#making out with a woman who espouses a harmful ideology | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

pip-n-flinx · 4 years

Text

Among Us

So this is going to get long, this is going to get personal, this is going to be about prejudice and race and self-serving bad-faith arguments and flawed rhetoric. And for all of these reasons I’m going to leave the rest of this under the cut.

As a few of my friends will know, earlier this week I was delivered an ultimatum from my landlord/roommate. He disguised it well, telling me he was ‘concerned for my mental health’ that my ‘negativity was dragging the whole house down’ and that I was simply too filthy to live with. I won’t pretend I’m a neat freak, and I can honestly say that I have taken some pains to clean more since, to his surprise and delight, though its particularly hard to take coming from him.

“You’re always so down. It’s making you lazy and thin skinned” You know its funny you should say that, now specifically, because I’ve actually been on the up and up this last week and you didn’t mention this at all in January when I was actually at my worst, or February when I was afraid I was going to have to quit my job, or back during the holiday season when retail work was breaking my back... Only now do you think to check in on me?

“You left a pair of gloves, a letter, and a small wooden trinket on the table!” Indeed I have, as you have left your pair of gloves, well over 21 letters, and regularly set your packages on this same table, including today two packages to be returned to amazon. I didn’t realize I didn’t get to use the table the same way you do.

“You don’t do dishes! except that you did this week, which is cool I guess but still!” You do realize that I actually hand-wash every dish I use within 24 hours of using it, right? And that often the dishes you come to me bitching that I never cleaned are in fact your fiances, yes? Ok good, next question.

“You’re always complaining about work. I don’t mind that you vent, but its all you talk about anymore!” I have either lost or walked away from 4 jobs in this last year, and that has not been easy, or fun. I have worked essential retail jobs the entire pandemic thus far. Additionally, in the months leading up to you storming out of your 75k a year salaried sales job, I had told you to leave it because I could see that it was killing you. You got so fed up with the job that for 4-5 months before you left your grandma-paid-off-my-second-mortgage capitalism-knows-best-pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-ass spent more time playing valorant and league of legends on the clock than doing actual work. Need I remind you that every time I stepped into your office, or simply stepped upstairs to get ready for work, you would complain about how awful your managers were, or how shitty someone had been to you over the phone? DID I EVER BELITTLE YOU FOR ANY OF THESE THINGS????

The real kicker was that the spark, the moment that started this (at least for him) was me trying to explain why racism and ‘cultural supremecy’ was bad. I had brought to him something I thought we could both agree on, that we could both laugh at. I brought him a series of tweets about how problematic Van Gogh was for studying and imitating traditional japanese painting techniques. He took this, and immediately turned into a piece of the culture wars. Now, I agree, this is an egregious example of trying to ‘cancel’ someone. How cancelling a long dead artist who couldn’t sell his art while he was alive is important is beyond my comprehension, its not as though the market value of these comes up very often, and almost no-one will ever have a chance to buy or reject a Van Gogh. But to him this was emblematic of ‘liberals’ cancelling Seuss and Rowling.

He even went so far as to say that Van Gogh probably ‘did it better’ than the artists he was studying/imitating. Now, this is a huge red-flag to me because this is straight out of the Nazi playbook. This is William Shenker, proposing a theory of music to proof ‘German cultural superiority.’ This, if you will pardon my language, is the real culture war: trying to supplant other cultures art and history with western figures and events.

Now, for those of you who don’t know who I’m talking about, this man is sexist. He doesn’t believe women are equal, complains about women’s sports, and rejects a woman’s right to choose. This man is a transphobe, questioning the logic of ‘safe-spaces’ and allowing people to change their pronouns. This man is a Trump supporter, and voted for him twice. And all of these things I found out years after we became friends. I have in the past contemplated what it would take to cut him out of my life wholesale. Despite our wealth of shared experience and our shared interests, we’ve been drifting apart as he drifts further and further to the right. And he has been drifting. He’s parroted more bad-faith arguments from Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson in the last 6 months then he ever did when I first moved in with him.

I have been trying to push back, especially when he says the quiet parts out loud. I try to let him know that it is not acceptable to say he would rather an unarmed black man die that risk that a police officer might be injured. When he compares the people in control of Seuss’ intellectual property and works choose to stop printing less than 6% of his published works to the book burnings in Mao’s china. When he says that its more important to protect teacher from students trolling them by changing their pronouns than it is to protect trans or NB kids. When he espouses his belief that trans and NB kids are ‘just mentally ill.’ Whenever he says any of this shit, I have pushed back. I have tried to halt, or at least slow, his descent towards eugenics and white supremacy and fascism.

It has been to no avail.

And to be honest its exhausting. I wanted to believe that he would trust me, not just to be a moral and thoughtful person, but to be educated and informed on these issues. We went to school together, spent countless hours solving homework and trying to crack games together. If I don’t know the answer to his questions immediately, he often jokes ‘C’mon, you’re supposed to know everything!” and has frequently told me that I’m selling myself short.

But apparently all that trust and all that respect goes out the window when I challenge him. Suddenly I’m ‘overly negative’ or ‘too sensitive’ or he’ll ‘need to look into that, but...’

And the thing is, he is capable of great acts of kindness. He offered to rent me a room in his completely paid-off house, no mortgage at all, simply because he could see living at home was killing my mental health. He offered me 50-75% off of market rate. He buys gifts all the time, has landed tenants job interviews, set people back on their feet, and refused to press charges for several major financial loses he’s taken on the determination that it would do more harm to the defendant than he could ever recoup from it.

But he does not extend this kindness, this generous soul, to everyone. And lately, his circle grows smaller, and his kindess has waned, and it’s been so devastating to see him slip further and further towards his own worst impulses.

I know there will be people who think I should have cut him out of my life years ago, who can’t believe we never talked enough to know that he voted for Trump in 2016. I think back then he was genuinely ashamed, or at least guilty, about that vote. Now? It’s almost a matter of pride for him. I can’t tell you the number of times in the last 4 months that he’s told me that Biden “couldn’t possibly” be as “great” a President as Trump.

And he hides behind this “praise them when they do good, cuff them when they do bad” line and I used to take comfort in it but now... Now it’s clear that it was just a front or excuse for liking these abhorrent people.

I’ve had a couple of hard conversations with some of our mutual friends about what this means for me, and how I interract with the whole group of friends as a whole, in the last 3 days. None of our mutual friends seem to take any of these things as seriously as I do, with my oldest friend even telling me that he ‘can’t imagine’ breaking a friendship off over politics.... I know I know, the caucasity of it all, yes ha ha. And it does make me genuinely worried that I’ll wind up losing the 5-6 close friends that I actually rely on these days over this horrible sonuvabitch. But all this personal venting aside, there’s something bigger here I want to address:

I sat down this evening to watch Last Week Tonight and I was struck by this piece about Tucker Carlson, because while I knew some of what was said on his show, he is remarkably confident for a man who spouts the quiet parts of racism/sexism/homophobia on TV. I have a hard time imaging a more blatantly racist thing to do then declare that a woman who suggested ‘dismantling systems of oppression wherever they are found’ wants to dismantle the American system...

And I have to say, we should go back to punching Nazis. I want these fuckers afraid. I want them to crawl back to the furthest reaches of the internet, relegated to be laughed at for their bigotry by pundits of every political ideology. I want their vile vitriol hidden away where it doesn’t embolden others. I want them to know that they are out of line, out of touch, out of time. I want them to feel ashamed, like the relics of a bygone and worse era that they are, and for them to quietly fade to an ignominious death. I’m tired of seeing them on National News. I’m tired of Pewdiepie’s channel and influence refusing to die despite all the horrible things he’s said and done. I’m tired of Ben Shapiro spouting off about a woman’s place and rights, as if he has any fucking authority on the matter. I just want these people to lose their platforms and their followers. And for me the fact that they haven’t yet is so incredibly discouraging.

I know I didn’t offer any answers here I’m just tired of being alone with this defeated attitude and I guess I needed to get this off my chest as I try to disentangle myself from the losing battle of trying to save a friend from alt-right radicalization.

#tw/ white supremecy #tw/ sexism #tw/ racism #tw/ transphobia #wooow this got longer than I expected #meta: alt right radicalization #and how they're reaching people my age #plus a lot of personal venting

1 note · View note

cardinaldaughter · 4 years

Text

Good Omens Changed My Life. Twice.

Bear with me. This is super long, and super personal. But I figured, on the 30th anniversary of the book, I’d share with you all just how important Good Omens is to me, even if I didn’t fully understand how much until recently.

A thirty-year-long tale under the cut.

(mentions of death, homophobia, religion and politics)

I was born 30 years ago in the American South. While not exactly actively political, my parents were conservative, as was basically everyone I knew. And so I grew up exposed to Fox News and Glenn Beck and the NRA and conservative view points. I remember telling my father I couldn’t wait to grow up so I could be in the NRA with him. I remember thinking how I was going to vote for a republican when I was old enough to vote. What little I understood about the world, I understood from a conservative perspective, and because I was a child, I trusted the adults around me and believed what they said was sincere and trusted that their beliefs and intentions were honest.

During my childhood, I spent a great deal of time with one of my aunts. She was like a second mother to me, and I think, in some ways, I was probably her “second chance” at motherhood, considering she didn’t have a great relationship with her son. I spent most of my Saturday’s with my aunt. We went on all kinds of adventures together, and I loved her probably more than anyone in the world, my parents included.

When I was 10, she lost her battle to cancer. It was the second major death I’d experienced as a child, but this one struck harder and hurt much deeper. If it weren’t for the fact that this post is about Good Omens (I’m getting there, I promise) I would spend the rest of my time trying to express to you how much I loved this woman, and how deeply her death impacted me. But that’s another story for another time.

My aunt, during her last few years of life, started going to a church. And when she died, those people showed up to the funeral. And by showed up, I mean physically and emotionally. They sang songs. They helped my mom with arrangements (she was in charge). They brought us food. They loved on me, even though I didn’t know them. They clearly loved my aunt, and that love carried over to her family. And my parents- who weren’t exactly Christians and didn’t attend church- were extremely moved. So my mom decided to go to that church the following Sunday to thank them for their kindness. We never left.

That church became home. I met people there who changed my life. These people became brothers, sisters, mentors, friends. They helped fill the gap my aunt’s death had left, and though I was struggling and unable to properly mourn (which I wouldn’t understand for another decade or more) I felt better. I felt loved. I felt accepted. As I grew up there, attending the academy run through the church and getting more involved in ministry, I began paying more and more attention to what the adults around me were saying. And like most conservatives, they lamented over the evils of abortion and homosexuality and liberal ideology. And because I loved these adults, trusted them, respected them, believed them, I adopted the same beliefs. I was a child; they were adults. They couldn’t be wrong, right? I attended a community college for two years, then transferred to a close by university that was far enough away that I needed to move to an apartment in another city, but close enough that I could still come home frequently. But it meant leaving the church. I promised my friends I’d be back every Sunday I could make it. I didn’t want to leave, because all my friends were at that church, and it was home. But I wanted to get my bachelor’s, so I packed my things and I moved with the determination that I would come running home as soon as I was able. Before I left, I was told by a couple people in the church: “Now when you get to college, don’t open your mind so much that your brain falls out!” I thought that was an incredibly stupid thing to say, because it was in itself ridiculous- having an open mind was not a bad thing- but also because I was secure in my beliefs. I wasn’t going to change. Once at university- despite being incredibly shy and introverted, I managed to make a few friends. One was a Jewish atheist, and another was a girl from India who practiced Hinduism. Both were so far out of my understanding of life that I was fascinated, but rather than trying to “save them” (something I’d NEVER been comfortable with, so I just used my shyness as an excuse not to “witness” to people) I listened. Their stories were fascinating. And I am so grateful they were willing to share their experiences with me, and for a time I was very close to them both.

