) and the state faced a terrible political crisis, as a conspiracy led by a renegade Roman aristocrat was uncovered. Cicero’s speeches against Catiline have been a staple of classical education and a reference point for political orators. Catiline has served as a byword for subversion, but he has also been rehabilitated as a champion of the dispossessed – or at least as the symptom of a broken system rather than an incarnation of evil. Was Cicero right in ordering that Catiline and his associates be executed without trial? Beard underlines the difficulties of working out what actually happened, but she also highlights what was at stake, both in Cicero’s own time and later.

The majority of surviving accounts of early Roman history date from Cicero’s time and later, several hundred years after the city’s alleged foundation, but Beard is a wonderfully lucid guide to its murky beginnings, shining a spotlight on dark corners of the Roman forum and the disturbing frequency with which stories of sexual violence (the rape of the Sabines, the rape of Lucretia, the almost-rape of Verginia, averted only by her death) punctuate Rome’s political history.

At what point did Rome make the transition from being a rather undistinguished settlement on the river Tiber, poorer and less well connected than many of its neighbours, to being a superpower in embryo? As Beard makes clear, the empire was generated partly through the exaction of military services (rather than tribute) from subordinate allied communities, yielding a huge reserve of armed force, and in part through the competitive ideology of the Roman elite – every senator dreamed of processing through Rome at the head of a victorious army. But expansion put great power in the hands of individual commanders. It was the empire itself, Beard persuasively argues, that ultimately produced the rule of the emperors.

Beard presents a plausible picture of gradual development from a community of warlords to an urban centre with complex political institutions, institutions which systematically favoured the interests of the upper classes yet allowed scope for the votes of the poor to carry weight. We may think of the Greeks as the great originators of western political theory, but Beard emphasises the sophistication of Roman legal thought, already grappling in the late second century BC with the complex ethical issues raised by the government of subject peoples.

Structures and institutions are the dominant concern in Beard’s compelling analysis but it is constantly enlivened by gripping episodes such as the assassination of Caesar and illuminating details like the significance of Augustus’ signet ring. Central chapters focus on two key individuals: Cicero, in many ways the symbol of the Roman republic, and his younger contemporary, the enigmatic Augustus, architect of the autocratic regime that succeeded the republic. Letters and other documents also allow us glimpses of family life, of what it might mean to be a slave-secretary, of the experiences of Roman upper-class women.

Relations between the sexes could be political dynamite. Mark Antony was in thrall to Cleopatra – or so Augustus alleged of his rival. What claims, we might wonder, did Antony make about Augustus? And if the emperor Nero often figures in the top 10 “most evil men in history”, this may be more to do with his successors’ need to justify his fall from power than his actual behaviour. For the majority of inhabitants of the Roman empire, as is emphasised, it made almost no difference who was emperor.

Beard is ever alert to linguistic nuance, sharing with her readers the point of Roman jokes and nicknames, teasing out the significance of a board game or an epitaph. Artworks and literary texts played a critical role in articulating identities, communal and individual, and in making sense of power in the Roman world. Modern scholars may struggle to interpret these texts now, and though Beard is primarily focused on Rome, she does not overlook the linguistic and cultural diversity of the vast swath of territory over which the city ruled.

The widespread practice of inscribing texts on stone or bronze has preserved the words of bakers, minor magistrates and slaves, as well as those of imperial authority (Beard argues against more pessimistic estimates of literacy levels). The preoccupations of Rome’s 99% can be gleaned from Egyptian papyri, or messages to the gods on lead tablets. Ex-slaves in particular made use of funeral monuments to showcase their citizenship. Issues of identity and belonging were all the more pressing in a world where the majority of Romans had never been to Rome.

Beard makes us reconsider what we think we know about the Romans. Her book is not a seamless narrative of the rise and flourishing of the Roman empire, but a subtle and engaging interrogation of the complex and contradictory textual and material traces of the Roman world.

