#so over the rise of misogyny/“men's rights activism”

[lesbianjudasiscariot]

misandry is so not a real thing. any situation where women "have it easier" (which don't even really exist) are always because of culture the patriarchy created.

[llyfrenfys]

On Cadi as the Welsh equivalent of Queer

(image: screenshot of the entry for Cadi in Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru)

Some of you may already know this, but for those who don't, Cadi is a Welsh word which is analogous to the word Queer in English. I say analogous, since their meanings aren't quite a 1:1 match. But for shorthand, Welsh equivalent of Queer sums 90% of it up.

It has been suggested tentatively by some to use Cadi as the Welsh translation of Queer. I'm going to explore arguments for and against, but ultimately the choice to use/not use Cadi as a 1:1 with Queer is entirely up to you. Warning that this post is quite long, but I do hope you'll stick with it- please let me know what you think in the notes!

Without further ado, let's get into it:

Definition of Cadi:

Cadi is a term which has existed in Welsh since the 17th Century (roughly) and generally refers to effeminacy in men (real or perceived). Over time, the meaning of the term has expanded to refer to other (Queer) things as well. But the term itself largely has been applied to Queer men and queer masculinities through time.

The term itself derives from the girl's name Catrin and you will come across women who call themselves Cadi as a shortening of their name (like Liz from Elizabeth and so on). In this way, there is a strong point of comparison to be had with the English queer pejorative Nancy, which also derives from a girl's name.

Can Cadi be considered the Welsh equivalent of Queer?

So now to the real meat of the post. Can Cadi be considered the Welsh equivalent of Queer? The answer to that is, unsurprisingly, complicated.

As described above, Cadi is a term which has had strong associations with male effeminacy (real or perceived) and has close parallels to the English term Nancy, which is also nearly exclusively applied to Queer men and masculinities. What this presents is a quandary and I'll explain what I mean by that. But first, we need to outline the history of LGBTQIA+ terminology in general (in the West).

LGBTQIA+ Terminology and the inclination towards cis gay language:

This is a huge huge topic which I cannot possibly do justice to here alone, so I'd highly recommend reading up on these topics when you have time, but for the sake of brevity, here is a tldr on the history of LGBTQIA+ terminology (slightly UK-centric but similar events also happened in the US and Canada, as well as other parts of Europe).

Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) is a British Lesbian and Gay rights organisation founded in the 1960s, during a time of great social and political change. The organisation's membership grew and grew well into the 70s before declining in the 80s. It was during this time that some lesbian members of the organisation left citing erasure of lesbian issues and misogyny in the movement. CHE and similar gay and lesbian rights movements in this period had been inclined to centre gay men's issues in their activism, which understandably led to many lesbians feeling alienated. Some lesbians left in the late 70s and early 80s and began to form their own advocacy groups. This indirectly fed into a wider feminist upheaval at the time and led to the rise of lesbian feminism, which aimed to centre lesbian issues within feminism, but unfortunately (for complex historical reasons) did then contribute to the proliferation of rad\ical femi\nism within the Queer community, which then unfortunately contributed to the rise of tra\ns exclu\sionary rad\ical fem\inism. Regardless of the unfortunate rise of transphobia within the lesbian feminist movement, the original catalyst for the formation of these groups was a sense of alienation from the rest of the Queer community because gay men's issues had been prioritised over lesbian issues, when both could have been tackled together, with each other. This alienation was echoed in the names of organisations and events- many early homosexual rights groups only had homosexual or gay in their group names. It took many years before advocacy groups started adding 'and lesbian' to their names and events.

(For further reading, I would suggest watching this video by Verilybitchie about the history of lesbian erasure in homosexual advocacy and how that led to (some) lesbian groups excluding bi and trans people in the same way they were excluded by gay men)

What does that history mean for Cadi?:

Because of a history of lesbian (and by extension, women's) exclusion from homosexual advocacy groups, is Cadi the best term to use as a catch-all given its strong associations with men's expressions of Queerness? (namely, that as a pejorative it is largely aimed at femininity in men and subsequent assumed homosexuality). It is important to consider if using Cadi as an equivalent of Queer would centre a (typically cis) gay experience/expression of Queerness and if that would alienate other members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

However, a counterpoint to this would be that there are variations of the term Cadi which do include other experiences of Queerness:

Cadi ffan (similar to just 'Cadi')- typically used to describe femininity in men and boys [N. Wales]

Cadi genod/ Cadi merched (similar to above) - effeminate man/boy [N. Wales]

Cadi bechgyn - Romping girl, tomboy [N. Wales]

Cati fachgen - (similar to above)- Romping girl, tomboy [S. Wales]

Cadi Haf - Male maypole dancer dressed as a girl

They are, however, somewhat limited for use in reclamation and have to be qualified by another noun to indicate diversion from the original term's meaning.

But when talking about the term Cadi, we often speak in the abstract- without the context in which the term is used. So here are a few extracts from texts which use the term Cadi (or variants). Since this is a mostly spoken slang term, it doesn't turn up in print often, but there are a few examples to draw on.

Examples of Cadi in texts:

Page 164- Cwm Eithin by Hugh Evans (1931):

"DAWNSIO HAF Ceir darnodiad o'r ddefod hynafol dawnsio haf yn Y Gwyl- fedydd, 1823, tudal. 306, gan un a'i geilw ei hun “ Callestrwr,” fel yr arferid hi yn Callestr (Fflint, mae'n debyg). Ym mis Ebrill arferai o ddwsin i ugain o bobl ieuainc ymuno i baratoi ar gyfer y ddawns. Gwisgai'r dawnswyr eu crysau yn uchaf wedi eu haddurno ag ysnodennau a blodau. Cariai'r arweinydd fforch bren ar lun y llythyren Y. Gwnïid lliain o'r naill fraich i'r llall, ac addurnid y fforch ag amryw lestri arian, tebotiau, llwyau, cigweiniau, efc. Byddai gyda hwy grythor yn ei ddillad ei hun, “cadi” mewn gwisg merch, ac ynfytyn mewn gwisg ryfedd â phlu yn ei ben"

[emphasis mine]

This extract is the author's account of Dawnsio Haf- a Summer dance held on May Day and his investigations into it. At his time of writing (1931) the practice has died out, but later in this chapter he interviews an old woman from the Conwy Valley who participated in the dances as a child. Evans draws upon a source from 1823 for his description of Dawnsio Haf. In it, he mentions that 20 young dancers meet up for the dance wearing shirts decorated with ribbons and flowers. A leader carries a fork in the shape of the letter "Y"- between each point on the "Y" a cloth was strung with silverware dangling from it to make noise. With the 20 dancers would be a crwth-player (crythor), a Cadi in women's clothes and a fool with a feather on his cap and odd clothes.

This usage is quite archaic and refers to a folk dance- much like mumming or morris-dancing. There is however, a picture in the People's Collection Wales titled 'Cadi'r Big' taken by the prolific photographer John Tomas c. 1875, near Y Ro-wen:

Which is very interesting as Cadi'r Big has dried flowers and ribbons attached to their clothes, much like in the description in Cwm Eithin. This is very likely a picture of a "Cadi" from a Dawnsio Haf.

Page 4- Y Ddraig Binc Issue 4 (1994):

Y Ddraig Binc was a Welsh-language Queer magazine published by CYLCH, a gay and lesbian rights organisation based in Aberystwyth. The term Cadi-ffan is included in an article about the commercialisation of Queer identity in the magazine's fourth edition.

"...Nawr te, medd wrtho’i hun, be’ gymera’ i’r mis hwn, copi o GQ ynte Arena neu ydw i, efallai, yn teimlo’n ddigon ifanc a trendi am Sky? Ond aros funud, beth yw hyn? Dau gylchgrawn steil newydd a gwynt digamsyniol cadi-ffan arnyn nhw?

Ydy, mae’r hyn a oedd y tu hwnt i ddychymyg wedi digwydd. Mae grymoedd y farchnad rydd a chystadleuaeth wedi cyrraedd y byd cyhoeddi hoyw - rhaid bod Lêdi T wrth ei bodd. Nawr fe gaiff llanc hoyw ddewis o ddeunydd darllen sgleiniog, llawn erthyglau a hysbysebion yn arbennig ar ei gyfer ef a’i rywioldeb. Hwrê! Fedr hynny ddim bod yn beth drwg. Neu a fedr o?..."

[emphasis mine]

This humorous article (dealing with an important topic, mind) pokes fun at the arrival of Queer commercialisation. The article opens by explaining that there's a ruckus in the gay world (and not two old queens getting into fisticuffs)- but that this ruckus is taking place at WHSmith (UK stationery shop and newsagents)- apparent winner of this year's most vulgar uniform award. The author goes on to describe a hypothetical situation in which a gay man walks into a WHSmith to buy a magazine. He wonders whether to get a copy of GQ or Arena (men's style magazines- remember this was published in Section 28 Era so explicitly gay magazines were not common) or is he trendy enough to read Sky? (film and tv magazine). But wait- what's this? Two new style magazines with a whiff of Cadi-ffan about them? The author explains that yes, the unimaginable has happened. The forces of the free market and competition have reached the world of gay publishing.

Now a gay youth has the choice of glossy reading material, full of articles and advertisements especially for him and his sexuality. Hooray! That can't be a bad thing. Or can it? Writes the author. The article is very witty and I recommend a read (find a pdf copy here). But the usage of Cadi-ffan here is very much in a reclaimed sense. Though it must be noted that the story is told through a stereotypical cis gay lens.

Conclusions:

As I said at the start of this post, you are free to claim or not claim Cadi as you wish. However, as awareness of Welsh LGBTQIA+ terminology increases, I wanted to raise important questions and start a conversation about the words we have, what we want them to be and how they have been used against us. I hope in any case that this post has been interesting to you. If it has, please reblog this or add any comments/thoughts in the notes, tags or in my asks.