Okay. Now for the part you’ve been waiting for.

During this time at college, I, through a roundabout way, discovered Good Omens. After some major difficulty in hunting down the book, I got my hands on a copy- where an angel and demon reject everything they’ve been told they should be in order to help save the world. I didn’t understand why at the time, but I identified with Crowley. I felt a kinship with him I wasn’t qualified to fully appreciate, but I absolutely loved him. This demon who deep down didn’t want to be evil; who’s only real crime had been asking questions- something about that resonated with me.

“Why would asking questions be considered a bad thing?” I wondered.

It was during this time that, thanks to friends who were so different than me, and professors who had a much broader sense of the world, and thanks to some inspiration from a wily serpent, I found myself doing something I’d never done before:

I started questioning everything I’d ever been told.

Because, if I was honest with myself, I genuinely didn’t understand why two men or two women couldn’t get married. I didn’t understand why a woman was forced to have a baby she didn’t want or couldn’t care for. I didn’t actually want to join the NRA because I didn’t actually like guns. They made me uncomfortable, and I thought there should be more regulations on them. I read about and agreed with the tenants of feminism. I began learning about the LGBT community and realized that once I stopped being told over and over again that these people were evil sinners bound for hell, I realized that they were just normal people like me trying to find their place in the world and love with dignity and freedom. What was evil about that? “Oh god,” I said my senior year of college, when I realized the devastating truth I had been reluctant to face. “I can’t be liberal! I can’t be a feminist! I’m a Christian!” - I said this to myself numerous times, because I had been taught that to be a Democrat or a feminist was fundamentally non-Christian. And I had a years-long identity crisis over this. I struggled with this inner turmoil that I felt- how can I be a liberal feminist AND a Christian? Surely I can’t...

But I was. This realization caused me to have a full-on identity crisis. I cried. I panicked. I prayed for God to correct my thinking if I was wrong. I only grew more convinced of my convictions.

Finally, I graduated and moved back home. I got married to the love of my life. I resumed going to church. I figured maybe if I just stop asking questions, things will go back to normal, and I won’t go to hell for my spiritual misstep. But everything felt different, somehow. My husband didn’t seem really political, so I never asked his opinions on things. I kept my thoughts to myself, having a completely hidden existential crisis while I sat in the church I’d grown up in with the people I’d once loved and trusted and believed implicitly, and realized I no longer trusted or believed them. Finally, a couple years into our marriage, I broke down and confessed to my husband (who I met at church, by the way) how I was feeling about...well, everything. In a truly relieving turn of events, he felt the same way I did. I was so relieved to finally speak out about my feelings, about how I wasn’t conservative but was so afraid of that fact. How I was a feminist. How I wanted to vote third party in the 2012 election (because I was too afraid to commit to the sin of voting democrat, which to some people in my church, it would have been.) Political discussions with my husband increased in volume, length, passion, and frustration. We started keeping up with politics more, especially as we realized we were adults now and these things mattered. We talked a lot about our opinions, and how those opinions didn’t exactly line up with the church. I was so conflicted I honestly felt like I was being ripped in half. Finally my husband said he wanted to leave the church. I was a part of a couple ministries within the church, one of which I was very attached to as it allowed me a lot of creative freedom and I had made some very close friendships through. I couldn’t do it. I wanted to leave, I really did, but I literally felt chained to my place. I wouldn’t have phrased it that way then, but I know that’s what it was now. So we kept our mouths shut and stayed at church like good little obedient Christians. He still wanted to leave, and ultimately began going less. Because of my commitments, I needed to be there every week, even though some days, getting up to go to church made me feel like I was suffocating. But surely God would change my heart if I was in the wrong. I begged him to. I tried to adopt old beliefs, but they felt dirty and wrong in a way that made me physically ill. So I began to quietly try to accept I was a Christian who was also a Democrat. The internal war within me raged on. I had so many questions, but I knew better than to ask them. And then 2016 happened. Donald Trump was elected president. And I watched that man espouse racist, harmful, evil things, and I watched as the people I grew up believing and trusting support him. Defend him. Proclaim he was chosen by God. And I felt sick. If that man is what Christians view as a godly man, I wanted no part in Christianity. And I said as much. In an angry post on Facebook the morning after he won the election, I said Trump was not godly. I repeated things he had said. I said you can’t call yourself a Christian and support this man. I got reprimanded by leaders in my church. “You represent the church. You have to be careful what you say,” I was told. “God will take care of us, don’t worry,” others tried to mitigate. I had a family member, someone I trusted and admired with my whole heart- someone I’d gone to for advice countless times- tell me my words were vile. My words. The words challenging a wicked man who made fun of disabled people, and who was sexist and racist and awful... who people falsely believed represented the so-called loving God we were called to follow. Devastated and confused, I took down the post, stayed silent, and continued going to church. But I felt so sick. And that sickness ate at me for the next three years. I wanted to leave, I really did, but I couldn’t. I didn’t know how. It wasn’t like I was being forced to stay, but I felt glued to my spot, paralyzed and helpless. I’d been in church for 20 years. This place had been so helpful, and hopeful.... but it wasn’t that place to me anymore.

How does one turn their back on their home?

During all that, I turned to fiction for comfort. My existential crisis of faith was making me miserable, so I buried myself in stories, art, video games, shows, movies, fanfiction, to help ease the ache. And then, after months of eager anticipation, May 2019 rolled around, and Good Omens was released on Amazon Prime. I still loved the book. Loved Crowley. I couldn’t wait to watch the show. As before, I adored Crowley, but the more the show went on, the more my heart and soul latched onto Aziraphale. Everything he said and did made me want to hug the poor dear, though it wasn’t until episode four that I realized exactly why I felt such strong kinship to the TV version of the angel. Aziraphale and I were both trapped. He was bound by the rules of Heaven and his angelic duties. I was bound by my connection to the church and the ministry I was now in charge of. “If I could just reach the right people...” Aziraphale said desperately to Crowley, who replied: “That won’t happen!” And then, stubbornly, desperately, Aziraphale reaches out the Metatron, and I watched as the hope in an angel’s eyes died as he was told heaven wasn’t going to change, they wanted their war, and he needed to get up there and do his part. That scene resonated so much with me, because in that moment I wasn’t watching a fictional show- I was reliving my own life. The moment I was told my words saying Trump was not a godly man didn’t represent the church. That look on Aziraphale’s face expressed the despair I felt when I realized the church was fundamentally wrong. I was stuck in an institution I didn’t exactly support, but felt bound to stick with even as I grappled with the fact that perhaps they weren’t quite as good as I’d once believed them to be. I’d been questioning for some time, like Crowley had, but like Aziraphale, I was afraid to really do anything about it. I kept hoping that I’d just... come across the right person and they could alleviate my concerns, but... that never happened. I kept believing, like Aziraphale, that Heaven (the church) were the good guys, and this was all just a massive misunderstanding and surely they’d see reason. I mean, they had too. Right?

What encouraged me the most though, was at end of the story, is that Aziraphale eventually does reject heaven for Crowley/earth/humans, and is still an angel. Is still seen as good. His choice is seen as the right one, and he isn’t punished for standing up to his “good” superiors and saying, “No I will not do what you want”. It meant so much to me, to see him walk away from heaven and end up much happier than he’d ever been. It made me hope that I could achieve that same happy ending. It took a few more months of coming to terms with my feelings on everything. But I finally felt that metaphorical bond to the church snap after one Sunday where our pastor mocked a liberal politician and said some other things that made me so upset I stood up and walked out of church. I got home to my husband- my Crowley, who’d been ready to officially leave for years but was too fast for me- and told him I was ready. He asked if I was sure. I said yes. I wanted to leave. The last Sunday of February was my last Sunday at that church. I don’t think I would have had the courage to do it if not for watching Aziraphale’s struggle, his uncertainty, and his ultimate triumph. Knowing how his story ended gave me the hope that once I walked out of that place for the last time, I’ll be able to heal, and I’ll be able to actually do the good I so long to do and be in this world.

I find it funny, looking back. Reading Good Omens gave me the courage to actually question what I’d always been taught. Ten years later, the show gave me the courage to act on those questions. To know that having them isn’t enough. I need to ask them. And then I need to take a stand when the answers aren’t satisfactory.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the show came out during an extremely important time in my life- when I was trying and failing to find the courage to leave. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that when I needed Aziraphale and Crowley the most, they were there, showing me the way and telling me that it will be alright. I don’t think it’s a coincidence, but I do think it’s a little bit ineffable.

Thank you, Neil and Terry, for creating such amazing characters. Thank you David, for being a brilliant Crowley, and thank you Michael, for being able to convey in a single look how hopeless I’d been feeling for years, essentially snapping me out of my emotional stasis, and giving me the courage to do what needed to be done.

Thank you to the GO fandom, whose stories and art and memes have provided me with a great deal of comfort as I adjust to my new reality.

I love you all. To the world.

#good omens #neil gaiman #good omens 30th anniversary #long post

12 notes · View notes

serialcomposer · 5 years

Text

Analysis of TERF thought

What follows is the complete entry on TERFs from the book “The A-Z of Gender and Sexuality” by Morgan Lev Edward Holleb. In it he provides a clear breakdown of the ways TERF thought works and how it mirrors reactionary far right understandings of the world.

It’s really long but I urge you all to give it a read (don’t worry; most of it will be under the cut so’s not to take up space on your dash) and help spread it.

TERF/TERFS - Acronym for “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism/Feminists”

TERF ideology is a specific strand of transphobia. It is a subset of feminism which actively denies the legitimacy of trans people and insists that gender is predetermined by biology. Some TERFs actively advocate for the eradication of trans women (and by extension, all trans people, though their focus is overwhelmingly on trans women). TERFs see trans women and AMAB trans people as a direct threat to cis women and cis womanhood. Although TERFs claim to be “radical feminists,” they’re closer to the right-wing than the left. They share several key ideological viewpoints with Nazis, and have adopted many of the same (modern Nazi) trolling and (historical and modern) rhetorical strategies, building on the fascist legacy of vilifying queer people.