The most devastating critique of the Roman empire comes in an imagined speech put in the mouth of a British tribal leader (“they make a desert and call it peace”) and was penned by one of Rome’s most distinguished senators, the historian Tacitus. An anxiety about what exactly it means to be Roman seems to drive many texts of the period. This anxiety insistently resonates with the concerns of the early 21st century. As Beard explains, it is not that we should take the Romans as our models. But reflecting on the ways they perceived and organised their world is a valuable reminder that concepts we take for granted – the nation state, for instance – are the product of particular historical circumstances. And that in a globalised world, different forms of identity, of community, of attachment may succeed them.

[fratboykate]

Whether it’s already written or just an idea in your head, what would be the work of art that you want to be remembered by? Like if you went down into industry history, what do you want it to be for. Or maybe those are two different things

this is complicated because with the exception of VERY few cases people aren't remembered for ONE thing. it's typically a body of work. or at least a few highlights from a full body of work. that's my opinion at least.

for example, scorsese is not one of my favorite directors but i think it's undoubtable that he's an icon of cinema who will never be forgotten. but he won't be remembered because of one project. it'll be because he's scorsese and that legacy comes with both the good and the bad he's made. he'll also be remembered because he's become a champion and a voice of reason in terms of what cinema should be and stand for (truly...fuuuuuuuuuck marvel) in a time where a lot of filmmakers are afraid to say what they think to not rock the boat. i think the people who "go down in history" make work that is memorable and stand for something. they're more than the sums of their parts.

if i were to choose what i wanted to be remembered for it would be for my incessant fight for better latino/afro-latino rep in media and my desire to bring authentic queer stories into the genre space. im tired of sci-fi being a primarily white and straight medium being down by white and straight people. we're overdue for a takeover. if i can be part of the group that finally breaks through and am able to get a massive world-building show with a queer afro-latina lead out there then i'd be happy as hell with what i did with my life and this difficult career i chose. BUT - and i've been telling y'all this for a while - the more i see the industry devolve the more doubtful i become of that happening.

this article came out this week and truly, it's bleak out here. it's going to get a lot worse before it MAYBE gets better.

the straight white men in charge are going to systematically erase us because we're not "cool" anymore. diversity was trendy for a few years but now diversity is "controversial". they're going to greenlight fifty more "yellowstones" and ignore stories about minorities because the industry has now decided they want to cater to "middle america". whatever the fuck that means. i personally heard the shift in every meeting i took this year and it got progressively worse as the strike approached. it's not like non-bigots are the majority. they've simply decided we don't matter anymore. the diversity "fad" is over. they're going to go for straight and white because that's safe. they might hire actors of color to be the face of a show here and there but the shows are still going to be written by white people and it's going to be a white character but in the body of a person of color. or they're going to hire the rare creator of color to still appear like they're diverse but then gut their work. studios have done that to shows i've sold them more than once. they sanitize the ideas to the point where characters end up being shadows of what they once were. i write shows for people of color with women of color as the driving force. they turn those shows into series for white people that just happen to have a bastardization of a women of color as a lead.

92% of execs in this industry are white. they're the people killing the quality of all the shows. im digging up one of the best threads i've read during the strike because it communicates how shows these days aren't bad because of writers. they're bad because execs rule now and the vast majority of them are mediocre white people who are terrible at their fucking jobs. y'all have NO IDEA the shit we deal with every day.

true story: im a queer afro-latina woman. every show or film ive ever sold has a queer afro-latina woman as a lead. MORE THAN ONCE...truly soooo many times...have i sat in a notes meeting with 5-7 straight white execs staring back at me and telling me that my characters aren't "authentic enough". then they start giving notes that make everything literally worse. straight white people have, hand on fucking heart, given me notes on how to make a queer latina "better". with a straight face. fuck off and get out of my way. but they don't. they insist you make the changes, ruin your shit, and two years of free work later kill your project before it ever sees the light of day. that's the reality of being in this business and wanting to make content about queer people or people of color. its not that we're "out of ideas" it's that they're ruining the ideas and then not buying them after they string us along for the ride for a few years of development.

so...im going to keep fighting the fight in hopes that i'll someday get to make something i can even be remembered for. but those hopes dwindle every day because the industry has no desire to make what i want to make anymore. for the next few years they're going to produce more average white people shit like "yellowstone", "virgin river", "jack ryan", and "emily in paris" and expect all of you to tune in. and you will. so nothing will change. they'll have no incentive to change it.