Beth yw eich barn chi? I'd love to hear other's thoughts on this and start a conversation about it! Diolch am ddarllen

[cuubism]

Hey just wanted to say you're not a killjoy at all, you're actually absolutely correct

Thank you, I wish I didn't have to be 😔 I wish we lived in a world where gender equality was so long solidified that we could make silly jokes like that and not have it inadvertently feed into real world misogyny. I could see a world where women's inequality was so far in the past that 'ugh i wish i could just have someone else pay for everything' could be a funny #relatable 'we all hate working' kind of joke because everyone understood we don't actually want dependency. But that's not this time period when so many people genuinely believe that a woman's place is only in the home, and when young women might see that joke and believe that giving up their independence is a good idea or that women fighting for the right to equality in employment was a mistake. It inadvertently feeds into the rising tide of misogyny and points people towards those "traditional values" influencers that really push the idea that women should (god i hate the phrase "women should") submit to men and that their only valid life path is being a wife and mother. Especially when algorithms tend to push people down alt-right rabbit holes, like, even my insta feed is full of trad wife fundamentalist christian content because I hate watch it and then the algo feeds me more 😂 that's on me really I should just block all those accounts.

I mean, I sympathize, I hate my job sometimes too, I think everyone would like to have a life where they didn't have to work 40+ hours a week and had more leisure time. Unfortunately we live in a world where money by and large equates to freedom. So my go to complaint isn't wow I wish I had no life choices and was dependent on a man for my livelihood! when I'm irritated about work 😂

A lot of the content made by younger women online recently seems kind of regressive in its approach to gender roles, "i can't do this i'm just a girlie" and so on (I'm aware it's a joke, but oftentimes stuff starts as a joke and then reaches people who don't see it as one), and I worry about us backsliding. I'm concerned by young women idealizing the Trad Wife lifestyle, not knowing their history and how dangerous a position it puts women in. I'm concerned by the 'stay at home girlfriend' trend, possibly MORE dangerous for how it lacks even the meager property and alimony protections of marriages. I'm concerned by the increasing gendered political divide and radicalization of young men, the way misogyny has become more and more virulent and loud and normalized over the past few years. The way women's rights are being rolled back with even more restrictions being pushed by the Right in an attempt to hold onto power and maintain their hierarchical worldview.

We need feminism more than ever right now, and additionally I think we all need to reclaim it from radfems and terfs. The word has become too associated with them, to the point I fear people are afraid to call themselves feminists for fear of it being misinterpreted, and I'm sick of it, why should terfs get to define it? Especially when our rights in society are all entwined. Reproductive rights--an issue that doesn't solely impact women but does disproportionately affect women--arises from the same root issue of fundamental bodily autonomy as does trans rights. Moreover the existence of trans and nonbinary people reinforces gender equality because if gender and sex are malleable, not fundamental and binary, then upon what basis is the oppression of women? How can one claim that women are less than men, or that women and men 'should' hold such and such roles when even the role of 'woman' or 'man' is not discrete. I hope terfs can come around to seeing that.

I don't believe in policing people's online activity unless it's like actually threatening hate speech, so I'm certainly not going to tell them they can't joke how they want. I just hope they think about why that's where their mind goes when they don't want to work, instead of wishing that society didn't work people to the bone, that people had more leisure time, that jobs were better and more meaningful etc. I hope they think about the women around the world who are still denied education and denied the right to work and forced to depend on their family or husband with no freedom or autonomy, and how much work it took women in the past to even get where we are, and how much there still is left to do.

[positivelife112]



Home

 

Feminist movements have historically lacked inclusivity, often growing within a limited Western upper-class psyche, based on their own challenges and needs. The digital revolution has paved the way for a new iteration of feminism. The digital space can bolster feminist activist movements by encouraging inclusion and improving accessibility in organising collective action. It also helps weave local stories with global narratives to highlight common structural inequalities. At the same time, however, the digital space can also become a breeding ground for sexism and misogyny. This brief attempts to analyse how digitisation can affect women’s movements, especially in emerging economies like India. It does so by viewing contemporary cyberfeminism through postcolonial and postmodern feminist theories. The brief also highlights the strengths and deficits of digital activism.

Feminism consists of social, economic and political movements and theories that are concerned with gender inequalities and gaining equal rights for women. In the West, the evolution of the feminist struggle is often referred to as ‘waves’ of change, reflecting peaks and troughs of the movement. The first wave of feminism began in the late 19th and early 20th century in the West, with the primary goal of securing voting rights. The second wave emerged in the 1960s amid a rising self-consciousness for minority groups, and against the backdrop of civil rights and anti-war sentiments. The movement largely focused on empowering minority groups over issues like reproductive rights and sexuality.2 The third wave of feminism began in the early 1990s, surging from the new postcolonial and neoliberal world order. The third wave deconstructed the idea of “universal womanhood,” with the focus moving from communal objectives to individual rights.

This brief borrows the wave analogy to establish the chronology of Indian feminist politics. The foundation of Indian feminism—the first wave—was laid by the reform and anti-colonial movements of the 19th century.  The aims of the movement centred around including women in public life with better political rights, access to education and employment in the context of the colonial state. Various social reformers took up specific issues to improve the status of women. Reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, for instance, argued against the ideas of sati, polygamy, early marriage and permanent widowhood. Further, the Brahmo Samaj gave impetus to mass education of girls and women. The movement for education and social reform was largely led by upper-caste Bengali Women. The reformist movement, as a result, led to various social gains such as the legalisation of widow remarriage in 1856 and the abolition of sati. The later part of the struggle remained preoccupied with the issues on property and inheritance, limiting the composition of the movement to upper-caste and elite class women.

After independence, India began to look inward to resolve social issues and create a systematic development plan for women. This second wave of feminism became broader as the intersectionality of caste, class and culture were recognised by the state. The movement entered the private sphere to claim equal rights pertaining to marriage, divorce, succession, justice for dowry and sexual violence, and economic opportunities. An exemplification of this can be found with the passing of Hindu code bills in 1950s, which provided equal rights to women through laws on divorce, marriage, adoption and inheritance. With the improvement in literacy levels and free movement, Indian women were beginning to determine their place in society and develop identity-consciousness. The key difference between the first and second wave was that the former was espoused by men on behalf of women and did not seem to challenge the hegemony of the Indian patriarchal social structure, instead focusing on specific cultural issues that conflicted with the idea of Western liberalisation. The latter was largely led by women and women’s organisations. The lines between women’s social, economic and political rights became blurred in this period. The Chipko movement in 1973, for instance, saw women protest for their rights against environmental and economical calamities. This movement is key in Indian feminism because not only was it a demand for constitutional rights, it also stood against the patriarchal social structures at a grassroots level.

In 1980, the Five-Year Plan decided to focus on the health, employment and education of women, marking the beginning of the third wave of Indian feminism. Women-led non-government organisations proliferated in a bid to provide support to other women. The movement also took up the rights of Dalit and marginalised women. The developmental programmes and women’s groups largely directed their effort to raise the economic and social status of women. Principally, women’s groups sought the empowerment of women to integrate them into the mainstream.

With the effects of economic liberalisation and the advent of modern technology, by the 2000s, women in India witnessed a cultural shift that stressed on rights such as women’s freedom, choice and independence. Although the term ‘fourth-wave feminism’ originated in the West, it emerged in India almost synchronously due to the widespread use of social media.

Anandam work by Shubham Mahmia

[irenedubrovna]

A post regarding Euphoria for the benefit of myself and basically no one else

So, it really bothers me when people say Euphoria is groundbreaking, progressive media. Here’s a dissection of why I don’t think it is, because this is what I feel like doing at work:

The character of Rue is objectively great. She by far receives the least overt sexualization, and is treated neutrally in terms of active sexuality. She’s treated like a normal teenage girl with mental issues and an addiction to drugs. She falls in love with a girl who she pines for and places on a pedestal. The reason I think she is written this way is because she is a Sam Levinson proxy. She written with gender ambiguity and with little regard to the experiences she’d go through as a black gay female, probably because Sam Levinson has no insight to that aspect of life. Her performance is heightened of course by Zendaya, who breathes unique life to the Sam Levinson’s artistic extension, and without her performance this show would not get even half the acclaim it gets. Attribute that to Zendaya of course, because the director has done little to deserve this acclaim.

The rest of the females, sans Lexi, are pornified to a disgusting extent, not only due to the fact that they are supposed to be underage, but also because their existence as people is treated as being absolutely secondary to their sexual appeal. They are foremost presented in terms of their relation to sex. Cassie, Maddy, Jules, and Kat cannot be removed from their sexuality without disrupting the plot or their journeys in relation to the plot. Why are the females so intrinsically linked to uber fetishized versions of female sexuality, or uber fetishized versions of blossoming female sexual identity?

Maddy is presented not only scantily clad 90 percent of the time, but also dressed in a precariously unattainable sexual fashion. At any given time she is styled to look straight out of, simultaneously, a high fashion editorial, and a “barely legal” porno. She is airheaded and profane, and promiscuous, her mannerisms dictated by the adult films she’s “studied” in order to project an image of perfect hyper sexual femininity. She’s complacent in becoming a prototypical housewife because it will earn her a comfortable place as a trophy wife. She has no aspirations beyond that. So, let’s unpack all of that. Maddy’s role in the show is mostly passive. The most active thing she does in the plot is revenge fuck a man in the pool of a party. Nearly everything else she does in the show that is plot relevant is of someone else’s volition. Even less of what she in the show is related to anything other than a man. She is abused and then pressured into framing another man for said abuse. She has no agency as a character. The only notable difference to this rule is when she takes drugs at a carnival, knocks a pot of chili over, and calls her ex’s mom a cunt. Removed from her active sexual life and carefully cultivated aesthetic, she’s a trite stereotype of an unambitious girlfriend who gets treated poorly. I see people call Maddy iconic, but if she wasn’t gorgeous and well dressed, I doubt anyone would even think twice about her, let alone create fancams and Instagram pages dedicated to her. She exists as a plot device, and as pretty set dressing to build up the shows aesthetic. Her emotions are not well explored, her motivations are sexist, and she is often there to be demeaned, objectified, or to say a bad word. The most damning part of her involvement in this show is her episode where it is stated that she, as a fourteen year old girl, lost her virginity to an adult man, and it is stated she was in control of the situation. This is a dangerous thing to say about a character, to any audience, but especially a young one. To imply that a precocious young girl was in control during her first sexual encounter with a much much older man implies things that frankly border on rape apologist ideology. This show states this unflinchingly and with no further elaboration. If there’s one thing that tells you that Euphoria is a bad show, let it be that. Also, if there’s one thing that tells you about Sam Levinson as a person, and the way he views girls and women, let it fucking be that.