TERFS have been a part of the discourse around trans people and feminism since the 1960s, when hormone replacement therapy became widely accessible for trans people (those who could afford it). TERFs saw trans women as stereotypes of femininity (a parody or mockery of womanhood), who reinforced sexist ideas about what it means to be a woman. Trans women were (and largely still are) forced to perform exaggerated femininity in order to access transition-related healthcare - only trans women who wear traditionally feminine clothes, are heterosexual, and behave in a stereotypically “ladylike”, respectable way were/are allowed to medically transition. This isn’t the fault of trans women; it’s the fault of psychiatric and medical establishments which themselves are extremely sexist and transphobic. But instead of analyzing the systems which harm all women, TERFs have instead attacked (and continue to attack) trans women.

In 1979 Janice Raymond published Transsexual Empire: The Making of he She Male, which said: “All transsexuals rape womens bodies by reducing the female form to an artefact, appropriating this body for themselves... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive.” She concluded that “transsexualism should be eradicated through denial of medical care.” In 198- Raymond was hired to write a US government white paper for the National Centre for Health Care Technology on transsexual healthcare . It was called “Technology on the Social and Ethical Aspects of Transsexual Surgery” and was used as the basis to stop gender affirming surgery being covered by Medicare; private insurance companies followed suit. Transition-specific healthcare was only covered again in the US under Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which required insurance companies to include it, beginning 1 January 2017.

TERFs deny that trans women are women, that trans men are men, and that non-binary people are non-binary. TERFS are biological essentialists: they equate genitals and internal reproductive organs with gender. They actively misgender trans people and claim to be “pro-science”, despite the fact that biologists have long since acknowledged that both biological sex and gender exists on spectrums. Amusingly, TERFs online often put “XX” in their usernames as a declaration of their chromosomes (as if the connection between womanhood and chromosomes is obvious and undeniable). There is a shared TERF and Nazi obsession with genetics and “scientific reality,” a positivist “truth” about bodies which is beyond critique. TERFs use “XX” to signify womanhood, like Nazis used “race science” to “prove” the superiority of whiteness. These views have been so thoroughly debunked that there is no need to explain them here. In all likelihood, most TERFs haven’t had their chromosomes checked, and most Nazis haven’t had their ancestry professionally traced (e.g., the “purity” of their whiteness confirmed). The point here isn’t that some TERFs aren’t XX and some Nazis aren’t “purely” white (an imaginary catergory); it’s that their bigotry rests on assumptions about biology and genetics which are scientifically lazy, as if you can “see” race and gender in a meaningful yet simplistic and binary way. TERFs and Nazis both suggest that people who are “genetically undesirable” should be sterilized, or worse.

Both TERFs and Nazis police and punish deviations from the majority identity groups - this begins by dehumanizing an entire class of people and denying them access to public space. Giving basic civil rights to a minority group (trans people) is framed as a threat to the dominant majority group. (TERFs are not a majority group, but they claim to represent and protect the views of a majority group which they belong to: cis people.) Identity is heavily policed, and the minority group is denied access to public life to “protect” the majority group. Opposition to violent rhetoric and policy is dubbed “silencing legitimate concerns”; hate speech is coded in dog whistles (TERFs use “fender critical” “transgenderism,” “transwoman” instead of “trans woman”) and concern trolling (”protect our women and girls,” a line used by both TERFs and white supremacists). Biological essentialism is used to justify denial of rights based on social categories. Mental illness is vilified, and the minority group is coded as dangerously unstable.

TERFs fan the flames of moral panic on the far right - the same moral panic that vilifies many of them for being lesbians. TERF rhetorics are violent because the encourage a transphobic culture where trans people are denied agency and “rationality”; denied access to medical care, public life and support services; and ultimately denied personhood. Some TERFs directly encourage violence against trans women, including physical attacks and corrective rape.

TERFs declare that all trans people are pedophiles, carrying on a long tradition of categorizing proximity to queerness as child abuse. The minority group is painted not only as a threat that needs to be contained; it also needs to be exterminated in order to guarantee the safety of the majority. Today, this is most often weaponized with fear-mongering about sexual violence - trans women are labelled as inherently hypersexual, perverse, and a dangerous threat to (cis) women and girls.

The vilification of mental illness is another theme shared by TERFs and the far right. TERFs not only dismiss trans people as being mentally ill (thereby delegitimizing our genders) but they code us as dangerously unstable, using the pathologizing language of “sexual perversion” and linking transness to sexual violence, without evidence. They fan the flames of moral panic on the far right - the same moral panic that vilifies many TERFs for being lesbians. These are all rhetorically violent positions because they encourage a transphobic culture where trans people are denied agency and “rationality”; denied access to medical care, public life and support services and ultimately denied personhood.*

TERFs are only noticeable online, and in the UK, where they are a small but loud and dedicated group. The same 100 or so people will your the country to attend anti-trans events, which often get shut down or moved at the last minute due to public pressure to no-platform their hate speech. While they occasionally host anti-trans seminars and protest outside of trans events or events with trans speakers, the majority of their activism takes place online (under pseudonyms because their position is increasingly considered unacceptable).

One notable counterexample was London’s 2018 Pride parade, where a handfull of TERFs hijacked the parade and were allowed to lead it with transphobic and transmisoynistic banners. (Though Pride London [the corporation] failed to adequately deescalate or later address the TERF protest, subsequent UK pride marches that year were often lead with explicitly trans-inclusive banners.) Outwith the UK, trans rights are not positioned as oppositional to feminism.

Modern TERFs are defined as much by their ideology as their relationship to trolling. Their praxis is doxxing, harassing, outing, lurking, publishing pre-transition photos of trans women, creating fake accounts, creating accounts whose sold purpose is to index trans accounts and harass them, sabotaging surveys about trans people, and generally vying for space in online forums, especially on Tumblr, Twitter, Reddit, and Mumsnet. Rather than do anything meaningful to help cis women and girls, TERFs essentially terrorize trans women and try to force them out of physical and difital spaces. There are some explicit connections between UK TERFs and white nationalists on Twitter: mutually following each other, retweeting each other, and discussing attending eachother’s events (e.g., Women’s Sace UK events and UKIP). TERFs are only able to push legislation when their goals align with the goals of Nazis. fascists, and other white supremacists (e.g., the Bathroom Bills, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) in the US).

TERFs insist that it is their “free speech” right to be given a platform to espouse their ideology, whilst actually silencing the free speech rights of the minority group. Being granted an audience (e.g. on a university campus or in the national press) is neither a right nor an aspect of free speech. However, facing exclusion for starting a petition to no-platform a hate group )as is currently the case with a trans student at the University of Bristol), is a violation of free speech rights. TERFs are very vocal about how “silenced” they are by being no-platformed, despite several high-profile TERFs enjoying regular columns in international newspapers. In the UK, TERFs hold influential cultural positions within the media, community organizing, NGOs, government, and academia; the same cannot be said for trans people.

TERFs position themselves as victims of a powerful “trans lobby” which threatens to “replace” them, when in fact they have heaps of structural power over the groups they claim to be threatened by. The victim narrative is particularly noteworthy: TERFs claim to be victims of silencing and violence, with no attention paid to how their ideologies structurally silence and incite violence against marginalized people. For example, if a trans person allegedly punches a TERF at a counter protest, the focus is then on the legitimacy of punching as a tactic (even in self-defence, assuming the punch actually happened). Centrists and fair-weather “allies” are quick to pick up on this narrative, claiming a middle ground of non-violence, not realizing that they’re legitimizing an extremely violent ideology. This takes the heat off TERFs’ tactics and their ideology, which are of course both extremely violent and about protecting abstract ideas of womanhood at the expense of actual living people who are not threatens in the first place. Their ideology and tactics are indefensible, so they’d rather we talk about the merits and drawbacks of counter-tactics, like punching oppressors. The bullying is overlooked and the focus is on the victims’ response to bullying. Victims are scrutinized for being less than perfect, but the bullies are not under any such scrutiny. Instead of playing into their victim narratives, we should stay focused on their tactics and goals: to deny trans people healthcare (trans-specific and otherwise), to bar us from public space, to harass us, and to terrorize us.

TERF arguments are predicated on the false idea of a monolithic womanhood that trans women aren’t women because they don’t “live as” women and they have a “male experience.” but what is a “female experience”? The experience TERFs refer to is white, cis, and middle class; the experience of a citizen, of people who have access to respectability, and in the UK, access to national media platforms. There is no universal experience of womanhood; suggestions otherwise mimic racist rhetoric which positions the experience of whiteness as “default” and “authentic” and “normal” while people of color are dehumanized and their experiences are “special interest”.Many TERFs hate butch cis women for “role-playing” masculinity, but also hate very feminine women for”performing” for the male gaze.

Lesbian TERFs exclude trans women from their spaces and their analyses of feminism, lesbianism, and womanhood. Lesbian TERFs sometimes exclude trans men as gender traitors; others fetishize them as butches who need saving from being “transed,” erasing and ignoring their genders as men. TERFs sometimes trawl trans message boards looking for young trans men to groom, feeding into insecurities AFAB trans people have about abandoning womanhood and being bad feminists.

TERFs are terrified that trans women are men seeking not only to “co-opt” the struggles of women, but to gain access to women’s spaces and, most terrifyingly of all, to deceive and fuck them as lesbians. This is essentially gay panic; they are absolutely horrified at the possibility of being attracted to a trans woman because it would undermine their status as the bastion of lesbian separatist feminists, being attracted to someone they incorrectly consider a “man.”

TERFs say that the “trans lobby” refuses to acknowledge the difference between trans women and cis women, which is ironic because trans people are quick to talk about how being trans greatly affects our experiences of patriarchy, sexism, and gender. Trans people are acutely aware of the biological differences between us and cis people; that’s a huge part of why many of us medically transition. Trans people aren’t trying to “erase” biological differences, we’re trying to secure our basic rights, and highlight shared struggles when we talk about activism and justice. Trans people not only belong in feminism; we are leading it.

*[idk why he repeats these things in this paragraph either; think it may just’ve been an oversight]

#rape mention tw #paedophilia tw #mention #transphobia

5 notes · View notes

beinglibertarian · 6 years

Text

Top 20 Being Libertarian Articles of 2018

It’s been an amazing year overall for us here at Being Libertarian LLC, and we wanted to wrap the year up with a list of our top articles from 2018. We definitely want to thank each and every author for their contributions throughout the year. Here they are for your reading pleasure, and definitely keep your eyes out for all of the great content we have planned for you in the year ahead. Enjoy!

1. ‘Rampant Voter Fraud’, Florida Gov. Scott Files Lawsuits After Uncovering 100,000 New Ballots

Author: Alex Croft

“Broward County stated on election night that there were 634,000 votes cast that day. As of 1 pm Thursday, that number was corrected to 695,700 and again later that day at 2:30 pm to 707,223. Thursday evening saw that number jump further to 712,840, as Palm Beach County claimed to find over 15,000 previously untallied votes.”

2. Want A Gun For ‘Self-Defense’? That Will Soon Be Illegal In South Africa

Author: Martin van Staden

“If this bill is passed into law in its current form, it will likely make it impossible for those who acquired their licences for the purpose of self-defense unable to renew those licences, which is required on a periodic basis. Aspirant firearm owners would be barred completely from using guns as a tool to defend themselves going forward.”