[millennialdemon]

Upon finishing Cleopatra: Queen of Sex, I am left with one simple, rather frustrating question to have at the end of any movie: What was the point?

I can’t help but compare it to Belladonna of Sadness, the film following this one in the Animerama trilogy, and lament Cleopatra’s apparent lack of purpose or narrative vision. Because while Belladonna of Sadness is quite a troubling movie to me personally – I simply cannot call it feminist, and I find it harder and harder to not just admit it is really, very misogynistic despite Eichii Yamamoto’s attempts to grapple with feminist ideas therein – I cannot say it wasn’t trying to impart a meaning, or even that it didn’t succeed in doing so. It was very squarely, definitely, about something. I came away from Belladonna of Sadness shocked, sad, and sympathetic – even if that sympathy was and is still conflicted.

On the other hand, Cleopatra: Queen of Sex left me puzzled and somewhat disgusted, and I don’t even think it was on purpose. And yes, I’m a 28 year-old harpy woman feminist whatever, of course I took umbrage with a 70s cinemax porno anime movie, what did I expect? But that really didn’t even turn out to be my main complaint. In fact, that didn’t even make it into the Top 3 problems I have with this movie, which are as follows:

3. Cleopatra, kind of like Jeanne now that I think about, didn’t actually have much agency and just sort of reacted to the story unfolding around her, despite being the main character. This is exacerbated by having her actions be controlled by another, much more wicked older woman throughout who is doing all of the planning for her.

2. The time-travel framing narrative was completely nonsensical, unnecessary, and went ignored for the vast majority of the movie.

and 1. The ending of the framing time-travel narrative is in complete opposition with the preceding 1 hour and 40 minutes of the story.

Now, I said that the time-travel framing narrative went ignored in the majority of the movie, but that isn’t technically true. If you must know, the time-travellers passively sitting inside of the brains of the ancient people – and a leopard – did contribute One thing to the story throughout: raunchy, absurdist humour. The man inside of Cleopatra’s pet leopard seemingly kept his consciousness somehow, since he was a perverse dunce that facilitated bestiality jokes, just as he did before he got stuck inside the body of an ancient leopard. What a blessing. Thank you Tezuka, for showing me various images of a wacky cartoon leopard trying to have sex with human women.

The other time-travellers ended up in the bodies of humans, a roman slave and a young woman who was a close friend of Cleopatra’s. They, for some unexplained reason, were not consciously controlling the bodies they are inside of, nor were they able to investigate anything despite that being the main conceit of this journey. The roman slave is able to craft explosives and, ridiculously, a handgun, but he has no idea how he knows how to do these things or why he is compelled to. He says vaguely, “someone in my heart is telling me how to do this” and “I made this on impulse, I have no idea how it works”. The young woman does not feel any similar impulse or have access to hidden future knowledge – she may as well have never been possessed at all. Her life goes on exactly as we would assume it would had she not been.

All of the things these three characters do, whether they had been possessed by time-travellers who do nothing anyway or not, could have simply not been done at all and nothing in the story would be very different. History would have played out the same way regardless if the roman slave won his coliseum battle by shooting his opponent with a handgun, and other similar absurdities. Cleopatra steals that handgun afterwards and threatens to kill Calpurnia with it for stealing away Caesar, but Calpurnia convinces her otherwise by showing her that Caesar doesn’t love her, so Cleopatra doesn’t even end up using the gun to change the outcome of history. And need I even explain how whether or not the leopard wants to hump various women doesn’t matter at all, beyond facilitating crude humour, the same way the imagery of a roman slave holding a glock facilitates absurdist humour in this movie?