Jules is a young trans girl. She also likes to have sex with men as a means to “conquer femininity”. Scratch that, she likes to have degrading sex with older men in order to “conquer femininity”. This mindset is shown to be toxic, of course, but I think the problem with this idea in general is that there’s no deeper exploration for what this mindset means. It implies that she believes women are the sum of their intrigue and degradations. This mindset I can only assume would be a cultivation of dysphoria and internalized misogyny, which this series is absolutely not prepared to address in a tactful manner. Jules is a teenager with mental illness, trauma, and is undergoing an identity crisis. There’s something powerful in her character, something worth saying, however we only get trimmings of those meaningful things, and are ultimately left with a hurtful depiction of a trans girl because all of her musings on womanhood and identity are incomplete, and they fail to reach beyond the surface of their thesis statement. She wears colorful clothing, is overtly feminine and artistic in her presentation. Everything about her screams insecurity over her own womanhood. That is the crux of her character. Now, I think we should ask ourselves, is trans person who is insecure about their identity peak representation? Is this what trans people deserve? Is it “groundbreaking “? If this show was run by someone else, I might be inclined to say that there’s nothing insidious about this, but this is the guy that made Assassination Nation, so I think we know what he thinks of young women, the way they should be portrayed (that is, for the capitulation of a man) and realize his inclusion of a trans woman in his cast is no more meaningful than the inclusion of any other woman. Women to him are made to be categorized and should, at the end of the day, be easily palatable for the capitulation of a man. The device of having Jules being interested in older men and rough sex for identity reasons is transparent. Trans women are exploited and objectified with a similar fervor to cis women, the caveat being that they are “a forbidden fruit” of sorts to straight men. Jules is sissified, her presentation fetishistic. Her role in the plot is more involved. Her relationship with Rue is sweet, though toxic on both sides. She is ultimately betrayed, blackmailed, and snowballs into something of a manic episode, all well portrayed by Hunter Schafer, but I don’t think her inclusion in the show absolves it of any of its many sins.

Let’s talk about Cassie. Cassie is the Eurocentric beauty standard exemplified. She is the blonde haired blue eyed girl next store, and her boobs are of course always on display. She is notably promiscuous, something I say right off the bat because that’s how she’s introduced, as a so called slut through the words of the devil (Nate Jacobs). She is a girl with daddy issues, which we are all familiar with at this point. Her sexual boundaries begin and end at the whim of her partner. The terms of her consent are much like the terms of consent of many young girls brainwashed by society and the rising tide of degradation porn: everything is alright as long as you provide them comfort and affirmation afterward. You can touch them roughly without asking, you can use them as a tool to affirm your masculinity. This is the way men prefer their women now: just broken enough to say yes to anything they want. It’s become a joke at this point. Men like girls with issues, but only the ones that will feed their own desires. Cassie Howard is meek. Her inclusion in the plot I suppose ties to themes of drug addiction and how it divides and destroys the people you love. It doesn’t show what it does to her beyond shaping her sexual encounters, which is no surprise. Overall I’d say Cassie is in this roster of females as the most traditional categorically, in relation to how men view women and further how they sexualize them. She has a relationship with someone who doesn’t really love her. That mostly what she does here. Gets used. Doesn’t drive the plot or conflict much. More pretty set dressing. More aesthetics. How this show consists of so many women but is driven so much by men is unsurprising, and, again, very enlightening in the grand scheme of things.

Lastly we touch on Kat. I’d like to begin with the fact that self actualization through sexual exploration, in a show run by a man, is just a cloak for a woman to gratify the audience with her sexuality. Regardless of whether or not she is plus sized, this is overt objectification. She is on this show to be sexy. Beyond that, the fact that a minor using sex work as a form of liberation is disgusting. Whether or not she is portrayed as “owning” her sexuality is negligible, and speaks to the same mindset discussed with Maddy. Minors cannot fucking consent to sex, sexual acts, or anything within the confines of such. It’s crazy that this occurs with two different characters in such a similar way. It has echoes of “Well, she looked older..” and “Well, she wanted it..” or “She’s advanced for her age”. Never, not once in the events of the series is there meaningful introspection on what doing this kind of thing does to a minor. Moreover, these acts are explicit, and made clearly for sexual gratification. None of these things are absolved by the fact that she’s plus sized. If anything, her body type is fetishized in this context. It’s also another case of a “good girl to bad girl” transformation, which are archaic and, of course, sexist. With the rise of adult websites targeting minors for explicit content, this is even more reprehensible. Once again, in terms of representation, is this really what speaks to you as progressive? Groundbreaking? A girl gains control of her own narrative by having sex with lots of men. She gains control by being sexy. She gains control by dehumanizing and objectifying herself. No she doesn’t. Media controlled by men will tell this story to you thousands of times, don’t listen because she’s bigger than a size four.

ALL OF THESE CHARACTERS ARE UNDERAGE. ALL OF THEM HAVE EXPLICIT SEX SCENES, EVEN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT IS MADE CINEMATICALLY PORNIFIED. THESE SHOTS ARE MADE TO BE OBJECTIVELY SEXY. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF SOMEONE CREATING SOMETHING FOR THE SAKE OF REALISM. IT IS ABOUT MAKING SCENES THAT SPEAK TO A MALE AUDIENCE. THAT CATER TO THE MALE GAZE. ARGUE WITH THE WALL.

I won’t go further into the plot, other characters, or the structure or the episodes for sake of brevity, but I felt compelled to air my thoughts on this to the void. I can only hope I was critical enough that Sam Levinson will one day see this and cry because another bad feminist thinks something that he made sucks

[sapphos-darlings]

i feel like im dealing with some sort of weird cognitive dissonance right now? i am a lesbian, i love the word lesbian and i love being a lesbian (sometimes) but regarding things like coming out i cant ever imagine saying "i am a lesbian" out loud like ever..? i will probably just end up saying that im gay or "i only like girls" just like when i came out to my friend i tried to say the word lesbian but i cant get it out somehow so i just end up showing the lesbian flag to her like lmfao why 1/2

i know there are lesbians who dislike the word because they think its a dirty word but i dont think i feel that way. so i dont get why i feel like this 2/2

Hello, Anon!

Funny you should mention this, because I've known this to be a thing among lesbians, and especially when I was a teenager this was discussed pretty often.

I don't think our feelings about the word 'lesbian' are as simple as whether or not we accept ourselves, or our internalized lesbophobia. I think the word itself has so much social baggage and connotations that of course we are aware of the effect saying it to people has. It's not only the actual literal meaning, "homosexual woman", that activates, but all of the cultural and social extra baggage loaded on the word. And let me be perfectly clear, it is not a good thing or anything I myself am fine with, in fact I think it tells us how deep homophobia runs in our culture, but the fact remains.

Even though our human rights have ben recognized along with the rising public awareness, the LGBT is still widely discussed as a group, this theoretical demographic labeled with an acronym or some catch-all term like "sexual and gender minorities". That's the general comfort zone, and underlining some specific group and thus drawing more focus tends to make people alert. We all feel that rising tension of a sensitive subject in a conversation.

'Lesbian' is a pretty long word. This is also what my LGBT circles brought up: It's impossible to skim over it when you speak, it's a long word that pops with hard and loud consonants. It doesn't slip off your tongue like "gay" or "bi". It takes a while to manifest. LeS-BiaN. In my language, where our word for lesbian is a loan from this root, especially the rare letter 'B' in the middle makes the word really powerful.

Then there is all the baggage. I don't think it's fair to push the responsibility of "internalized lesbophobia" on us when we're concious and uncomfortable with the knowledge that people around us probably first think of porn and men with creepy lesbian fetishes. Like hell will I ever be comfortable with any of that! The overt sexualization and fetishization of lesbians is strictly homophobia from our culture and society, and the fact that I feel uncomfortable and disgusted at that is not my fault, and yes I will blame cultural homophobia and misogyny for it.

Now, if you feel that this is something you want to fix for yourself, then I suggest starting to push through all the awkwardness little by little. Use the word 'lesbian' when you type online. Recognize the situations when you want to use something else and reflect on why you feel like that and why you made this decision. Say 'lesbian' out loud alone. Say it in the shower or turn off the lights. Get used to how the word feels to say. Say it to your friends. Joke about it: humor and laughter releases tension and makes us comfortable with the uncomfortable.

Give positive signals to other lesbians who dare to say it: make eyecontact and smile, give an appreciative nod, any good social feedback. Never leave your sisters in that awkward silence or tension alone.

Also empower yourself to express your negative feelings when someone uses 'lesbian' in a bad manner. You don't have to make a huge deal about everything, but you don't have to pretend to be fine and laugh along either. Give blank looks and wrinkle your nose at casual homophobia or jokes about lesbian porn, for example, that is enough to get a message across in a social situation.

Also remember that you are not alone, and that this is really not that huge of an issue. You are not in denial and you are embracing your sexuality. Don't make hiccups like this into a huge burden for yourself, just remember that all of us keep working through small issues like this all the time.