3. JuSt cAlL ThE PoLicE

Author: Mike Ursery

“Bloom ruled that the school district and the sheriff’s office had no constitutional duty to protect students not in custody. She wrote in her ruling that Cruz was a third party and not a state actor and that for the duty of protecting plaintiffs to exist, they would have to be in custody, such as prisoners or patients at a mental hospital.”

4. The Truth About Gun Violence

Author: Vinny Marshall

“Historically, what we can learn from past attempts to remove or regulate ownership rights of firearms from citizens is that it doesn’t do a whole lot to actually affect the rates of violence that exist, only the rates of violence with the weapon that you had set out to ban.”

5. Misconceptions of the Libertarian View of Abortion

Author: Nathan Kreider

“Block and Whitehead argue that a woman has the right to evict the fetus, but not to terminate it if it’s possible for the fetus to exist outside the womb with the help of medical technology. They point out that as technology advances, the point at which a fetus can exist outside the womb will inch closer to earlier stages of development, and thus the earlier the limit on abortions will be placed.”

6. The Dangers of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Author: Jenny Grimberg

“We examine three of her policy proposals to show that not only are they incorrect, but also to remind everyone that capitalism has helped millions of people, and we should not be taken in by the socialist tendencies of politicians like Ocasio-Cortez.”

7. The March for Our Tyranny – The Lowdown on Liberty

Author: Thomas J. Eckert

“And therein lies the problem: the anti-gun crowd wants solutions to their perceived problems, but how can we begin a discussion with a group so disingenuous about their intentions? It’s like trying to speak to a pickpocket as they reach for your wallet. As you ask them what they’re up to, they may reassure you they mean no harm and accuse you of being paranoid, but the truth is that in the end they want your wallet, regardless of what they say.”

8. Why People Are Left Wing – Freedom Philosophy

Author: Brandon Kirby

“I believe something similar has happened to the left. They very passionately want to abolish poverty, perhaps in some cases even more so than the right. Just as the greediest investor is not the most successful investor, the most passionate people aren’t the ones with the best ideas on how to accomplish this goal.”

9. The Rise of Jordan Peterson – What It Says About Us

Author: Adam Barsouk

“I believe Peterson’s claim to ideological fame is his seeming lack of interest in it. Most political pundits start and end their careers in politics. And yet, politics inherently do not produce any economic value—the entire essence of the job is to steal another’s earning while convincing that person it is for their own good.”

10. No, Vaccines Should Never Be Mandatory

Author: JSB Morse

“As with any medication or pharmaceutical, there are health risks that come with the benefits of vaccines. It is irresponsible to suggest that all people should get all such pharmaceuticals and it is illegitimate use of governmental authority to require it in order to receive benefits or other privileges.”

11. Jordan B. Peterson’s Twelve Rules is a Wakeup Call for a Nightmare Society

Author: JSB Morse

“We have collectively been lulled into an unnatural and inhumane philosophy of life through various diabolical agents. Twelve Rules is an urgently needed wake-up call for us to stand up and take responsibility for one’s life—not 50% or “just enough to get by,” but everything you can muster—100%.”

12. GM Cuts Over 10,000 Jobs, & No, It’s Not All Due To Tariffs

Author: Vinny Marshall

“While those who take issue with tariffs will be quick to point out the economic policy handed down by the Trump administration as the primary cause of the downsizing currently being undertaken by American automakers, tariffs seem to only be a portion of the issue at hand. Yes, the tariffs play a role as GM and Ford have both stated tariffs on steel have cost the company upwards of $1 Billion, and Toyota claims the tariffs will raise the cost of popular models by $1-3k dollars. However, tariffs do not seem to be the primary issue in this case.”

13. It’s Time to Focus on the ‘School’ in ‘School Shooting’ – The Lowdown on Liberty

Author: Thomas J. Eckert

“No matter how you slice it, it’s impossible to examine what we know about school shootings with any objective measure and not conclude that public schools may be a large contributing factor. The only problem is that new solutions seem to be unwelcome in – what feels like – a never-ending conversation.”

14. Liberty at Sea – Red Dirt Liberty Report

Author: Danny Chabino

“Many people are looking to the concept of “seasteading” as a new bold adventure into free societies that exist outside the hands of existing governing bodies. Seasteading is as it sounds – making a home on the open seas, sometimes in international waters, where no particular government is in charge, and sometimes by negotiated means in a free economic zone that has been established.”

15. FCC Lied About DDoS Attack to Downplay Opposition of Net Neutrality Repeal

Author: Alon Ganon

“Unfortunately, it appears that the Pai led FCC is sounding like they have no plans to tell the public what truly happened or whether they had lied, as it appears the FCC has gone silent about the issue.”

16. Why Only Stupid People Propose Taxing Churches – Freedom Philosophy

Author: Brandon Kirby

“Governments tax profits. They tax income. When a pastor takes out an income from the church they must pay taxes on it. Canada has decided that money going to a non-profit organization is not considered income, for the organization and the one giving the money, so donations are a tax deduction. Religious ministers, unless they’ve taken a vow of poverty, aren’t being given a free ride on taxation, the ones whose tax returns I’ve filled out seem to be as aggravated as the rest of us on tax day.”

17. Sexualized Content: Revival of Puritanism

Author: Killian Hobbs

“With Facebook joining this decision despite having no such issues themselves in recent history it seems like little more than the revival of Puritan thinking. Once again, the social media platforms we frequent daily are deciding for us what is an is not appropriate content. This is a decision that shouldn’t be left in the hands of a small handful of companies, but rather in the hands of the users.”

18. Before You Go To University: Top 10 Logical Fallacies

Author: Brandon Kirby

“The wonderful thing about logic is that when practiced properly it finds falsehood against which there is no response. People who are found guilty of these fallacies have false arguments. Professors, scientists, economists, politicians, pastors, even philosophers, who make such fallacies can have their arguments that take this form immediately dismissed without further discussion.”

19. The Self-Destructive Nature of the Libertarian Party

Author: Jake Dorsch

“If you pay any attention to Libertarian Party politics, you would know there are far more gaffes than this that I could mention just from Gary Johnson alone. That said, I like the people I mentioned here and I think the named people would make excellent governors and senators.”

20. GoFundMe For Trump’s Border Wall. Sadly, It’s True.

Author: Killian Hobbs

“In my personal opinion, this is both a good and a bad thing. It raises many questions about the mindsets of the average American that is donating the funds directly out of their own pocket towards this campaign. Despite the general uselessness such a wall would actually have compared to say additional border staff or the like (if their intention is to truly increase border defense) they still are making large donations. The one upside to this, however, is that if it does work it will open the American public’s eyes to a notion that we Libertarians have been espousing for years: fund these things yourself rather than using our tax dollars towards it.”

The post Top 20 Being Libertarian Articles of 2018 appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2QZ48DZ via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #libertarian #beinglibertarian #being libertarian #freedom #free market

9 notes · View notes

sarastudiesstuff-blog · 5 years

Text

Network: On How to be Subversive and Sexist

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore" (Chayefsky 1976.) is the angry cry, turned meaningless mantra, yelled by both an angry disparaged man, Howard Beale, and his masses of young fans fed up with the way the world works. This film is a sharp satire on television culture, infotainment, and reality tv. However, in spite of it’s subversion of other media texts it still manages to espouse the dominant ideologies of gender and age. Faye Dunaway's Diana Christensen is the leader of a television channel, but she's also a cold, stereotypical "Frigid Bitch", the sort of woman often demonized in media as an emotionless homewrecker (which she is). She also encapsulates the fear of the detached younger generation, so brainwashed by TV that they do not have feelings the same way the older generation still does. Howard Beale’s masses of fans also contribute to this narrative, as they are easily manipulated by the shows they consume. Media had a heavy influence on this films creation, as it is about media itself, as through the medium of film it is found easier to represent television in such a similar medium. As subversive as the film is to television, it is still a film, created to make money, which means many people control the production. The ratings board, the studio, and the director can all make executive decisions that can make or break a film. Though this film attempts to make audiences think critically about what they're watching and seeing, and think about how media giants manipulate us to their own ends, the film itself often fails to question the status quo in favor of a slightly less controversial piece.

Network is a satirical film about the television industry. The characters, all television personalities, directors, or organizers must deal with a changing media landscape and attempt to up their ratings. When news anchor Howard Beale learns from longtime friend Max Sc that he will be fired, he goes on air and claims he will kill himself during the next broadcast, and goes on a tirade about what is wrong with the world, uttering the famous line “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore” (Chayefsky, 1976.). After his tirade gets some of the highest ratings in television history Diana Christensen, up and coming television programming director, decides to capitalize on it and create the Howard Beale show, featuring Beale as a “mad profit of the airwaves” to espouse his violent, but ultimate meaningless, complaints about the world (Chayefsky 1976). The Howard Beale Show is the most direct satire we have, as the show gets many other vague segments, and turns what was once a news anchor into a cultural icon, a symbol with no meaning behind it; “his ‘news’ show evolves into what we now call ‘infotainment’ ” (Trier 2006.) . Not only does the show satirize the infotainment style of news broadcasting that has now become so prominent online, but also the lengths to which one will go for ratings. Indeed, Diana’s other show project is a satire of the reality tv market getting more and more sensational and violent as she strikes up a deal with a terrorist group to make a reality show about their lives as terrorists, stating :“I want counter-culture, I want anti-establishment” (Chayefsky 1976). The two collide when The Howard Beale Show’s ratings dwindle, and Diana decides to let it go off with a bang by organizing for the terrorists to kill Howard on screen, ending the now less profitable Beale Show, and setting up a truly enticing second season of the now more popular terrorist reality tv. Hemmed amongst the satire is a portrait of characters Diana and Max, as they begin and end a relationship that ruins Max’s marriage, and heavily criticizes a so-called ‘television generation’ brought up on tv to have no real emotions, they play out the phases of their lives like television shows without any real connections. In these sections the film seems to uphold an older predominantly male generation as the last ‘good one’, and a younger generation, represented primarily by Dunaway, as emotionless or naive, with only the tv to guide them. That brings us to the dominant ideologies upheld in the film.

While intending to criticize the media and it's often unethical, callous way of working, Network seem ignorant to the marginalized groups the media ignores, undermining the media, but not the status quo. It seeks to be a harsh criticism of tv culture, and of the 'infotainement' we still see today, sensationalizing news stories while offering no solutions for the problems they espouse. Yet the female characters are polarizing. Diana Christensen is a hard, cold woman, Max is “not sure she's capable of any real feelings” because “she's television generation” (Chayefsky 1976). There is a tension in her character that serves to uphold the existing power structure because in spite of her role as a sharp satire on the sort of people who make and write the films and media texts that exploit the world, as written her character plays as a stereotypical cold woman. In addition, the actress playing her was not well treated after the film came out, Krishner’s 2014 review of the book about the making of the film he describes how “Mad as Hell pauses on three separate occasions to elaborate fights over just how much (and which bits) of Dunaway’s breasts might appear on screen”. A definite detriment to the treatment of her character both on and off screen. Also damningly, she seems to serve the purpose of showing that audience that the older male generation is better than the younger, more diverse generation, though not in so many words. The only characters who question Diana’s morality are the older male characters, Max and Nelson Chaney, claiming “this violates every canon of respectable broadcasting”, upon keeping the now obviously mentally ill Beale on air, and later describing ‘The Howard Beale Show’ as “gutter depravity” (Chayefsky 1976). Diana and the mindless hordes of youth who are angry at something they don’t understand are the only other young people we see. The other woman is Max’s wife, a put upon woman from an older generation who has lived through max’s infidenlity, suffering many a “convention weekend with [his] secretary” for reasons we are never privy to, because Louise Schumacher does not get to be a fully rounded character (Cheyefsky 1976). An audience member can read into her character and see her as a woman trapped by the society she grew up in, and stuck in her ways, even when they harm her, but with her whopping two minutes of screen time we only hear her lament about her husband. These women serve to paint a very madonna/whore picture within the film. The cold calculating bitch, and the kindly put upon wife are the two options shown to women. The cast of male characters is more nuanced and diverse, as usual, and serves to uphold the power structures they put in place as their portrayal is more sympathetic.