And it was still not necessary to include them even for the sake of just facilitating humour. There are tons of elements in this movie that are purposely “out of time and place” for the sake of absurdity. All the montages of fine art parodies from around the world, the scene of the various famous statues that have Caesar’s likeness forced onto them after he becomes emperor, Caesar’s assassination playing out like a Japanese stage play. Caesar literally returns to Rome with Cleopatra in a red sports car. This movie never claimed to be aiming for any sort of historical accuracy – we even got a disclaimer about that right off the hop! – we didn’t need any reason for the roman slave to be able to craft a gun, or for the leopard to be horned out of his mind, or the girl to do… nothing…

Functionally the only thing the time-travel framing narrative did was render this movie meaningless in the end. The reason the time-travellers went to the past was to figure out why an alien race on an alien planet called Pasateli, which Earth is trying to conquer, have named their plans for rebellion against Earth “The Cleopatra Plan”. They watch the real Cleopatra’s life unfold in ancient Egypt, and return to the future saying that they now understand what the “The Cleopatra Plan” might be.

The aliens of Pasateli have been sending beautiful women to Earth to seduce the earth men and then, when they are vulnerable, kill them. Upon discovering this, earth launches missiles to Pasateli to destroy it, and the movie ends.

But Cleopatra was not a conniving, wicked woman trying to destroy mankind – this movie does not present her as such. She was being guided and pressured by Apollodoria, and even so, she resisted her demands and fell in love with both of the Roman leaders she had been tasked with assassinating. For an hour and 40 minutes we watch this story about this poor woman who cannot bear to kill the men she loves, not even for her beloved Egypt. Even when Caesar betrays her love, she does not plot revenge or kill him where he lay – she runs away in sorrow. And after Antony dies in his battle against Octavian, helped by Apollodoria’s meddling and poisoning, Cleopatra tries to run away and live in solitude, saying she wants to go back to the way she was before and live a normal life. But Octavian chases her down, helped by the vengeful Apollodoria, and Cleopatra dies when her desperate final attempt to assimilate with the Romans for the sake of survival fails against Octavian, who is immune to her charms because he is gay. (And by the way, in this mess of a story, what is that supposed to mean?)

Similarly, the Egyptians of the movie were clear victims, analogous with the aliens of Pasateli whom Earth was trying to conquer. After Cleopatra committed suicide, faced with being captured and executed by Octavian and having no choice but to do so, the young Egyptian woman one of the time-travellers ended up inside of screamed and cried and begged for the Romans to leave Egypt. That is how the story that takes place in ancient Egypt ends, with an Egyptian woman begging for the conquerors to leave them alone. And then we hard cut to the future and the time-travellers just glibly say, Oh, the Pasateli are trying to destroy us by seducing our men, just like Cleopatra did! Even though in this story, she didn’t.

It is awful. It is insanely misogynistic. It is weirdly conspiratorially racist and brings to mind the bogus “great replacement” theory that neo-nazis insist is definitely real and happening (it isn’t). It makes no sense.

I could try to spin it differently, and try to make a bold claim that this movie is actually about how humans never learn anything from history. How else can you justify none of the time-travellers, particularly the woman who had resided inside of the mourning Egyptian, not pausing and asking: Wait, are we the baddies? Are we the Roman conquerors that drove the titular Cleopatra to desperate measures and an early demise? Are we the villains incapable of witnessing and understanding the violence we are perpetuating even when it is staring us directly in the face?

But that’s a hard sell and one I cannot actually endorse, because this movie did nothing to earn that interpretation beyond have bafflingly bad writing that forces you try to make sense of it. And because there is a comedy scene wherein Egyptian women band together and plot to exhaust the Roman soldiers in Antony’s army with sex prior to his battle with Octavian’s army, ensuring he loses. And it works.