- Lavender

[betweentheracks]

My question is regarding styling for promotional work in the US - I see so many female stars who are in a different outfit, with full hair and makeup, for their interviews, sometimes with multiple changes per day. And then, there is their male costar slouching along in jeans and a rumpled shirt for a whole days worth of appearances. Is there a contractual requirement placed on female stars or is this just an industry norm? Thank you in advance for any insight you can offer!

Ah, look at you go Greyface! Taking a real stab right into the black heart of the style industry. How bold and perceptive of you! 🤭

The simple and direct answer is, this is a double standard.

The more complex path that still leads to same resulting answer is very worth traversing though and is filled with the peaks and plummets of the fashion industry's history. So, naturally, we'll walk this way together and take a look.

Buckle up, rack mates, this ride is a doozy. 

The following is my insight and perception as a professional stylist and is subjective to my position and role. 

It is a well and widely known fact of fashion and beauty that at the heart of all the glitz and glamorous there is a horrible ugliness beneath. It is treated as an unseen slight or even a "secret" we shouldn't talk much about. It is as old as fashion itself and has only been worsened over time and with the evolution of marketable style and beauty standards. Women are more promotional than men = women are more desirous than men = women are the pitch and men plunder fame by proxy.

Sex sells. Point of fact; type face bold print. This is the truth of fashion and entertainment and is a marketing strategy at this point.

Specifically, however, it isn't that "sex" sells but rather which sex sells. As in which gender is the apparent and clear choice to use as a promotional feature and living advertisement. The answer is, as it has been for ages now, women. Feminine features are fair and pleasing to behold. They can be dressed up and toned down; styled into an ideal of wanting and craving. Women can be influential to both male and female audiences by beckoning men's gazes to the treats she has for them (treats being whatever it is she is being used to stage and sell) while sitting loftily as an iconic standard of beauty for women to reach for and in turn take up anything to help achieve this ideal (meaning they'll buy whatever is being promoted in their wish to be like the woman on the package).

This strategy and double standard extends well beyond the immediate scope of fashion or upselling the brands of luxury labels. It is also very present in the entertainment industry as a means to promote films, television, and other media. You'll see an actress working the promo circuit or doing interviews dressed to the nines even in casual and laid back styles and then you'll blink and she's done up entirely different but no less coifed and glamorous. Meanwhile her male counterparts and costars are parading about in very understated styles or even sloppy attire, sometimes dressed out in high quality suits but still not quite up to snuff. The efforts of stylists clearly more aimed towards maintaining the woman first and the man second, if at all.

The second and less often discussed pigeon hole that fuels this sexist standard is money. Femme fashion, while typically more expensive, is still unquestionably more versatile than menswear. This is because fashion profits more off female consumption and interest than male and thus caters to that market with more variety and visibility. Wardrobe budgets for filming are skewed with more money funneled into the styling of an actress or female celebrity with a limit on how much is spent on the men. This is symbiotic with the pricing of menswear being less than womenswear but altogether more durable in its make.

It's frustrating and awful and I am ever so glad and thankful that it is slowly having attention called upon it by those within the industry. As modern style continues to evolve and dilute the boundaries between gender stereotypes and typecasting, this double standard becomes more and more frail. Many voices have started gathering in outrage over such rampant and asinine misogyny. Men have come forward to demand that they are as equally marketable and appealing, women have put their foot down and refused to be sexualized or sensationalized. There is the rising trend of androgyny and transgender recognition. Each step is in the right direction and in pursuit of an equal playing ground where women and men can each be glammed up and used as a standard for beauty or poised as a pinnacle of style.

I work extensively with male clients to this effect. I not only enjoy gender neutral styles but have clients that have made it clear they like the glamor of femme styles and want their image to be a balance of masculine and feminine. My oldest client wears heels and likes glittering eye makeup and has often made a case to be allowed to wear skirts or dresses, while my only female artist prefers more of an asymmetrical blending of menswear with feminine accents and likes her footwear to be the type that she, in her words, "can kick ass and stay looking class" while wearing.

There's an uptick in the emergence of queer brands and LGBTQ+ labels in the US with ideals/ethics steeped in the goal of gender neutrality and equality. With them comes the new hope for fashion's future where gender lines are not drawn and women are not the golden rule of promotional value for their supposed sexy/cute/inviting stereotype.

I hope to see men as a campaign centerpiece for lingerie, make up, and other needlessly gendered interests and women in ads for suits and leisure activities such as fishing or mudding and the other inherently male coded interests. I hope to see all gender typecasts and molds fall away entirely with people simply promoting things they enjoy. To see a full cast given the same amount of primping and stylized effort when making the rounds to talk up their projects.

Progress is slow but the world of fashion hinges upon welcoming change and being influenced by current climates and trends just as much as it influences outwardly. One of these days this double standard will be stripped out and the industry will again be revolutionized or it will become obsolete.

Beauty is beauty; people are people; style is style. Promotional/marketable viability cannot stay relevant against the might of such simple truths. The coming years will see the divide between gender being filled as designers and labels fight to remain prominent empires of fashion, and from there other interrelated industries will have no choice by to comply lest they find themselves stripped bare ass naked and lacking affiliations.

This post went and became a sort of tangent, whoops. I'll rest my rambling here and call it good. I intend to make a full post detailing the reshaping of fashion in the height of today's evolving inclusivity of gender roles and norms and the correlation of how fashion has long since been steps ahead in this movement. This ask happens to be a good sounding place for what some of that content will look like.

Fashion and style was never intended to give distinction between the masculine and feminine nor to place significance on gender. Segregation in fashion was initially between wealth and status; a determination of class in way way back when clothing first became an expression. Originally, fashion had no actual gender associations and men and women all worse similar styles of robes that would now be considered dresses. Class and wealth gave way, buckling to the thought of using one's showy status to promote goods to be traded and this was the birth of marketing women as a means of interest. Ever since it has been an internal struggle between ethics of material misuse of rights (sexism) versus capital relevancy (turning profits via brand visibility). A number of fashion houses are guilty of going with the flow and hoping the fortune and reputation made along the way could either cushion the blowback of systemic misogyny one day being aired out or could be used to steadily alter the trajectory of style's evolution.

Consider fashion as a tightrope act being performed between the politics of brand recognition and the conceptual idealism of expression. One small and out of sync step will result in a dire fall with no way of knowing if there is a safety net to pardon a brand or label from plunging into obscurity. This is why the fashion industry prefers taking time to plan careful steps forward and seldom rushes out. Fashion keeps pace while also staying baby steps ahead to change the course of current societal trends, even willing to sometimes relinquish any ground it has in effort to remain on the wire at all. It's a precarious give and take.

Three paragraphs later, truly, I yield to the length of this post and am done. I can’t guarantee this was even close to what you wanted to know and for that I am sorry. I get swept up by the passion I have for the inner workings of the business and lose myself (and my train of thought so if this doesn’t make a lick of sense, that would be why lol). Still, I do hope some of this sheds a little light on the matter. 

[thecrownnet]

In this season's final episode of "The Crown," Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth have one last meeting, perhaps the most touching of their 11 years sparring over the direction of the United Kingdom.

"I was shocked by the way in which you were forced to leave office," the Queen said. "And I wanted to offer my sympathy, not just as Queen to prime minister, but woman to woman." Though a fictional depiction, words underscored a very real shared experience that united the two leaders, even though that similarity did little to strengthen their relationship to one another.

"The Crown" is not the only scripted drama this year to delve into ways women navigate arenas of power once closed off to them. Three major period dramas of 2020 -- Netflix's "The Crown" and "The Queen's Gambit" (a story about Beth Harmon, a young woman chess prodigy) and FX's "Mrs. America" (a reinterpreted history of 1970s political activism by Phyllis Schlafly, Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisholm and others) -- have centered on the lives of women in a world dominated by men.

From the Queen and the first woman prime minister dueling over the direction of Britain to feminists and anti-feminists scrapping over the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), these shows have blown past the days of the Bechdel test (do at least two women in a show talk to one another about something other than a man?) to a much deeper reflection on how women navigate the possibilities of power.

Set in a not-too-distant past, these shows feel both relevant and safe: centering ambitious women in an era where the sexism is both obvious and easy to condemn. The moral clarity that structures these shows -- the buffoonish men who demean or dismiss these women are easy to ridicule and condemn -- provides a comfortable backdrop against which richer conversations ranging from racism and sexuality to emotion and ambition play out.

And as historical dramas, they offer an extra bit of comfort to make them easily bingeable in a year when we crave certainty: we know how the world will change after these women's stories end, because it's the world we're living in. It's especially telling that the year's most thorough explorations of women's power come in the form of period pieces, ranging from the 1950s through the 1980s. By slipping back several decades, the shows unfold in a time when the very idea of women wielding power in the US or UK struck many as unusual if not unwelcome, and where the framework of being "first" still dominates.

The image of a woman alone in room full of men repeats again and again in both "The Crown" and "The Queen's Gambit," a stark visualization of the novelty and isolation that often frames the experience of being the first, and a reminder that "first" usually also means "only."

Situating these experiences in the past makes the sexism, when it appears, instantly recognizable for the viewer. Take a scene from the first episode of "Mrs. America," when conservative activist Schlafly meets with Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater. Goldwater knows Schlafly -- she was a committed activist who supported his 1964 presidential bid -- and greets her warmly. She is, in many ways, already an insider: known for her writing on foreign policy and her electoral energy. But when the meeting begins, one of the men in the room calls on Schlafly to take notes while the men talk.