The film posits “television is not just dehumanizing;it establishes a divide between those who were brought up on it and those from an earlier era”, but in the view of this divide the perpetrate a negative bias towards a younger generation (Krishner 2014). The youth of the film are most shown as reactions to Beale’s famous ‘mad as hell’ speech, and are so easily influenced by the messages on their screens that they are convinced to angry, without any idea of what they’re really angry at. The manipulable youth flocking to Howard Beale, and watching his show en mass are certainly not upheld as the sort of people one should want to be. They, like Diana, are “television generation”, criticized for being “an entire generation that never knew anything that didn’t come out of this tube” in one of Howard’s rousing speeches. While Max and Howard are flawed, they are beat down by the world around them, the picture of them as men with no generation left, seeking meaning and emotion in a world that seems to have shifted away from both is the most sympathetic in the film. Yet it blames the world, not the characters who made it. The ‘things were better the way they used to be’ narrative is never really challenged in the film, unless the audience to read into Max’s wife’s performance as a true vindication of him, and not simply another displaced person calling on the sins of a broken man. Max is in fact the most sympathetic character in the film, as his wife gives her one and only monogue, the camera often trains on his reaction instead of her, painting a clear picture of who we are really supposed to care about.

This media text is a film about technology, something that would not have been created without the existence of film or television in the first place. The film explores the dangers of a medium that, according to Itzkoff (2011), the screen writer “described in another note as ‘an indestructible and terrifying giant that is stronger than the government’ ” , so the film would not exist without this supposed superpower. A film about the dangers of the television generation seems almost ironic as the two are so closely tied together it seems farcical for one to truly criticize the other. The media was instrumental to the creation and distribution of this work. Writer Paddy Chayefsky “made his early reputation in 1950s live television drama” (Kirshner 2014), giving him a direct pipeline to the world he intended to criticize. This film is about the influence that technology can have over the masses, and how that is used to pacify and distract them. Beale’s speeches are only about needing to “get angry”, because “The American people want somebody to articulate their rage for them”, but at first never asks them to do anything (Cheyefsky 1976) . The influence of technology is the choice of medium, the fact that this is a film presumes a separation between the world of film and tv that in the current technical climate grows smaller every day. However, in the film television looms over the characters as a specter to be criticized. The characters understand the world through tv, and interesting thought as film is much more global medium. Though Network isn’t concerned with appealing to a non-american audience, it seems only interested in an america-centric narrative. Globalization was, however, on the mind of this film. When Howard Beale does finally demand his audience “send a telegram to the White House”, ironically after exclaiming minutes of screen time earlier “I don't want you to write to your congressman”, he is lampooned for it by the network higher ups. In a meeting with the new head of the network he is told “There are no nations, there are no peoples”, and that instead “the world is a college of corporations” (Chayefsky 1976). An apt description of a future controlled by TNC’s instead of governments that has already begun to take up. In this way the film criticizes that while tv shows themselves are often not global television corporations certainly are, and that these transnational corporations have the capacity to run everything.

Structural powers that be are always limiting to any art that must turn a profit and Network is no exception. Any film is at the mercy of the studio distributing it, lest it never see the light of day, and so the film couldn’t be too offensive. In his book Mad As Hell: The Making of ‘Network’ and the Fateful Vision of the Angriest Man in the Movies David Itzkoff (2014) “notes an important curiosity-at the urging of the studio, Chayefsky dropped a scene in which Diana(Faye Dunaway) picks up a bisexual hustler in a gay bar and has an emotionally complex sexual encounter with him” (Krishner 2014). This moment, that could have humanized the cold Diana, and provided some lgbt representation is taken away not by the artist, but by the powers that be that deem it too salacious for a film that needs to be sold to the masses. Instead we get a glossed over line about how Diana’s “husband ran off with his boyfriend”, which certainly does not count as representation. An interesting change, as one of director Sydney Lumet’s previous films, Dog Day Afternoon, features a man needing money to help his transgender girlfriend fully transition. As much as the characters on screen are trying to sell their tv shows to the fictional masses, so too are the makers of the film trying to sell you their product. In that way it still had to be accessible and enjoyable to a large audience, so the masses of young people arise, and the older generation can be secure in their superiority. So it appeals to that market, and makes the studio feel secure in it’s distribution. Men fill most of the lead roles, so it will appeal to men, so it will secure in its final gross. Any art made under the sort of studio system film operates in is at the mercy of capitalism, no matter how artistic it may attempt to be, or even succeed in being. As much as the film criticizes the television industry, it is still a part of the film industry. In seeking capital any film is prevented from being too risky or critical, though this one manages to still get it’s message across.

Though Network criticizes the excess and culture of television, it lacks the foresight to also subvert the existing status quo of gender, and age, and the all too common narrative that in the past things were better. It’s creation was heavily influenced by the tv industry, as that is what it is about, and of course the powers that be in the film industry put certain restrictions on the finished product. In the end it is a creative endeavor made under capitalism, and therefore still in search of profit. The tension between the existing status quo and the technology that Network works so hard to subvert create a very interesting work in which some facets of modern life are heavily satirized, and others stay in line with the dominating ideologies.

#essays #posts #movies #film #feminist #feminism #critique #feminist critique #writing #my writing

1 note · View note

livinginlandmarketing · 3 years

Link

In recent months, several Southern California school boards have been forced to relocate or cancel their meetings because planned discussions about ethnic studies led to threats of violence.

On July 11, a fight broke out during Rep. Katie Porter’s town hall event at an Irvine park, when far-right figures organized a confrontation and one of Porter’s supporters was arrested for throwing a punch.

Last week, a Victorville councilwoman was arrested after clashing with police as they tried to remove one of her supporters from City Hall.

Physical confrontations during local government meetings aren’t the norm. But they’re no longer a big surprise either.

And in the wake of Jan. 6 — when some Southern California residents were part of a mob that beat police officers, threatened lawmakers and stormed the halls of Congress in a failed effort to prevent certification of an election in which former president Donald Trump lost — there is widespread concern that violence is coming to the routine government gatherings that keep democracy running.

It’s not clear if there’s been a spike in violent incidents and speech at local government functions, since no one appears to track that data. Generally, law enforcement officials say arrests and physical violence during civic meetings in Southern California remain rare.

But police agencies also have ramped up their presence at some public events. Surveys also suggest public officials — particularly health, election and education officials — are more concerned about their safety than ever before, with most citing threats by a diverse coalition of largely right-wing activists. Other data shows a doubling of threats of physical harm against Congress members, while organizations that track hate crimes say they’re seeing an increase in hostility directed at local county, city and school board officeholders.

The hostility can include hate speech, which is protected by the First Amendment but can set the stage for physical violence.

A disturbing example played out at an Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, July 27.

A member of the public who identified himself as “Tyler Durden” (a character from the movie “Fight Club”) and a member of “America First” (a motto championed by Trump and his supporters) directed his public comment at the board’s Vietnamese American Chair, Andrew Do. The speaker described Do, an American citizen whose family once fled a communist regime, as “one of these communist parasites,” and told him to “go the f— back to Vietnam.” The supervisor did not respond, but the comments drew cheers from the crowd.

“A lot of the attention is being paid to officials and agencies that (previously) people wouldn’t even know about,” said Brian Levin, a criminal justice professor at Cal State San Bernardino who directs the university’s Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism.

Levin said the center he leads recently started to track violent incidents and speech at local governmental meetings, a world he didn’t previously see as a hotbed of conflict.

“Traditionally, these have been sleepy places that have been off the radar,” Levin said, referring to gatherings of city councils and school boards, among others.

But he added that government meetings increasingly are targeted by activists who use violent speech — or the threat of actual violence — to raise their profile. The local events, Levin said, “are being amplified by a subculture that’s on social media, and is able to tie these meetings to some cataclysmic event.” That’s creating some trends that Levin described as “vivid” and “distressing.”

Peter Levi, an Orange County-based regional director for the Anti-Defamation League, said officials and members of the community can push back against violence before the trend ramps up. But, he added, those steps may require some training and tough conversations and courage.

“When good people do nothing, that is the big danger.”

Why now?

Violence in American politics is nothing new. Everything from the Civil War to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan (founded specifically to disenfranchise Black voters and later to enforce Jim Crow segregation) to the assassinations and bombings that punctuated American politics in the 1960s and ’70s, are examples of political violence.

Local government meetings have not been immune, even if the incidents are usually less spectacular than war or insurrection. In 2012, for example, police arrested a woman who refused to stop speaking during a Riverside City Council meeting. And in 2016 officials took a boxcutter away from a man at a Los Angeles City Hall meeting.

But Levin said a “confluence of factors” is making the current political moment ripe for actual violence, even in local meeting halls.

The public, he noted, no longer trusts former community touchstones, such as police and universities and newspapers and health experts. At the same time, ethnic and racial diversity, multiculturalism, and acceptance of all sexual orientations are changing in ways that threaten people who once benefited from the old status quo.

Toss in trends like the recent coarsening of political discourse, the rise of social media (where facts and propaganda and conspiracy theories co-mingle and can have equal sway), and the tension that comes from a global pandemic, and you’ve got a recipe for potential violence.

It’s the “democratization of hate,” Levin said, and a political landscape where “extremism has become mainstream.”

To illustrate that point, Levi with the ADL noted that Nick Taurus, a self-proclaimed American Nationalist who coordinated the July 11 confrontation at Porter’s town hall, is not running against Porter in the 45th District as a third-party candidate. He’s running as a Republican.

“They don’t even have to share the same anchored and rigid ideology,” Levin said, referring to people who might resort to violence to make their political points.

“The fears are amorphous, but the villains are particular.”

Targeted hate

When it comes to villains, there’s a long tradition of extremist groups on both sides of the political aisle opposing federal authority. But in recent years, Levin said Trump and some Republican leaders effectively directed the focus of a significant swath of the country away from traditional boogeymen that Americans of all political stripes once rallied against — such as Soviet Russia or ISIS. Instead, Trump and his supporters have urged voters to revile specific national political figures on the left, agencies such as the FBI (“the Deep State!”), and even local or state-level elected officials, who Trump, while president, sometimes called out by name.