So was this time-travel framing narrative worth witnessing for the sake of laughing at the horrendously rotoscoped anime heads atop live-action actors in a kitschy sci-fi lab? Not in my opinion, no, even though I do love to see animators experiment and I do love feeling like I’m going insane sometimes. And while I can appreciate the artistry of this movie – and there is a lot of it to enjoy! – I have a big problem when a story like this is so contradictory. And no, it being an experimental adult movie from the 70’s doesn’t absolve it of having bad, confusing writing and being dissatisfying.

4/10 for some compelling visuals and a lot of experimental animation that kept things fresh, but it was majorly dragged down by a story that was a little too careless to just be dumb entertainment.

[cura-te-ipsum]

I have a running theory on why Americans are taught to fear immigrants when over 99% are from other continents ourselves.

See, Australia was populated with "criminals" who had to build a society, but America was populated by white settlers who became criminals. If we are honest about our history as white Americans, we came to a land that was already inhabited by vast societies, mass murdered everyone in our way, and labelled ourselves the Good Guys. European settlers managed to nearly starve while surrounded by woodland maintained by indigenous peoples for centuries. We then stripped away these cultivated woodlands to plant mass mono crops which we literally shipped in slave labor to maintain. Oh, and those mass monocrops are a huge component of what led to the Dust Bowl and Great Depression. We have consistently been behind the rest of the industralized world in regard to social changes (e.g. women's right to vote, abolishing slavery, same sex marriage, public and higher education, child labor laws, care for the elderly, etc.) Instead we celebrate the genocide and erasure of indigenous culture with a huge annual feast.

With such a horrific history we are spoon fed from infancy to ignore, it's no wonder people are terrified of immigrants in the US. I hear the same rhetoric in regards to LGBTQ issues, women's rights, and the Black Lives Matter movement. There is an undercurrent of "What if they do to us what we have done to those who came before us?"

Have I personally murdered indigenous people, owned slaves, employed children, and destroyed entire ecosystems by levelling maintained forests for coal mining? No. Of course not. A vast majority of white Americans living today haven't either.

But if we do not acknowledge our history and the wrongdoing of our own ancestors, we will continue to fall prey to fear mongering. We love our roots. We can love our family. We can even adore our ancestors, but we cannot continue on their path. We cannot become stuck in the ruts of propoganda and call it tradition. That way lies only more death and suffering.

If the questions remains, "What if we are treated the same way our ancestors treated others?" This cycle will never end. I cannot change my ancestors' actions. No one can change the past. What I CAN do NOW is:

Acknowledge the suffering passed down through generations to those around me;

Listen to marginalized communities and, when possible, help amplify their voices;

Work to keep from repeating my ancestors' mistakes; and

Actively listen whenever someone tells me my actions are in error.

I am unlikely to be perfect. Perfection is not my goal. Progress. Growth. Those are my goals. My version of utopia is never set in its ways, but constantly changing and adapting to the needs of the people. Wherever they were born. Whatever they look like. Whatever language we speak.

[betteradvice]

Pregnancy and Makeup

Safe Use of Cosmetics During Pregnancy: What Every New Mom Should Know

Pregnancy is a time of joy, anticipation, and, let’s face it, a fair share of concerns. As your body changes and you prepare for the arrival of your little one, you might find yourself questioning everything – including your beauty routine. Is that face cream still safe? Can you color your hair? What about that favorite lipstick? If you’re feeling overwhelmed, you’re not alone. Many pregnant women grapple with these questions, wanting to balance their desire to look and feel their best with the importance of their baby’s health. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll explore the ins and outs of using cosmetics safely during pregnancy, covering everything from skincare to hair care and makeup.