You don't have to be particularly evolved on gender politics to get the snub, nor to cringe in the next episode when one of Steinem's male colleagues carries on about her nice legs. The writers on these shows also seem to understand that morally uncomplicated stories are usually less interesting, so the historically grounded sexism is often sparingly or strategically used in the narrative. In "The Queen's Gambit," for instance, there are only a few moments where rank sexism ever appears: when Harmon is paired with the only other woman in her first tournament and when a woman writer for Life magazine focuses more on Harmon's gender than her chess strategies. Otherwise she glides through the male-dominated world of chess with ease, gathering friends, admirers, lovers and few if any detractors. Harmon is a fictional creation, drawn from the 1983 novel by Walter Tevis -- but so is the chess world she navigates. In the 1960s women could not compete with men at the World Championships. When they finally could in the late 1980s, they did not receive a warm welcome. "They were too nice to her," chess champion Judit Polgar told The New York Times, noting that when she was coming up in the chess world men were far more disparaging.

While "The Queen's Gambit" erases misogyny, "Mrs. America" and "The Crown" are fascinated by it. Rather than challenge chauvinism, their main characters weaponize it. The most intriguing characters in both are the conservative women who rise to power while openly hostile to feminism -- and often, to other women, even those closest to them (while close to their sons, both Schlafly and Thatcher clash with their own daughters.)

In real life, Thatcher declared, "I owe nothing to women's lib." She included no women in her original cabinet, a deliberate choice her character in "The Crown" explains to the Queen: "Not just because there aren't any suitable candidates. But I have found women in general tend not to be suited to high office anyways," adding that they are "too emotional."

The fictional Thatcher is hardest on herself when she betrays any emotion that she feels is too feminine, berating herself for crying (over her missing son, as we learn) during an audience with the Queen and seeming to miss or ignore the monarch's assurance that Thatcher was far from the first prime minister to have shed tears during their meetings.

At the same time, Thatcher eagerly embraces traditionally feminine roles at home -- she dotes on her son and cooks for him and her cabinet ministers alike -- while approaching politics firmly as a world where she must act like a man to succeed. Schlafly, however, makes those traditionally feminine roles core to her political identity: she is the iron housewife battling against the ERA, arguing that equality will destroy the differences between men and women and must be prevented and sealing her point with gestures like bringing fresh baked goods for the legislators she and her allies intend to lobby.

"Mrs. America" makes clear the ways Schlafly defends misogyny while still being cramped by it: it's only when not taken seriously as a foreign policy mind that she turns to fighting the ERA to amplify her political voice. And, of course, the show makes a meal of her hypocrisies, particularly her ambition for a political career that takes her out of her home and into the halls of power, all while promoting a politics rooted in traditional gender roles.

Even these more complex tales are eased by their historical setting. In the 1990s, conservative women forged a language and identity that more neatly squared their traditionalism and their political ambitions, so much so that many right-wing women today identify as feminist, or at least embrace the idea of women's equality.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the tensions and hypocrisies of anti-feminist activism are clearer, giving us two historical anti-heroes with an intriguing complexity that their feminist counterparts, at least in the case of "Mrs. America," lack. All of this means that these stories, though fascinating and layered, nonetheless feel like comfort food, something familiar and interesting but not too challenging. Which is not to dismiss their value -- we could all use some comfort food these days. More than that, these shows offer an on-ramp to critical thinking and more intense conversations about ambition, genius, intersectionality, motherhood and power.

But they also allow viewers an easier option, to marinate in the magnificent costumes and music, to escape their own reality by judging the horrid characters and applauding the sympathetic ones. That flexibility explains, perhaps, why three shows have been so immensely popular: they speak to us, but not too loudly.

[seriousbusinessforhumans]

Feb 2018

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) counted over 100 people killed or injured by alleged perpetrators influenced by the so-called "alt-right" — a movement that continues to access the mainstream and reach young recruits.

On December 7, 2017, a 21-year-old white male posing as a student entered Aztec High School in rural New Mexico and began firing a handgun, killing two students before taking his own life. At the time, the news of the shooting went largely ignored, but the online activity of the alleged killer, William Edward Atchison, bore all the hallmarks of the “alt-right”—the now infamous subculture and political movement consisting of vicious trolls, racist activists, and bitter misogynists.

But Atchison wasn’t the first to fit the profile of alt-right killer—that morbid milestone belongs to Elliot Rodger, the 22-year-old who in 2014 killed seven in Isla Vista, California, after uploading a sprawling manifesto filled with hatred of young women and interracial couples (Atchison went by “Elliot Rodger” in one of his many online personas and lauded the “supreme gentleman,” a title Rodger gave himself and has since become a meme on the alt-right).

Including Rodger’s murderous rampage there have been at least 13 alt-right related fatal episodes, leaving 43 dead and more than 60 injured (see list). Nine of the 12 incidents counted here occurred in 2017 alone, making last year the most violent year for the movement.

Like Atchison and Rodger, these perpetrators were all male and, with the exception of three men, all under the age of 30 at the time they are alleged to have killed. The average age of the alt-right killers is 26. The youngest was 17. One, Alexandre Bissonnette, is Canadian, but the rest are American. 

The “alternative right” was coined in part by white nationalist leader Richard Bertrand Spencer in 2008, but the movement as it’s known today can largely be traced back to 2012 and 2013 when two major events occurred: the killing of the black teenager Trayvon Martin and the so-called Gamergate controversy where female game developers and journalists were systematically threatened with rape and death. Both were formative moments for a young generation of far-right activists raised on the internet and who found community on chaotic forums like 4chan and Reddit where the classic tenets of white nationalism — most notably the belief that white identity is under attack by multiculturalism and political correctness — flourish under dizzying layers of toxic irony.

The Killings Started in California

The timeline for alt-right killers began on May 23, 2014.

On that day, college sophomore Elliot Rodger stabbed his three roommates to death before driving to a sorority house at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and shooting several women. He then killed or injured several pedestrians with both gunfire and his vehicle before exchanging fire with police and eventually taking his own life. He ultimately killed seven and wounded 14.

Rodger left behind a sprawling 107,000-word manifesto titled, “My Twisted World: The Story of Elliot Rodger,” which contained passages lamenting his inability to find a girlfriend, expressing extreme misogyny and various racist positions including disgust for interracial couples (despite the fact that he was multi-racial himself (half-Chinese)).

“How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself,” Rodger wrote. “I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves.”

Rodger frequented PUAhate, a deeply misogynistic forum populated by failed “pick up artists” dedicated to revealing, “the scams, deception, and misleading marketing techniques used by dating gurus and the seduction community to deceive men and profit from them.” Discussions about women on the forum are at best objectifying and at worst, violent.

The term, “white sharia,” allegedly coined by Sacco Vandal of the popular alt-right site Vandal Void, is a radical response to Patrick Buchanan’s argument in Death of the West: that the increase in immigration and decline of white birthrates is leading to the end of Western civilization. Rodger’s celebration at the 504um, one of the premier alt-right forums, is the rule rather than the exception, and locates misogyny at the core of the alt-right.

Andrew Anglin, the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer’s founder and chief propagandist, has his own troubling history of vicious misogyny, tracking all the way back to high school.

In the aftermath of Rodger’s killing spree, a user at 4chan/b/ posted a photo from Rodger’s Facebook page with the note, “Elliot Rodger, the supreme gentleman, was part of /b/. Discuss.” This sentiment was echoed by other /b/ users who found similarities between his lexicon and that of the noxious board, including the term “beta,” used by men online to describe themselves as lacking the physicality, charisma and confidence associated with alpha males.... The term resurfaced on 4chan/r9k/ in the wake of a shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, by Chris Harper-Mercer, who killed nine and wounded at least seven others at the college on October 1, 2015. “This is only the beginning. The Beta Rebellion has begun,” one anonymous user wrote. “Soon, more of our brothers will take up arms to become martyrs to this revolution.”

Although never proven, it is widely speculated that Harper-Mercer was a user on the board as warnings against attending school the following day that circulated on the eve of the shooting. Authorities believe Harper-Mercer, who like Rodger was multi-racial, was also motivated by white supremacist ideas. The Government Accountability Office categorized the Roseburg killings as “white supremacist” in an April 2017 report.

2017: A Year of Alt-Right Violence

The first killing in 2017 that can be tied to the alt-right occurred on January 29 in Canada. A 27-year-old university student named Alexandre Bissonnette allegedly brought a semiautomatic rifle into the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City and shot and killed six worshippers while injuring 19—two critically.

On May 20, 2017, Sean Urbanski, a 22-year-old University of Maryland student, allegedly stabbed and killed newly commissioned Lt. Richard Collins, III. Authorities described the attack as “totally unprovoked.” Urbanski approached Collins, who was black, and two friends at 3 a.m., seemingly intoxicated, and said, “Step left, step left if you know what’s best for you.” When Collins refused, Urbanski stabbed him. Urbanski, however, was a member of a Facebook group called “Alt Reich: Nation”.

Less than a week later, Jeremy Christian, a 35-year-old Portland resident, allegedly stabbed and killed two people and severely wounded another passenger on a train while they were defending two young women from his anti-Muslim and racist remarks. Christian, who identified as a white nationalist and had a history of violence and mental illness, had a Facebook page filled with racist and bizarre political content. Witnesses at an alt-right free speech rally in the month preceding the stabbing saw Christian wearing an American flag cape, yelling racial slurs and making Nazi salutes. 

Two months later, on July 14, 2017, Lane Maurice Davis, 33, allegedly stabbed his father, Charles Davis, to death at the family home in Skagit County, Washington, after accusing his father of pedophilia. Davis, a conspiracy theory obsessive who went by the name ‘Seattle4Truth’ online and accused his father, not based on his own experience, but instead on his belief that liberals around the world are participating in secret pedophilia rings. Davis was reportedly a researcher for Milo Yiannopoulos and claimed to have ghost written pieces on Breitbart News for the former tech editor. 

In the months leading up to Unite the Right, members of the alt-right colonized and organized themselves on the gaming chat platform Discord. This includes Auernheimer who was a frequent participant in the Daily Stormer’s server, “Thunderdome,” where he regularly interacted with site readers and put out calls for action.