In April 2020, after Trump used Twitter to air his criticism of Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmore, armed protesters invaded Michigan’s state capitol, prompting some elected officials to put on bulletproof body armor and call off a discussion about COVID-19 safety measures. And during the unprecedented attack of Jan. 6, Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” and threatening to kill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

When such incidents are discussed, critics on the right frequently mention violence from the left. They note that in 2018, when the Trump administration was taking heat for its policy of separating families at the U.S. border, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of Los Angeles encouraged supporters to confront Trump Cabinet members wherever they were spotted in public. Republicans also have characterized Antifa, which is short for “Anti-fascists” and is a loose network of far-left activists who typically organize to counter efforts by white supremacists, as a threat to America’s political health and safety.

Levi, of the ADL, said his group does track hate crime from the left, and that his chapter recently provided training to local law enforcement on how to identify such threats.

In April, a group of about 10 men dressed in black who identified themselves as Antifa said they were attending a Los Alamitos Unified School District board meeting as “peacekeepers,” after the board’s previous discussions about school programs aimed at reducing bias drew raucous crowds. Police eventually directed the school board to hold meetings on the topic virtually for safety reasons.

But Levi and many others have said the data is clear: The vast majority of hate-based violence currently is coming from white supremacists and other figures on the far right. And, to date, there are no reported examples of far-left activists disrupting regular government meetings in Southern California.

The Orange County Board of Education planned to hold a July 27 forum to discuss critical race theory — a decades-old view of systemic racism that’s become a new hot-button topic for Republicans — in the unincorporated community of Rossmoor. But after the Orange County Sheriff’s Department told the board that 69 deputies would be needed to maintain security, and that the board would be asked to pay $96,000 to cover that expense, the board moved the forum to their offices in Costa Mesa.

This month, city council members in Huntington Beach were escorted by police as they attended public meetings to discuss how to fill an empty council seat. The seat had been left vacant when former Councilman Tito Ortiz — who mocked masks, espoused conspiracy theories and become a local hero among Trump supporters — resigned because he become uncomfortable with the negative attention he received as an elected official.

Huntington Beach Mayor Kim Carr said she did not feel nervous or fearful at the meetings, and that she welcomes “dissent.” But police recommended extra precaution when Ortiz supporters pushed loudly for the council to choose as a replacement a woman who previously embraced language used by white nationalists. The council went a different direction, appointing civil rights attorney Rhonda Bolton.

“I think sometimes people try to intimidate you with this type of rhetoric,” Carr said, referring to heated political discourse. “It doesn’t work on me. I’m not sure who it works on. I’ve never seen it be successful.”

Some of the speakers, Carr said, walked “right up to the edge” of voicing comments that could be considered threats. However, she didn’t believe anyone crossed that line or instigated violence.

“But you don’t want to under prepare,” she said. “You need to always be ready in case somebody decides to take things a little too far.”

What can be done?

Southern California law enforcement agencies say it’s standard practice to have at least one uniformed officer at government and political functions. Agencies also routinely monitor online chatter and other sources to determine if they need to send additional support or recommend other safety precautions.

For Porter’s town hall, which was punctuated by violence, Irvine Police Sgt. Katie Davies said her agency was aware of planned protests before the event. The police, she added, communicated with the town hall organizers and eventually staffed the event with five officers.

Police generally recommend that political events be held in private locations, where access can be controlled, Davies said. Porter’s team planned the town hall in a park, since the event was billed as “family friendly” and outdoor gatherings are less likely to spread coronavirus, and because it was Porter’s first big in-person event since the start of the pandemic. Porter’s team did not ask for police to limit access to the event, and Davies said that would have gone against police’s responsibility to guard freedom of speech rights.

Porter declined a request to be interviewed for this story.

Some of Porter’s supporters criticized the Irvine PD for not having more officers present, and said the officers who were on the scene took too much time to respond when the fight broke out.

But Davies said that based on the information police had prior to the event, “the amount of police personnel was appropriate.”

“Our role is to be a uniformed presence, keep the peace, and respond to any criminal activity that may occur… . If criminal activity occurs, we handle it appropriately, as we did in this case.”

It’s a complex issue, to be sure. Many leaders on the left generally want police to be less aggressive, particularly in the wake of police violence during last year’s Black Lives Matter protests. And some elected officials fear that having a line of officers at a town hall would simply raise any existing tension.

But Levin said his Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism generally advocates for better securing all political gathering places, from federal and state capitols to local school board meetings.

Their recommendations include making sure uniformed law enforcement is present, not allowing firearms at the scene, and quick removal of anybody causing a disruption. Also, Levin said, everyone from police to political leaders to members of the public need to read the room and be aware of tension at a meeting, to avoid being caught off guard if violence breaks out.

Better data can help drive better safety planning. So Levin also is advocating for creation of a statewide commission on what’s been termed the current “State of Hate.”

Levi, of the ADL, said violent extremism doesn’t emerge from a vacuum; it starts with violent language. And that’s why, in his view, hostile, xenophobic, homophobic rhetoric that’s becoming routine during, say, the public comment portion of the O.C. Board of Supervisors meetings, needs to be addressed. That kind of talk, in his view, can escalate to something more serious.

Levi also says people shouldn’t directly engage with extremists. “You’re never going to convince them (to favor your opinion), and it just feeds into their narrative.”

One of the tactics employed by extremist groups is to come to public places and use aggressive, violent rhetoric as a way to bait a response from the other side. If the counter protesters take the bait and throw a punch — which might be what happened during Porter’s town hall — the violence can be described as having been committed by them, not the original agitators.

Instead Levi doesn’t recommend total silence. In the case of hate speech made during public comment periods, Levi said elected officials should “use their power and authority to condemn such… speech, and say it has no place in their chambers… rather than passively sit there.”

Several local leaders have spoken up to condemn the racist comments recently directed at Republican Supervisor Do. State Sen. Dave Min, D-Irvine, called the comments aimed at Do “despicable” and “unacceptable.”

Levi said he’d like to see a hotline to encourage people to report hate incidents at public meetings. He also wants to see resources spent to train police, public officials, teachers and others how to recognize and react to extremist language and behavior.

Some community members are organizing on social media to counteract extremists.

But, in this case, the mere threat of violence is exerting its own power.

Many who want to push back believe it won’t be safe to attend local meetings and express their view — particularly when agitators include people who refuse to wear masks or get vaccinated for COVID-19.

“This is the major problem,” tweeted @InMinivanHell, who regularly shares examples of what she views as extremism at Orange County meetings. “The only people speaking up & having their voices heard are far-right conspiracy believers.”

“As a community,” she said in another tweet, “we deserve to be kept safe from threats and racism when attending govt mtgs.”

-on August 02, 2021 at 12:00AM by Brooke Staggs

#riversidenews

0 notes

fidelishaereticus · 7 years

Text

some thoughts on sexism and how we talk about it. (this got kinda long, sorry, i tried not to post it)

Can we kill this debate that’s like “Women are Good and Pure and Never Hurt Each Other and All Men are Abusive Monsters” versus “Men are All Good, All Soft Soft Beautiful Boys Incapable of Harm, Sexism Must Be A Conspiracy of Cartographers (read: If Women Are Still Oppressed It’s Their Own Dam Fault)” ?

can we kill it? canwecanwe pleeeease??

because both extremes are just so obviously wrong and yet i see people going out of their way to die on these hills every day. people taking any benign post that’s like “ugh i hate having to experience sexism as a woman, really throws off my groove” and interpreting it as An Attack on All Men. Or, on the other end, people ASSUMING that a person (or character) is gonna be a gross sexist abuser just because they’re a man.

So on the one hand, we’ve got the Reactionary Gender Defense Squad for Men being all outraged at the slightest suggestion that the sexism in our society is the responsibility of any men ever (like “hey girls if you’re experiencing sexism, remember it’s your own damn fault or maybe the fault of your female friends, but certainly not the fault of any men. remember! men are all Pure and Good. its the Perfect Gender :D”). (<—i s2g every time i read a post implying this i strangle the air like. please stop. please. yes girls can be sexist too, but please stop casually blaming women for their own experience of sexism, it is ….very rude and upsetting)

On the other hand, heaven forbid we recognize how, even in the most sexist of cultures, men women are all individuals who exist beyond the categories of “oppressor” and “oppressed”. Yes, some women do in fact espouse and perpetrate sexism. Some women are abusers. And some men are truly gentle and harmless and kind; some men find themselves in situations where they may experience disadvantages (non-structural sexism, if you will) on account of their sex (kinda like how a white person in america can be bullied for their whiteness by a group of black peers, and it really can hurt them, and it is real bullying and a real problem in that situation, even while lacking the clout of Structural Racism). So (this is a delicate point) while it is extremely understandable that oppressed classes be distrustful of oppressor classes, many of us are in situations where we are capable of transcending a strictly survivalist mentality. We can understand situational complexities and evaluate individuals as whole people rather than judging them by crude categories. And those of us who have the mental energy to do that….should? Yes, rage is cathartic, and sometimes a very important part of healing and fighting back. And god knows reactionary ideologies and hyperboles can be good cheeky fun and also a part of healing / combatting the drudgery of being oppressed (i meanbcatch me flippantly yelling things like FUCK THIS HET BULLSHIT and HELLO NAUGHTY CHILDREN GENDER IS CANCELLED 8D on the regular). But it can go too far. Sometimes, we slip into deliberately espousing rage and digging our heals hard into catchy reactionary ideologies and making snap-judgements and wide sweeping statements about other groups more because it’s easy and “the cool thing to do” than because it’s helpful or healing. Like…maybe we just do it because group mentality takes hold, and that’s gratifying and secure, and we feel righteous doing it, and idk this is just a thing humans do (forge reactionary ideologies around group identities and then fling them at eachother like grenades)? It’s natural, and to an extent inevitable, be we can catch ourselves, we can apologize where we have hurt, we can do better. So yeah, idk, as an afab, agender individual, i fucking hate that sexism exists, i hate it every goddamn day, and yeah it kinda fucked me up a little, its probably a huge part of why I’m agender*, but i personally am not suffering SO MUCH that i need to take it out in blind rage on every man i encounter. So I don’t, not even online. Because guess what? That guy who sits next to me in microbiology? It’s not his fault. Is he part of the priveleged class in a sexist soceity? Yes. But “privilege” does not automatically make a person bad (hell, it doesn’t even automatically make them lucky: some other disadvantage might might come along and completely counteract all the advantage that privilege could be giving them; you never know). Evil is not inherited or biologically bestowed. The bad parts of our culture rub off on all of us: we live and speak and breath them, and yeah, within that structure, historically oppressive classes are in general endowed with more power to abuse / don’t have to deal with all the layers of bullshit that oppressed classes have to put up with. But those realities and trends don’t define who we are as individulas, and pretendign they do really flattens the world into a very bleak, helpless determinism.