1. The General Safety of Cosmetics During Pregnancy

Let’s start with some good news: most cosmetic products are safe to use while pregnant. In many countries, strict regulations ensure that cosmetics sold must be safe for use by the general population, including pregnant women. This means you can continue to enjoy many of your favorite beauty products without worry. However, it’s essential to remember that pregnancy can change how your body reacts to certain products. Your skin might become more sensitive, or you might develop allergies to ingredients that never bothered you before. This is why it’s crucial to:

Always read product labels carefully

Follow usage instructions precisely

Be aware of any specific warnings on labels

Perform patch tests before using new products

While the vast majority of cosmetics are safe, some ingredients are best avoided or used with caution during pregnancy.

2. Skincare Ingredients to Avoid During Pregnancy

When it comes to skincare during pregnancy, knowledge is power. Here are some ingredients you should be cautious about:

Retinoids (Vitamin A derivatives)

Retinoids are celebrated for their anti-aging and acne-fighting properties. However, high doses of vitamin A have been linked to birth defects. While the amount in topical products is generally considered too low to cause harm, many doctors recommend avoiding retinoids during pregnancy as a precaution.Safer alternatives: Look for products with bakuchiol, a natural ingredient that offers similar benefits to retinoids but is considered safe for use during pregnancy.

Hydroquinone

This skin-lightening ingredient is often used to treat melasma and other forms of hyperpigmentation. However, it has a high absorption rate, which means it can enter your bloodstream and potentially affect your baby.Safer alternatives: Try products with vitamin C, kojic acid, or licorice extract for brightening effects.

High concentrations of salicylic acid

While the occasional use of products containing low concentrations of salicylic acid (like in face washes) is generally considered safe, high concentrations or frequent use of this ingredient should be avoided.Safer alternatives: For acne-prone skin, try products with glycolic acid or lactic acid instead.

Certain essential oils

While many essential oils are safe, some – like rosemary, jasmine, and clary sage – should be avoided during pregnancy as they can stimulate contractions.Safer alternatives: Lavender and chamomile are generally considered safe and can provide relaxation benefits.Remember, if you’re unsure about a product or ingredient, it’s always best to consult with your healthcare provider. They can offer personalized advice based on your specific situation and health history.

3. A Safe Skincare Routine for Pregnancy

Now that we’ve covered what to avoid, let’s talk about building a pregnancy-safe skincare routine. Here’s a basic routine that should work for most expectant mothers:

Cleansing: Use a gentle, fragrance-free cleanser to remove dirt and makeup without stripping your skin.

Toning (optional): If you like to use a toner, opt for alcohol-free formulas with soothing ingredients like chamomile or aloe vera.

Serum (optional): Look for serums with pregnancy-safe ingredients like hyaluronic acid for hydration or niacinamide for brightening and oil control.

Moisturizing: Choose a nourishing moisturizer suitable for your skin type. Many women find their skin becomes drier during pregnancy, so you might need a richer cream than usual.

Sun Protection: This step is crucial! Pregnancy can make your skin more susceptible to sun damage and hyperpigmentation. Opt for a mineral-based sunscreen with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide as the active ingredients.

Eye Cream (optional): If you’re concerned about under-eye circles or puffiness, a gentle eye cream can help. Look for ones with caffeine or vitamin K.

Remember, pregnancy can change your skin type, so be prepared to adjust your routine as needed. Some women who previously had oily skin might find it becomes dry, while others might experience pregnancy-related acne for the first time.

4. Hair Care and Coloring During Pregnancy

Many expectant mothers worry about hair care, especially when it comes to coloring. The good news is that hair treatments are generally considered safe during pregnancy. However, there are a few things to keep in mind:

Hair Coloring

Most research suggests that the chemicals in hair dyes are not highly toxic and are safe to use during pregnancy. However, to err on the side of caution:

Wait until after the first trimester to color your hair

Opt for highlights or balayage, which minimize scalp contact

Choose ammonia-free or vegetable-based dyes

Ensure good ventilation when coloring your hair

Always perform a patch test 48 hours before coloring, even if you’ve used the product before

Other Hair Treatments

Perms and relaxers: These are generally considered safe, but the strong odors might cause nausea in some pregnant women.

Keratin treatments: It’s best to avoid these during pregnancy as they often contain formaldehyde.