Young, White, Angry, Male

According to Dr. Eric Madfis, author of a 2014 paper on the intersectional identities of American Mass Murderers, young, white, middle class, heterosexual males commit mass murder at a disproportionately high rate relative to their population size in the United States.

The rate of mass murders spiked in the 1970s and 1990s. Between 1966 and 1999, there were 95 cases of mass public shootings. Between 1976 and 2008, mass murders occurred roughly twice per month, claiming an average of 125 deaths each month. A more recent study published by Mother Jones identifies 95 mass shootings in the United States since 1982. Of those, 55 (59%) were committed by white men.

FBI crime data suggests that ages 16 to 24 are peak time for violent crime. According to Dr. Pete Simi, Director of the Earl Babbie Research Center at Chapman University, "This is a period of substantial transition in an individual's life, when they're less likely to have significant attachments in their life that deter them from criminal violence."

Madfis’s 2014 paper from the University of Washington investigates the role of intersectional identities in mass murder incidents and argues that young, white males' unique downward social mobility, relative to his expectations, accounts for their overrepresentation as perpetrators of mass murder.

Only one in five mass murderers are “likely psychotic or delusional,” however, according to Dr. Michael Stone, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University.

A 2001 study conducted by Meloy examining 34 adolescent perpetrators of mass murder found that 59% were the direct result of a triggering event. That rate jumped to 90% among adult mass murders. 

Dr. Elliott Leyton, an expert on serial homicide, argues that contemporary mass murderers often target the perceived source of lost financial stability or class prestige. The alt-right, which couches its mission in terms of surviving literal extinction, routinely laments so-called reverse racism and affirmative action as well as immigration in all its forms.

The grievances collected by those motivated by the white nationalist ideology at the heart of the alt-right often do not begin with racist propaganda, but rather in the toxic communities of the men's rights movement... The age-old racist argument - that black men are 'taking our women' — is made regularly. Racist slurs are chucked around casually. There seems to be a significant overlap with organised white supremacy." 

Andrew Anglin once wrote “[o]ur target audience [for the neo-nazi website Daily Stormer] is white males between the ages of 10 and 30.”

Wiring Young Neurons

“Our target audience is white males between the ages of 10 and 30,” Anglin wrote in his “PSA: When the Alt-Right Hits the Street, You Wanna be Ready.” “I include children as young a ten, because an element of this is that we want to look like superheroes. We want to be something that boys fantasize about being a part of. That is a core element to this. I don’t include men over the age of 30, because after that point, you are largely fixed in your thinking. We will certainly reach some older men, but they should not be a focus.”

[Richard] Spencer told Mother Jones in December of 2016 before a contentious speaking engagement at Texas A&M University. “I think you do need to get them while they are young. I think rewiring the neurons of someone over 50 is effectively impossible.”

Undeniably, their efforts have had success. Mainstay racist conferences, like the annual gatherings of American Renaissance and the National Policy Institute, are attracting larger audiences, no longer dominated by their once singular demographic of middle-aged white men.

On a panel at Harvard University in October, Derek Black, son of longtime white supremacist Don Black, who once represented the future of the movement until he renounced racism during college, described his surprise at seeing so many young participants in Charlottesville:

I can say for sure my entire life in white nationalism I went to conferences many times a year. I spoke at them. I tried to organize them. I organized online through my dad's site [Stormfront] through organizations whether Jared [Taylor]'s AmRen or David [Duke]'s EURO or Council of Conservative Citizens … Everybody at these things is gray-haired. Me and two other people would be under 40. That was it. Which is partly why I took this impression that this is not gonna last. And a lot of that is because young people have a lot to lose … Young people who show up to a rally like that are going to get their identities exposed online and then it's gonna be hard for them to get jobs … I cannot actually explain what changed. The one striking thing about Charlottesville…was there's a ton of young kids like college-age or actual college students who got on buses and went to this who I don't think had been to an event like that before. 

Alt-right groups such as Identity Evropa and Vanguard America are marketing themselves exclusively to college and high school-aged individuals.

Then, on October 19, barely two months after the chaos of Charlottesville, the University of Florida was forced to host a Spencer speaking engagement under threat of a lawsuit........................ Hours later, three of his supporters were arrested for attempted murder after an alleged confrontation with protestors in which Spencer’s supporters threw stiff-armed salutes and one fired a shot at the urging of his accomplices. 

Not Even 21

James Alex Fields was only 20 years-old when he drove his Dodge Challenger into a crowd of attendees and protestors during August’s Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, injuring 19 and killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer. Fields stood with members of Vanguard America during the rally and carried a shield with the militaristic, alt-right group’s insignia on it.

According to police records, Fields also had a troubling history of childhood domestic violence — which experts see in about 1 in 6 mass killers. In 2010, Field’s mother called 911 after he attacked her for telling him to stop playing a video game. Other records reveal that he brandished a 12-inch knife at her on a separate occasion. His disabled mother uses a wheelchair.

Just three months prior to Unite the Right, another young, white man with a history in the alt-right, 18-year-old Devon Arthurs, allegedly killed two of his roommates... in Florida. Arthurs, who was taken into custody by authorities after holding employees of a tobacco shop hostage, had converted to Salafism, an ultraconservative form of Sunni Islam, and begun defending ISIS online a year prior. He was previously a leader of a National Socialist group known as the Atomwaffen (“Atomic Weapon”) Division which formed on the fascist forum Iron March. 

In the year leading up to the shooting, Arthurs appeared to be blending his alt-right beliefs with his newfound adherence to extremist forms of Islam. His username changed from Weissewolfe to Kekman Al-Amriki, a combination of the trollish god of “meme magic” common to 4chan and the name of an American member of al-Shabab, an Islamic militant organization. According to VICE, Arthurs also spoke of “white sharia,” a concept exemplifying the brutal, misogynistic core attitudes of the alt-right and those it has inspired to violence.

Leaderless Resistance

In 2014, after longtime Klansman Frazier Glenn Miller Jr. killed three at a Jewish community center and a retirement home in Overland Park, Kansas, Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent published an article on the topic of “self detonating lone wolf vanguardists.” According to Griffin, “a ‘self detonating lone wolf vanguardist’ is someone who is radically alienated from society and who has given up on persuasion, a fanatacist who is inclined toward violent methods of bringing about eschatological political change, who usually acts alone or with an accomplice in the name of a movement without the support of assistance of any group, and who typically explodes, lashes out, or ‘self detonates’ without warning in rampage shootings, murder-suicides, and bombing campaigns.”

In its just over four years of operation, the Daily Stormer’s audience included at least three readers who were either convicted or indicted for murder. 

"An Age of Ultraviolence"

On June 17, 2015, Dylann Storm Roof killed nine African-American worshipers and wounded one while attending a Bible study class at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Roof, then 21, told his victims, including Reverend and State Senator Clementa Pickney, that, “I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.”

In a manifesto posted to his website, lastrhodesian.com, Roof cited the Trayvon Martin case as his inspiration for searching on Google for “black on White crime.” According to Roof, “I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief.”

On March 22, 2017, another Daily Stormer reader, James Harris Jackson, was arrested after stabbing 66-year-old black man Timothy Caughman with a sword in Manhattan. Jackson, an army veteran, was 28 at the time of the alleged stabbing. He travelled to New York from Baltimore, Maryland, to conduct a “practice run” for what was intended to deter white women from race-mixing. He told a media source after his arrest that, “the white race is being eroded.” 

On Friday, December 27, a 17-year-old white male, reported to be Nicholas Giampa, allegedly shot and killed the parents of his ex-girlfriend in Reston, Virginia, before turning the gun on himself. According to reports, the parents had facilitated the break-up after learning that Giampa held neo-Nazi beliefs.

Giampa’s account also attempted to engage with those of alt-right leaders and organizations like Mike Peinovich, VDARE, the Traditionalist Worker Party, Identity Evropa, as well as Vanguard America, the neo-Nazi group that James Fields was photographed with in Charlottesville. One of Giampa’s main obsessions, however, was the hardcore neo-Nazi group Atomwaffen.

2018 is already off to a disturbing start. On January 2, Blaze Bernstein, a college student who was gay and Jewish went missing and was later found murdered. Friends of the accused murderer, Samuel Woodward, told ProPublica that Woodward was a committed neo-Nazi and member of Atomwaffen which may have as chapters in as many as eight states.

This former Atomwaffen member also said that the events in Charlottesville had a major impact on the group. Its membership doubled.  

(selected sections of article)

[wokestonecraft]

I started reading Silvia Federici’s book “Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation” after that infamous tiktok where a young woman confidently states that misogyny did not emerge until the modern period as a result of capitalism, and cites Federici despite fundamentally misunderstanding the point of her writing, and I think this book is very much worth reading.

She critiques both Marxist and Feminist theories of history, but damn, does she come really come for Foucault in her introduction to Caliban and the Witch. (Bolding mine)

“A further question addressed by Caliban and the Witch is raised by the contrasting perspectives offered by the feminist and Foucauldian analyses of the body in their applications to an understanding of the history of capitalist development. from the beginning of the Women’s Movement, feminist activists and theorists have seen the concept of the “body” as key to an understanding of the roots of male dominance and the construction of female social identity. Across idealogical differences, the feminists have realized that hierarchal ranking of human faculties and the identification of women with a degraded conception of corporeal reality has been instrumental, historically, to the consolidation of patriarchal power and the male exploitation of female labor. Thus, analyses of sexuality, procreation, and mothering have been at the center of feminist theory and women’s history. In particular, feminists have uncovered and denounced the strategies and the violence by means of which male-centered systems of exploitation have attempted to discipline and appropriate the female body, demonstrating that women’s bodies have been the main targets, the privileged sites, for the deployment of power-techniques and power-relations. Indeed, the many feminist studies which have been produced since the early 1970s on the policing of women’s reproductive function, the effects on women of rape and battering, and the imposition upon them of beauty as a condition for social acceptability, are a monumental contribution to the discourse on he body in our times, falsifying the perception common among academics which attributes its discovery to Michel Foucault. 