So on the one hand, it’s really hurtful to deny the very real disadvantages that many women have and continue to experience simply by virtue of existing in a culture that traditionally empowers men at the expense of women. It is ESPECIALLY rude to make sweeping statements blaming “women” for their own sucky situation (by denying the responsibility and/or existence of an oppressive class). AT THE SAME TIME, it is deeply fucked up to imply that anyone is inevitably going to become a monster because of their gender identity and/or because of the way they were born. We can’t treat race and sex/gender like they’re some kind of original sin, whereby one inherits the collective guilt for all the evil deeds of one’s predecessors. Its just….its a very fucked up hole to go down and i’ve been down it and, no. Bad shit.

So idk, forging a think-space somewhere between “All Men Are Monsters” and “Sexism Against Women Doesn’t Exist / Is Women’s Fault” would be a really nice.

*transphobes DO NOT TOUCH THIS WITH A 10 FOOT POLE, I WILL CUT YOU and your gender WILL be cancelled

#this got really long #sorry #i have...some feelings #im so tired of seeing this play out again and again #SWEEPING STATEMENT #REACTIONARY SWEEPING STATEMENT #SWEEPING REACTION TO THE REACTIONARY STATEMNT #NO COMPROMISE WE DIE LIKE TUMBLRITES #...is it over?#like. is it done?#e____e #sorry i tried rll hard #not to post this #but i have a lot of feelings ok

5 notes · View notes

justslowdown · 8 years

Note

hey there. there are a ton of radfems who were/are transmen and we have a lot more compassion than you think. I think there are misunderstandings on both sides. if you would like to watch this video, this woman may speak to your experiences a little bit. feel free to delete this ask and I won't bother you again, though. youtube watch?v=0hEMLbUxRQA

yep, i’m aware of that. and i’m sure that there ARE misunderstandings on my end too.

it’s just that it’s painful to research an ideology when a basic tenet of it is that i’m actually a woman and trans women are actually men, that gender is a fixed and innate trait, when those beliefs inherently belittle and disrespect me and the people i love. those ideas deny us our agency and our right to define our own bodies.

anyways, thank you for the link. i did watch it. it’s interesting, and a valuable perspective. the experiences of people who detransition, while obviously valid, don’t take precedent over anyone elses’, though.

yes, being trans isn’t a one-size-fits-all thing, yes, people can idealize it in a way that ends up harmful, and yes, people can transition out of a place of unaddressed trauma or internalized misogyny… and i strongly agree with the woman who made the video that gender therapists shouldn’t sell transitioning as something that will fix someones’ entire life, then be unable to help when it doesn’t, or when it makes things worse.

the thing is–gender is individual. peoples’ relationships with it are their own. this womans’ experience, and yours, are individual. they should never be trivialized, but neither should they be held up as evidence of Why Trans People Are Misguided, u feel? and a lot of radfems espouse much more hateful ideas than that.

humans invented gender. it means something different to everybody. and if your ideology involves telling people they aren’t who they think they are….. ? uh? maybe just take a step back and ask yourself why you think you have any more of a right to define them than they do? we’re all humans with flawed and limited worldviews; yours isn’t inherently superior. people have a right to define themselves, because they’re the only ones who know what they’re experiencing. what’s right for you isn’t automatically right for us.

#i did some digging into the ideology before making this and i kind of feel sick #maybe YOU have some compassion but uh #most of the people under that umbrella #.....

1 note · View note

equalrightsforfathers · 8 years

Text

Seeking no more and no less than legal equality and genuine equity under the law

If you are facing Family Court Abuse and Children Protection Services Agency: CPS-DFYS / DCP&P / DCF / DHHS [whatever name CPS is called in your state] is involved in your case please join us to help defeat their fraud, pain and suffering, emotional, physical, psychological and financial abuse -racket.

United we can! This is NOT Fathers Rights groups but FAMILIES fighting together the system. There are woman and men protecting our children's future that understand that Judges are destroying us all for money.

Men's Rights Internet Statement

– Living Document Born March 2013

General

principles that we believe are a forming, coalescing consensus.

A working group formed in December of 2012 through a variety of men’s rights publications, forums, and YouTube channels. Over four dozen people from around the globe participated in making suggestions and giving general input. Despite the large number of people from diverse backgrounds, and the fact that almost none of the participants knew most of the others, its development was shockingly un-contentious, even on some of the more contentious points.

This is not a document anyone is expected to sign or pledge to. It is an effort to identify a general consensus.

This document is not released with the intention being the definitive statement of goals for all men's advocates, but rather, a set of goals and ideas that we believe represent common sentiments within the movement. People will be free to agree with all of these, most of these, some of these, or only one of these; if they'll work with us on any of them, then we'll work with them on that. Furthermore, other groups are welcome to take these goals and adapt and change them for their own purposes.

The gender war is a destructive social construct. Viewing the other sex as an enemy to be fought, or an oppressor to be overthrown, does not benefit men or women. Only a select few will profit from the hostility and distrust this creates. The interests of both men and women are best served by ending the gender war, and to working together to alleviate the iniquities visited upon all human beings, regardless of sex.

Feminism is not necessarily what feminists say it is

Many prominent individuals who self-identify as feminists espouse ideals of equality and equity, but often act against an ethic of equality under the law. For this reason, many men’s advocates have come to the conclusion that feminist activism is dependent on identifying women as victims and men as perpetrators of oppression. While those not solidly entrenched in the day to day gender struggle tend to think “feminism is about equality,” professionals at universities, in government, and in political action groups often act against legal equality and genuine equity through their decisions and actions--and do so in the name of feminism.

Furthermore, anyone genuinely working under the “feminism is about equality” mentality should be natural allies in the collective fight for men's rights. But those feminists with actual power frequently endorse and exploit sexist ideas in order to promote their divisive ideology, and to raise money, and dismiss, marginalize, or outright mock men’s issues, occasionally even with violence.

For these reasons, self described feminists should not necessarily be considered de-facto experts on what constitutes gender equity. Men's voices must be heard, even if women aren't always comfortable with what they hear.

Traditionalism is a choice, not an obligation

No one can speak for all men's advocates, but most try to be accurate, objective, and honest about masculinity and femininity. They recognize that men and women are different, but they don’t want to promote discrimination, stereotypes, or prejudices that would limit anyone’s ability to exercise their own ability and talent.

Chivalry, a concept in which men have a social obligation to put their interests below women's, is common in many countries. Failure to adhere to this code can result in significant social backlash against men. We reject a code that ascribes greater value to one sex or the other. When men's advocates attempt to describe differences between the sexes, they are not trying to prescribe them. Men's human rights advocates look to the future, they don’t cling to the past, and they agree that your genitals should not determine your lifestyle or your rights. If you want to be a traditionalist, be one. If you don’t, that’s fine too.

Misandry is real, and pernicious

Most

respected dictionaries now recognize that misandry - the hatred or contempt of male humans - is a real word. Some gender ideologues continue to insist that misandry does not and cannot exist, but MRAs, by and large, understand that misandry is real, and is being used to strip men and boys of basic human rights and dignity. Misandric messages invalidate boys and men by telling them that they are guilty by association to all the harmful acts committed by other men, for no other reason than that they are male, but ignoring the corresponding association to positive acts by other men, of discovery, invention, daring, bravery, sacrifice, loyalty, love, and kindness. Misandric messages also tend to ignore negative and harmful actions by women. In general, misandry tells men and boys that part of what defines who they are, their very identity as male, is something dangerous and shameful. These messages are culturally toxic and psychologically harmful to men and boys.

Men

deserve the right to dignity, just as much as women. Men deserve the same right as women to not be associated with despicable actions simply because they were committed by members of their sex. Men’s rights advocates agree that misandry is real, and that it should not be tolerated any more than isogyny would be, and have taken on the responsibility for acknowledging, exposing, and opposing misandry. Because if they don’t do it, then who else will?

Strong, independent women are helpful, not helpless

Most men's human rights advocates love seeing strong, capable, and independent women as part of society. But they are disappointed to see the rise of idealized, infantilized, sheltered, and fearful women. Men's human rights advocates understand that power and authority should come with responsibility and accountability.

Rewards come with risks: if you take credit then you should also accept blame. If you criticize, then you should also be able to accept criticism. Making excuses for bad behavior by women, or blaming it on men, is condescending. Women who want equality should speak out against such attitudes and behaviors. The only way people experience personal growth is through life experience and our present society stunts women’s growth b coddling them.

Men's rights advocates object to feminism’s narrow focus on women’s problems and fears, and to feminism’s track record of treating human issues as divisive gender issues. Men's advocates object to gynocentrism (focusing only on the female perspective) and female supremacism. We respect skill and maturity, regardless of whether the person is male or female.

General Men’s Rights Movement Goals

When it comes to men’s activism, some have already decided that their role will mostly be passive: become Men Going Their Own Way, by refusing to participate in marriage or even cohabitation with the opposite sex, or otherwise defining their own lives outside the dominant gender discourse, and nothing more. This is fine, as we are all free to make our own choices as to what role(s) we would like to play.

Others feel that "defeating feminism" is the only goal. Our view is that even without feminism, many of the problems we face would remain.

As in any movement there will be people with significant influence and authority even if this authority is informal. Who these people are will change constantly. As a result “We” can just mean “I.” There is nothing preventing you from deciding to care about one of these items, or three of them, or half of them, or all of them. The point is, they are goals not dogma.

Some of the goals for the men's movement are (in no particular order):

We stand for all boys and men. Questions of race, creed, color, nationality or sexual orientation are completely irrelevant to us. This is non-negotiable: we are a movement for the needs, well-being and interests of all men and boys everywhere, seeking no more and no less than legal equality and/or genuine equity under the law.

We are a human rights movement, and as such concepts of universal human rights are a part of that movement. Addressing the needs of men and boys is not a zero-sum game. Our focus is on men and boys because we believe men and boys are in particular need of help at this time.

We have no interest in legally denying anyone the right to control their reproduction; however we seek equitable reproductive rights for all persons regardless of sex. As a movement we believe no one should be forced into parenthood by the state or another individual, and that sexual intercourse is not consent to parenthood. As such, mothers seeking arbitration from the courts in order to collect child support from a man she names the father should be required to submit a written instrument of consent signed by him, in which he explicitly accepts responsibility for, as well as defines his rights to, his child/ren. This will allow him to positively establish paternity through a DNA test before signing and allow both mother and father to define the rights and responsibilities of both parties rather than allowing the state to do so. Furthermore, if a mother conceals a pregnancy and subsequent birth from a father and he learns of this afterward without being given the opportunity to negotiate parenthood with the mother then he should have redress to obtain paternal rights and responsibilities.

Development and availability of a male fertility control device, drug or method that is safe, affordable, effective and reversible should be a top priority.

Paternity testing should be a standard practice when a father is added to a birth certificate or otherwise formally (legally) recognized as the child’s father. Where there is a willfully false claim of paternity, prosecution should occur.

If a woman opts to give up a child for adoption, all reasonable efforts must be made to allow the father the option of being that child’s sole parent before the child can be given over to any adoption agency.

Women are frequently pedestalized, and men demonized, when it comes to criminal arrest, conviction, and sentencing. This is an injustice against men and infantilizes women. Laws and legal practices and customs which establish lighter or heavier sentences based on sex should be abolished.

Foster the emergence of a new cultural narrative where all men and women are encouraged to live their lives as they see fit, without preferential treatment, while also being expected to bear the responsibility for their personal choices.