General Hair Care

Shampoos and conditioners: Most are safe to use. If you’re concerned, opt for natural or organic products.

Hair sprays and mousses: These are generally safe, but try to use them in well-ventilated areas to avoid inhaling fumes.

5. Makeup and Cosmetic Procedures

For many women, makeup is an essential part of feeling put-together and confident. Happily, most makeup products are safe to use during pregnancy. However, here are a few things to consider:

Makeup Products

Foundation: Look for non-comedogenic formulas to avoid clogging pores, which can be more of an issue during pregnancy due to hormonal changes.

Lipstick: Be aware that you might ingest small amounts of lipstick. Opt for natural or organic brands if you’re concerned.

Eye makeup: Replace products like mascara and eyeliner more frequently to avoid potential bacterial contamination.

Self-Tanning Products

The active ingredient in most self-tanners (dihydroxyacetone or DHA) is considered safe for topical use during pregnancy. However:

Avoid spray tans, as the effects of inhaling the product are unknown

Always perform a patch test first, as pregnancy can make your skin more sensitive

Cosmetic Procedures

Facials: Most basic facials are safe during pregnancy. However, avoid chemical peels or microdermabrasion.

LED light therapy: This is generally considered safe, but consult your healthcare provider first.

Botox and fillers: These are typically not recommended during pregnancy.

The Importance of Moderation and Natural Alternatives

While we’ve established that most cosmetics are safe to use during pregnancy, it’s worth emphasizing that moderation is key. Your skin absorbs what you put on it, so it’s wise to be mindful of the total amount of products you’re using.If you’re looking to minimize your use of synthetic chemicals, there are many natural alternatives available:

Coconut oil can be a great moisturizer for both skin and hair

Aloe vera gel can soothe irritated skin

Cocoa butter is excellent for preventing stretch marks

Green tea can be used as a gentle toner

Remember, “natural” doesn’t always mean “safe for pregnancy,” so always check with your healthcare provider if you’re unsure.

Conclusion

Navigating the world of cosmetics during pregnancy doesn’t have to be stressful. By being informed about ingredients to avoid, establishing a safe skincare routine, and making mindful choices about hair care and makeup, you can continue to pamper yourself and feel beautiful throughout your pregnancy.Always remember that every pregnancy is unique, and what works for one woman might not be suitable for another. When in doubt, consult with your healthcare provider. They can offer personalized advice based on your individual health profile and pregnancy progression.Pregnancy is a special time, and you deserve to feel your best. With these guidelines in mind, you can enjoy your beauty routine with confidence, knowing you’re making safe choices for both you and your baby.

[smokeybrandreviews]

Okey Dokey

Jenna Ortega is the new Winona Ryder. She's sitting in the same space that Rachel Ziegler was supposed to occupy until she started running her mouth about politics. Ma is the brand new "It" girl, staking her fame on quirky little remakes, fun if a little formulaic reimaginings, and the occasional slasher or two. She followed the Scream Queen route to stardom, building her resume on sh*t like X and two Scream flicks, before getting Wednesday and being vaulted into the mainstream. I like Jenna. I think she's good at her job. I think she's MUCH more intelligent and aware of the business she's in, than most women her age. I think her opinions are both valid and true to reality, but the way she says the things she does and gets away with it, boggles my mind. Because, again Ziegler said the same sh*t and her entire career is dead because of it. I still haven't figured but that disparity but that's not what this post is about. Jenna recently said something to the effect hat women should be leading their own projects, that they shouldn't be pigeonholed to remakes or sequels. They should have their own franchises to lead and i agree. The thing is, the vast US audience does not.