Starting from an analysis of “body-politics,” feminists have not only revolutionized the contemporary philosophical and political discourse, but they have also begun to devalorize the body. This has been a necessary step both to counter the negativity attached to the identification of femininity with corporeality, and to create a more holistic vision of what it means to be a human being. This valorization has taken various forms, ranging from the quest for non-dualistic forms of knowledge, to the attempt (with feminists who view sexual “difference” as a positive value) to develop a new type of language and “[re]think the corporeal roots of human intelligence.” As Rosi Braidotti has pointed out, the body that is reclaimed is never to be understood as a biological given. Nevertheless, such slogans as “repossessing the body” or “speaking the body” have been criticized by post-structuralist, Foucauldian theorists, who reject as illusory any call for instinctual liberation. In turn, feminists have accused Foucault’s discourse on sexuality as being oblivious to sexual differentiation, while at the same time appropriating many fo the insights developed by the Feminist Movement. This criticism is quite appropriate. Moreover, Foucault is so intrigued with the “productive” character of the power-techniques by which the body has been invested, that his analysis practically rules out any critique of power-relations. The nearly apologetic quality of Foucault’s theory of the body is accentuated by the fact that is views the body as constituted by purely discursive practices, and is more interested in describing how power is deployed than in identifying its source. Thus, the Power by which the body is produced appears as a self-subsistent, metaphysical entity, ubiquitous, disconnected from social and economic relations, and as mysterious in is permutations as a godly Prime Mover.

Can an analysis of the transition to capitalism and primitive accumulation help us go beyond these alternatives? I believe I can. With regard to the feminist approach, our first step should be to document the social and historic conditions under which the body has become a central element and the defining sphere of activity for the constitution of femininity. Along these lines, Caliban and the Witch shows that the body has been for women in capitalist society what the factory has been fore male waged workers: the primary ground of their exploitation and resistance, as the female body has been appropriated by the state and men and forced to function as a means for the reproduction and accumulation of labor. Thus, the importance which the body in all its aspects -- maternity, childbirth, sexuality, -- has acquired in feminist theory and women history has not been misplaced. Caliban and the Witch also confirms the feminist insight which refuses to identify the body with the sphere of the private and, in this vein, speaks of “body politics.” Further it can explains how the body can be for some both a source of identity and at the same time a prison, and why it is so important for feminists and, at the same time, so problematic to valorize it.

As for Foucault’s theory, the history of primitive accumulation offers many counter-examples to it, proving it can be defended only at the price of outstanding historical omissions. The most obvious is the omission of the witch-hunt and the discourse of demonology in his analysis of the disciplining of the body. Undoubtedly, they would have inspired different conclusions had they been included. For both demonstrate the repressive character of the power that was unleashed against women, and the implausibility of the complicity and role-reversal that Foucault imagines to exist between victims and their persecutors in his description of the dynamic of micro-powers.

A study of the witch-hunt also challenged Foucault’s theory concerning the development of “bio-power,” stripping it of the mystery by which Foucault surrounds the emergence of this regime. Foucault registers the shift -- presumably in 18th century Europe -- from a type of power built on the right to kill, to a different one exercised through the administration and promotion of life-forces, such as population growth; but he offers no clues as to its motivations. Yet, if we place this shift in the context of rise of capitalism the puzzle vanishes, for the promotion of life-forces turns out to be nothing more than the result of a new concern with accumulation and reproduction of labor-power. We can also see that the promotion of population growth by the state can go hand in hand with a massive destruction of life; for in many historical circumstances -- witness the history of the slave trade -- one is a condition for the other. Indeed, in a system where life subordinated to the production of profit, the accumulation of labor-power can only be achieved with the maximum of violence so that, in Maria Mies’ words, violence itself becomes the most productive force. 

In conclusion, what Foucault would have learned had he studied the witch-hunt, rather than focusing on the pastoral confession, in his History of Sexuality (1978), is that such history cannot be written for the viewpoint of a universal, abstract, asexual subject. Further. he would have recognized that torture and death can be placed at the service of “life” or, better, at the service pf the production of labor-power, since the goal of capitalist society is to transform life into the capacity to work and “dead labor.””

The body is not and has never been irrelevant to the oppression of women, and women’s resistance. Controlling reproduction is the core of patriarchal subjugation, and to deny that requires a complete glossing over of history. The history of the witch is testament to this, as the ones most vulnerable to those accusations were old women, ugly women, barren women, women on the edge, women without a place, women with knowledge, with property, women without use to men. There’s a reason the monstrous feminine and the symbol of the witch resonates with women, that the idea of existing outside the pressures of female acceptability is possible and powerful. 

Foucault’s theory is utterly useless as tool for the liberation of women; it oesfucates and undermines the truth of women’s oppression and how we can fight back. Post-modernism has no place in feminist theory, and even takes the insights and discoveries of women and attributes them to a man, who then turns those ideas into something to hinder women. 

Honestly, the more I read post-modern theory, the more tired I get. It was refreshing to see someone point out the many flaws of Foucault, while acknowledging the realities of women’s history. I have more to say about the monstrous feminine, but I need to think about how I want to articulate it.

[mediaevalmusereads]

Bringing Down the Duke. By Evie Dunmore. New York: Berkley, 2019.

Rating: 3/5 stars

Genre: historical romance

Part of a Series? Yes, A League of Extraordinary Women #1

Summary:  England, 1879. Annabelle Archer, the brilliant but destitute daughter of a country vicar, has earned herself a place among the first cohort of female students at the renowned University of Oxford. In return for her scholarship, she must support the rising women's suffrage movement. Her charge: recruit men of influence to champion their cause. Her target: Sebastian Devereux, the cold and calculating Duke of Montgomery who steers Britain's politics at the Queen's command. Her challenge: not to give in to the powerful attraction she can't deny for the man who opposes everything she stands for. Sebastian is appalled to find a suffragist squad has infiltrated his ducal home, but the real threat is his impossible feelings for green-eyed beauty Annabelle. He is looking for a wife of equal standing to secure the legacy he has worked so hard to rebuild, not an outspoken commoner who could never be his duchess. But he wouldn't be the greatest strategist of the Kingdom if he couldn't claim this alluring bluestocking without the promise of a ring...or could he? Locked in a battle with rising passion and a will matching her own, Annabelle will learn just what it takes to topple a duke...

***Full review under the cut.***

Content Warnings: graphic sexual content, sexism/misogyny, attempted sexual assault

Overview: I learned about this book while searching around for romances in the vein of The Suffragette Scandal. Overall, I found Bringing Down the Duke fairly fun; it features a badass heroine, a hero who doesn’t give off violent alpha male vibes, and a plot that addresses real issues like class and gender equality. I only give this book 3 stars, however, because I think the plot could have been organized better, and I think the romance gets a little frustrating after about the halfway point. Still, if you’re just starting to read romance and aren’t sure about what level of physical intimacy you’re willing to tolerate, this book might be a good starter.

Writing: Dunmore’s prose is fairly laid-back and easy to understand, so if you’re looking for a light read, this book might fit the bill for you.

I do think, however, that Dunmore could have crafted her narrative and used her prose to reinforce the theme of independence vs safety. While this theme comes up a number of times, I always felt it was an afterthought because so many things were happening in the book, and I would have liked to see Dunmore pull back and really make the whole narrative (and use language, metaphor, etc) about this conflict.

Plot: The non-romance plot of this book follows Annabelle - a bluestocking who is given a full scholarship to Oxford on the condition that she support the suffragette movement. She is allowed to go on the condition that she send her cousin 2 pounds per month to pay for a housekeeper (which he will be lacking if Annabelle goes away), and as she tries to balance school, work, and activism, she is tasked with “infiltrating” the Duke of Montgomery’s home in hopes of winning him to the suffragette cause. Of course, shenanigans ensue from there.

What I really enjoyed about this plot was the ambition. I liked reading about the class and gender barriers that Annabelle had to navigate, and I liked that her political ambitions were at odds with the Duke’s personal ones. However, such a wide range of conflicts meant that not all plot threads were explored to the degree I would have liked. It seemed like characters were pulled in a lot of different directions, and that these non-romance plots took a backseat when it was least appropriate. The Duke’s New Year’s Eve party, for example, is supposed to be this big political move for the Duke to show his commitment to the Queen and the Tories, but we never see him put things in place or pull some social strings to line everything up, and we never see the party used as a crisis point in the political plot. Instead, it passes in the space of only a few pages and is mainly used as an opportunity for Annabelle and the Duke to become intimate. I would have instead liked to see it be this moment where the plot as a whole takes a turn: maybe everything is going well until the Duke realizes his feelings for Annabelle as well as the actions of his younger brother throw the whole party (and his political ambitions) into jeopardy. In short, I felt like events could have been moved around to make them more narratively impactful, rather than everything happening at a somewhat leisurely and meandering pace.

On a related note, I didn’t feel like the plot as a whole had many elements of suspense, nor did they really build on each other. As a result, the plot seemed to lack shape; there wasn’t really a rising action, and I was never sure what characters were going to do next (which was frustrating, rather than exciting). I think this could have been improved if we had seen Annabelle take a more active role in trying to manipulate the Duke. As the book stands, Annabelle seems to simply inhabit the Duke’s house and “wins” him over by being defiant. I think I would have liked to see her try more purposeful techniques, like going through his things to try to get information on him, having more political or philosophical conversations, etc. Something to drive the suffragette narrative forward and perhaps set up a moment when Annabelle has to reveal that she’s been trying to spy on him or something.