Default physical and legal co-parenting must be the norm where both parents are competent, willing, and do not endanger the child’s physical or mental well being. We wish to promote a narrative of recognizing fair custody arrangements towards fathers as an important issue, both in terms of fair treatment of fathers, and as being in the best interest of all children's healthy development and quality of life. In divorce or separation of non-married parents, daily contact with both parents, and living arrangements which strive to be as close as practical to 50/50 time with both parents, should be the norm.

If there is strong evidence that children shouldn’t be with one or both parents, regular review of the conditions for access and visitation should occur to recognize that circumstances can and do change; the child’s right to both parents must be protected unless one or both has given up the child for adoption (i.e. legal surrender).

False and malicious accusations of rape or other violence, when they can be distinguished from mistaken accusations, must be subject to strict penalty under law. Laws against lying under oath or wasting time (of the police or courts) must be enacted where there are no such laws in place, and/or enforced without gender bias where they do exist.

The presumption of innocence must be seen as a fundamental right for anyone accused of any crime and restored to anyone accused of domestic violence or any form of assault, sexual or otherwise. So-called “rape shield” laws must either be extended to cover the accused as well as the accuser, or abolished entirely.

Debtor’s prison has been abolished in most civilized nations except in one crucial area: men who are unable to pay support payments due to disability or other impoverishment. This practice must be abolished, and debts owed due to support must be treated like any other debt to be paid, and subject to reasonable negotiation and renegotiation when circumstances do not make payment of support practical. Throwing men in jail for being unable to pay not only violates their fundamental human rights; it often robs children of their fathers and leaves those fathers unable to work to pay the debts they owe. This is an abomination and must be ended.

We seek to promote social recognition that men can be victims and women can be sex offenders, and that statements which belittle or marginalize the experiences of male victims of sexual assault, including male victims of female sex predators, are likely based on a worldview that pedastalizes women and demonizes men. Such attitudes are hateful and toxic, and must be opposed.

Standards for what constitutes illegal violence - domestic, sexual, or otherwise - should not discriminate on account of sex or such things as size or weight. Violence is violence. Assault is assault. Sexual assault is sexual assault. The law must be neutral regarding sexual characteristics or physical traits. Zero tolerance policies which fail to differentiate between a heated argument and a crime must be abolished. Mandatory arrest policies must either be abolished or must treat both parties as potential co-criminals and both parties should be arrested. So-called “primary aggressor” policies which presuppose the existence of one “victim” and one “abuser” have been repeatedly shown to be wrong in most cases, and should be abolished as standing policy.

Mandatory restraining orders which isolate and intimidate couples who wish to communicate and cooperate with each other must be recognized as damaging, and the law must be made to recognize that such orders may damage career and reputations and as such should be expungeable if found to be fraudulently or frivolously obtained, or no longer needed.

Abuse of restraining orders by anyone seeking to use them as a weapon to deny access to children or gain an upper hand in divorce or custody disputes should not only be recognized, but subject to penalty under law.

Policies which allow alleged victims to be punished for refusing to cooperate with prosecution must be abolished.

Financial incentives for prosecution of any crime by the state must be abolished.

In divorce or separation of non-married parents, efforts should to be made to promote mediation and solutions that do not involve the court or other state agencies wherever possible.

Recognizing that marriage cannot be abolished by the state, because cohabiting persons will still have disputes over children and finances if they separate, “marriage” should be viewed as an enforceable contract. Couples wishing to marry should be allowed to negotiate what their marriage contracts involve to include issues such as child custody, any theoretical support, education, support payments in case of severance, and so on. Marriages are agreements between people, and contracts should spell out specifically what is and is not agreed to. In the absence of a formal contract, presumption of shared parenting must be enforced as noted above.

Any government funding towards health research and services, should such funding exist, should be allocated in a way that gives equal and fair consideration to the health needs of men, women, and children, recognizing that while maternal health influences the health of both boys and girls in the future generations, so too the health needs of boys and men should be recognized as equally important to all of society. We may argue later whether or how much government should spend on public health measures; in the meantime, men and boys must be given equal consideration under the law when there is such funding.

Government-funded educational programs (such as scholarships), if they exist, should either do away with preferential treatment by sex, or, be expanded to include programs to encourage males to enter fields where they are under-represented and or continue their education as they see it. One way or the other, the double standards in education must end.

Abolish medically unnecessary genital mutilation or surgery on infants and minors. If a person wishes to have their genitals altered, they may make this decision when they come of age.

There are documented and growing gender disparities in education with boys in particular lagging behind girls in multiple areas across much of the developed world. This must be addressed directly by looking at areas where boys as a group may have different educational needs from girls, and where teachers may be discriminating against boys consciously or unconsciously. Conscription or registration for conscription (“selective service”) must either be abolished or be an equal requirement for both sexes. One or the other…

We are under no illusion that all of these items will be automatically accepted overnight by everyone in the world, nor even that every men's advocate will necessarily agree with every word here. Nevertheless we believe it represents a road-map to a better future, and hope others will join, in whole or in part, in helping make these things happen.

This document last revised 3/11/2013. It is now considered “final,” although others remain free to copy and use it to their own purposes. However, modified copies must be clearly marked as modified from this original. Further discussion and debate is not only allowed, it is encouraged!

The initiator and primary editor of this document was Dean Esmay, who is solely responsible for any errors, omissions, or oversights. Others who wish to be identified as having given suggestions, input, or other collaboration should contact the author and let him know if they want to be publicly acknowledged.

3/13/2013: minor typo fixed, “deciding care” changed to “deciding to care,” removal of unneeded colon and a couple of unneeded periods in titles.

3/17/2013: Stray HTML tags that crept into the original removed. Addition of numbers to each of the goal statements, not for priority purposes but solely to make them easy to distinguish in discussion.

4/3/2013: Removed stray tag.

youtube

1 note · View note

serenagaywaterford · 4 years

Note

Are you a little annoyed with all the Serena joy comparisons when it comes to literally just about any woman in the trump administration? The latest one, is Ivanka, again... I mean, I don’t blame people for making that connection really, it’s all justified. Life imitating art, or vise versa, but as a Serena stan, it doesn’t make me feel great. I wonder what Yvonne thinks of all this.

I’m gonna be real, anon... I don’t pay any attention to THT discourse anymore. So many bad/uninformed/misogynistic/flat out ignorant opinions. I literally couldn’t care less what anybody says anymore about Serena--unless it’s Yvonne tbh lol. I used to care and argue, and occasionally there were fascinating and accurate criticisms and analysis, but by and large, it’s pointless and irritating -- especially within THT social media fandom itself. (Holy misogyny, Batman!) I got so sick and tired of it all so now I just don’t bother. I unfollowed all THT things on insta, never go on FB/twitter anyway, and never go into the tags here on tumblr. Everytime I do, I find 5 more people to block. So, I just... don’t. I’m here to have fun in fandom not argue ceaselessly in circles with people who are either incapable of understanding or refusing to listen to anything but their own narrow ideology/concepts.

While obviously there are comparisons to be made between her character and those of various conservative women throughout history (cos she was inspired by actual women who existed), I think people who just compare her to every single alt-right female pundit or rich white christian conservative woman... It’s just tiresome. Because it’s too reactionary and too simplistic. Not every white neocon woman is Serena Joy. Not to mention, we don’t actually know the full extent on Serena’s politics beyond the “traditionalist feminism” stance of “housewives are best!”. She has expressed in canon the disbelief she has about the system, and it was clear those were not her intentions. (Her complete lack of foresight/blind faith in men of power is an obvious problem if she didn’t want Gilead. Just the same as, for example, Shlafly. Idiots. And traitors, yes.) But to say she’s the same as Ivanka, who afaik has never espoused that all women should stay at home and be nothing but wives and mothers, is just so off the mark. Does Ivanka believe Serena’s most central tenet? Who knows. (Or maybe she does. Quite frankly, I’ve refused to engage with melodramatic mass media-fuelled American pseudo-politics for a year now cos it was too much trash.)

I think the thing about being a Serena fan, and the core thing to cope with, is that Serena’s ideology is explicitly anti-feminist (if not downright fascist). On just about every level, most likely, in the same tone deaf way many tradfems have and always have been. She harms other women, and herself, with her politics and beliefs (and actions), even under teh guise of protecting them. Serena is a villain, (dark) anti-villain, grey villain, or dark anti-hero, depending on your position. And stanning a character on the “villain” spectrum, requires us to feel bad lol. Unless you’re a villain yourself. I mean, when I see women in reality that echo my fictional character’s bad ways/thoughts, it’s difficult cos irl I have no such soft spot. (I do think there’s something to be said with trying to understand why such women exist, and how to shift those toxic ideologies, and where the root of all this internalised misogyny/rabid upkeep of the patriarchy comes from.) But generally? I’m not interested in Le Pen, Schlafly, Phelps-Roper, Weidel, Thatcher, Meloni, Bryant, Coulter, Morgan, or Lahren, etc. as people. I find their politics and ideology severely hypocritical and/or downright disgusting. I don’t have the same sympathies for them because they’re real--but I do recognise the larger social/political/psychological forces at work that create this sort of scenario and these sorts of zealots and woman-hating women. Serena Joy is fictional and dramatised, and it’s a totally different thing than actual real people causing harm. And it’s not as if Serena is painted as a good person, idol, or anything other than an occasionally mildly-sympathetic villain. But her being fictional, we can ascribe a lot more space for her to be more complex/change. As for what Yvonne thinks, I mean, she probably doesn’t give a shit lol. Let’s be honest, she’s a privileged Hollywood actress playing a character. She gets her paycheque and gets to do her job no matter what. While she is probably the biggest Serena fan as a character, I don’t think she would really concern herself about random people saying random things about her fictional role. I doubt she would even see those opinions. Actors are really not as plugged into politics and nuance as the general public seems to believe. Every single one of them in Hollywood with any sort of legit success lives in a bubble of privilege and ego, even the ones that seem the most down to earth on their Instas and interviews. Meh. I would suspect that Yvonne doesn’t know, and even if she did, she doesn’t care. Hell, she’d probably agree lol. It’s not exactly wrong. She knows she’s playing a shitty, difficult, unlikable character, heh. I just think for us, this is the cost of finding villains in fiction interesting/hot/etc. When you face the reality of people like them who actually exist, it isn’t pleasant lol. Cos ya hate ‘em in real life, but like the fictional versions, so it’s a contradiction and there isn’t really any solution to that! We just gotta live with the fact we stan a character that is in direct opposition to our personal, real life beliefs--and if she were real, we would dislike immensely. That’s just what fiction does. You just gotta keep it separate. When someone says Ivanka is Serena Joy, whether or not that is even accurate, I mean... as long as you don’t start going, “Well, they’re right, now I stan Ivanka!”... Loads of people are fans of villains, and as long as your fictional interests don’t morph into joining some alt-right anti-feminist group, I think you’ll be just fine. You can be a fan of evil/bad characters and not be a scumbag in real life and it doesn’t have to reflect you as a person at all. :)

#Anonymous

0 notes