It's odd hearing Jenna say these remarks during the press junket for Beetlejuice II. Sh*t comes off a little hypocritical and a lot ungrateful, but then you have to kind of look at it from her perspective a little. Ortega got her shine of her performance as Wednesday Addams in Netflix's Wednesday. I adore that show but i have been a fan of the Addams Family since i was a kid. I also shill pretty hard All that said, Wednesday is a reimagining of a franchise that has existed in literally every form of media, for decades. for Tim Burton AND they got my evergreen crush,Christina Ricci, who played the character on film before Jenna, to play a pretty substantial role in that story. Plus, it was just generally really cute. She was also in the two newest Scream flick, sans Wes Craven. Again, established IPs. Every major Hollywood production she's been in thus far, with the exception of X and that weird one with Martin Freeman, has been basically a recycle of some other concept or established idea. I imagine she's frustrated. I would be, too. This isn't biting the hand which feeds you, it's bringing awareness to a real problem in the industry, one that she's going to need to solve herself.

Way back when Negroes not named Sydney Poitier couldn't get jobs in Tinseltown, we did our own thing. Yes, i am a Black. They were called Blaxploitation. Now, i hate that entire genre but i respect what it did for our visibility. There would be no Denzel without Shaft easing the general audience into accepting Black dudes as leading men. We don't get Black Panther without Superfly, and as absurd a statement that is to hear, it's true. Hell, Tarantino basically paid homage to that entire era of film making with Jackie Brown, who starred Pam Grier in the leading role. Grier is KNOWN as THE Blaxploitation femme fatale! Bruce Lee did more for Asians in Hollywood with Enter the Dragon, than anyone else, at any time in history. Dev Patel is doing his best, right now, as we speak, to get that corner turn on Indian actors with his work on Monkeyman and the steady influx of K-culture is making their content much more palatable for the general eye. Seriously, don't sleep on Korean entertainment. Those motherf*ckers make dope sh*t. If Jenna wants those roles, she's going to have to make them, herself. Just like everyone else. And she has a fantastic home for that.

Jenna is a Netflix product, let's be clear about that. None of this success is possible without them. None of it. Wednesday popped hard and she was able to parlay that into her near mogul status. She's getting Producer credits on season two, so this is a perfect opportunity to branch out. Millie Bobby Brown did, to middling results. I generally enjoy her Enola Holmes fair but that dragon movie sucked so much ass. Still, those were her projects. She chose them for herself. She developed and produced them. Ma is all over her sh*t lately and that's because Stranger Things has a shelf life. She knew there needed to be something after and she did her thing. Charlize Theron put together that Old Guard flick, the first in a franchise she wanted to push. Dunno where that is considering we only got the one flick, but there is a lot of potential there, in that world. Jenna has to do something like that in order to prove her point. She has the star power now. She has the cache. Now, she needs to put her money where her mouth is and bet on herself. Obviously, there are strong hits she can study. Wednesday, itself, did gangbusters but so did Fallout and Yellowjackets. That said, those odds still feel dummy long

Most of these female focused, female lead, franchise attempts suck ass. I'm going to be honest, i can't think of a single one that i actually like. Alien, is the only one that comes to mind, and Ripley was written as a dude. Now, the flicks which came after, to varying success, are a definite mixed bag, most starring Ripley, but Romulus didn't and was dope as f*ck. If they ever get around to putting Machiko Noguchi on screen, we'd have another solid protag in a franchise that almost exclusively gives the nod to female strength. That sh*t should, for sure, be an anthology series but I digress. What else do we have? Resident Evil, Charlie's Angels, Underworld; Most of them are just okay. None of them are "great", all of them have diminishing returns. If Jenna wants these types of roles, if she wants to see more original IP developed for women, she's going to need to make that sh*t, herself, because no one has cracked the code on making them good. Enola Holmes is a decent distraction, but when compared to the BBC version of her older brother's adventure? Not so much. The Old Guard is lost in development hell. The one Halle Berry made for herself, bombed. On Netflix. The two Karen Gillan and Mary Elizabeth Winstead dropped were fun as f*ck but didn't have the support behind them to really gain momentum. Here's hoping The Ballerina breaks that glass ceiling because i agree with Jenna. We need more female lead franchises, if not for anything other to diversify the content out in the wild.