Characters: Annabelle, our heroine, is a fun character to follow. She’s smart, hardworking, and generous with regards to her friends. I liked that she wasn’t presented as this superwoman who could do everything, but was doing her best to balance all the demands made on her. While I think all of Annabelle’s actions were believable and she was a fairly complex character, I also think Dunmore was trying to do too much with her. Not only is Annabelle trying to balance her studies and her activism while struggling with poverty, but she also has a secret from her past which must be dealt with. Personally, I found it all a little much. I think Annabelle’s past and her financial obligations to her cousin could have been cut, placing more emphasis on the pressures of staying in school or becoming destitute. The conflict for her, then, would be something like the risks that come with being an independent woman, and how her entanglement with the Duke raises new risks.

Sebastian, our hero, in interesting in that he is stoic and single-minded without being a huge jerk. He’s completely obsessed with winning back his family’s estate, and he lets that obsession compromise his political and moral beliefs (though not to the point where he’s openly hostile towards women or anything like that - more like he’s willing to support the Tory party because he has been promised the return of his estate if they win the election). I liked that much of his personal growth had to do with deciding what it was he valued more: his family’s reputation or his personal happiness and being on the right side of history.

Supporting characters were fun and enriched the narrative. Annabelle’s suffragette friends were a lovely support system, and I adored the moments when they rallied to help Annabelle in moments of trouble. Sebastian’s brother, Peregrine, was a nice foil to the Duke and I liked that he was irresponsible and impulsive without being a total rake. Jenkins, Annabelle’s professor, was also an interesting character to have in the mix, especially when he became more involved in creating points of tension towards the end, and I liked that he was bookish and eccentric without being cold and self-important.

Romance: Annabelle and Sebastian’s romance is... ok. There were things about it I liked, and things I found frustrating. I really liked their banter and that they were intellectual matches for each other. I also liked that the barrier to them being together was rooted in class and the conflict between personal desire and family obligation. I also appreciated that the romance seemed to build naturally; while physical attraction was present, it wasn’t like Sebastian saw her and popped a boner and that’s what set everything off. Their relationship developed slower and I found it much more believable than some other romances.

What I didn’t like, however, was that after about the book’s halfway point, the relationship seemed to plateau and it became a matter of Annabelle and Sebastian splitting up, chancing upon each other in public, feelings erupt, then they do something intimate and split up again. I would have much rather have had something like a clean break at the 3/4 mark in the book: the two realize they can’t be together in the way they want, so Annabelle leaves and focuses on her activism/studies. During that time, things happen that challenge Sebastian’s commitment to his family legacy, but he doesn’t go seek Annabelle out. Maybe Annabelle instead gets an offer that would make her more financially stable (or more secure in her place at Oxford), so then she can go back to Sebastian, etc etc (I’m thinking about how the class barrier is handled in Jane Eyre here, if you can’t tell). It would have gotten rid of the annoying miscommunication incident towards the end, and instead would have forced some more meaningful development and not a “will they or won’t they” string of events.

TL;DR: Bringing Down the Duke is a bit of a narrative mess, but nevertheless fun and entertaining. With likeable characters, a believable romance, and meaningful themes, I would recommend this book for those just starting out in romance or to those who want romances written with contemporary readers (and sensibilities) in mind.

[minthysugamon]

Everybody wants to Rule the World. (Part 2)

Noble Assistant,Sergeant! Namjoon x Assassin! Reader.

1789! AU

Word Count: 2,111 (angel number go brrr again)

Warnings: Slight misogyny,beheading,blood,death...i think that's all.

(Credit for the Original Photo: @/athenaa. I only edited it a little bit. But all credit goes to the original artist who posted the photo first in it's original version)

(Painting: La liberté guidant le peuple by Eugène Delacroix)

+

+

+

12 Août,1787. (Flashback)

After reading every word of Voltaire,Maximilien became more and more riled up by the thrill of the revolution. The adrenaline of change was getting the best of him,he had no time to care about his little sister,(Y/n) Robespierre,who would simply block him from getting in the city. The Robespierre family was more than just concerned about their eldest child,the Gem of their family. (Y/n) hated the injustice their father casted upon them. She wanted to learn,he wouldn't let her. Henriette tried to reason her but stubborn,like her brother,she went up in Paris,alone,in the quest of knowledge.

After arriving at Le Marais,her first goal was to find her brother. Nothing more,nothing less. And finding him,she did. But not in his expected state. "Maximilien,laissez moi entrer.¹" A groan was heard from the man but he got up to let his sistet in. "What are you doing here? I told you to stay at home,in Arras. Is it so hard to follow my or father's wishes?" He sighed and pulled a chair out for her. 'How chivalrous.' (Y/n) thought to herself. "Mon frère,i came here to ask you a favor." Her eyes,full of hope,heart racing,the negative answer from him already anticipated. "And what would that favor be? If it's to join some political club,it's a no. And i won't listen to any begging. No is-" "I know. No is no. I don't even want to join those. All i wanted to ask from you is to teach me the art of law."

Maximilien sighed. He knew she will never be accepted as a lawyer,as much as she wanted. In the end,(Y/n) was a woman. Not a male apprentice. But a simple woman. "So...? Will you please teach me...?" Her voice resonated through the small living room,a hint of hope and a dust of desperation sticking to it. "No. I can't. I already taught you everything you had to know. I can't teach you more." Maximilien simply sat down on a chair,looking at her. How could have his sister,a woman from such a delicate mother,turned out like a man? "Is it because i'm a woman?" "It's because you won't be accepted. I'm only doing you a favor here,if you haven't noticed. Ta demande est ridicule. Et tu le sais très bien.² I won't let a Robespierre be turned into laughing stock. Not only your honor depends on it,but our whole family's."

Objecting her brother was the worst thing she could ever do. The man was stubborn and always stuck to his own ideologies for the better or the worst. "But you know-" "STOP IT. NOW. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THAT ANYMORE. I SAID NO. AND NOTHING WILL CHANGE THAT. YOU ARE A WOMAN. KNOW YOUR PLACE FOR GOD'S SAKE." The heavy breathing coming from the eldest was enough to make the atmosphere heavy between them. (Y/n) stood up and put the chair back as if she was never on it. "Alright. Thank you for your time,Maître Robespierre. Je me tâcherai à ne plus vous contre-dire.³" Stepping out of the residence,(Y/n) let the door slam against it's frame. The silence was too heavy around Maximilien. He wanted to tell her he's sorry,but he knew it won't change anything. Her pride was too high for her own good. So he put his aside for once,as unwilling as he was. "Alright. Come back. If you want to learn. You will learn. From me. But don't tell anyone about this. Est-ce clair?⁴"

The young woman's eyes lit up. For the first time,she achieved to coerce something useful out of her brother,something that will be helpful for her future. "Crystal clear,Maximilien." She did a 180 and started walking towards the door of the small and stuffed place the elder was living in,passing right beside him. "So? When do we start? I wanna know everything." An innocent but playful smile spreading on her face as she spoke took Maximilien by surprise. "Quoi?⁵ Not even a simple thank you?" The tone in his voice was laced with fake-hurt. He was annoyed but somewhat proud of her sister's persuasion skills. If she was a man,she would've been a very good lawyer. Putting ultimatums where they belong,it requires skill.

14 Juillet,1789.

After getting some powder,Namjoon was finally recharging his gun,the fact he owed his life to a revolutionist still had him shocked. 'Why?' wasn't his only question though,he wanted to know more about that woman. "COUPEZ-LUI LA TÊTE!⁶" the chant of the crowd grew louder and louder as his foster father was escorted by some peasants. While the sergeant of the troop was laying dead jn the hallway,the squad's organisation itself was frantic,none of them had endured such debauchery before.

"Sir,what should we do? We can't let the colonel down." One of the soldiers finally spoke up after a long moment of silence. His ears were ringing. The loud gun noises made him lose all auditory senses,but he still spoke up despite not being able to think clearly and having no military experience. "Wait here. If i signal the path is cleared,you follow. Divide in two divisions. We can't sacrifice anyone. If anything,i prefer sacrificing myself if there's a chance to lead you into safety. May God be with all of you."

Namjoon had no idea what came over him and moreover had no idea how to command,but he strong leadership De Launay has showed during his younger years may have stuck with him. One thing is sure,he won't commit the error of turning his troops against himself. Maybe getting killed was his destiny after all,but he would do everything in his power to not have the one who raised him killed. After hiding behind a pillar,the man signaled to the first troop to come and hide behind the chariot. The chariot the battle was going on for,the precious gun powder those uncultured men couldn't use. Hell,even him,he was new to the battle but the situation couldn't degrade more.

"Here's what we're going to do. We have to use up all the powder while the second troop can finally get to safety. Negociating with these savages already failed,we have to act." The youngest soldier, Nathanaël du Rhône, looked him in awe, their leader, Kim Namjoon, the man who was once a Stranger, was more worried about their safety than his. The newly appointed Staff Sergeant pointed to Nathanaël. "You. Signal to the others that they can come,then hide and leave. You have more than just a fight to live. The others,you come with me. Hide,aim and charge. I'll signal you when to shoot." De Launay has noticed his son due to his inattention,his hat was in the wrong direction. He simply smiled at the determination of the young chief then mouthed a simple 'You'll be alright son." in his direction while the three man were still escorting him out to the court of the prison.

"Wait....Now. Shoot." And the men acted as Namjoon said,including himself. They fired the shots,simultaneously touching the three who were holding the Colonel. Recharge,aim shoot again all the people who were flocking in the court. Once they had no other choice and were blocked,the hiding spot was discovered too. But he won't let his men down easily,he wasn't raised to do so. "Gather the explosives. We must light them and decimate the crowd or else this hell will never end."

After throwing one of the smoke torches in the crowd,he started running towards his elder, successfully stabbing one of the new detainers in the throat with the bayonette of his shotgun. "Père.⁷You must come. I beg you." De Launay simply nodded a no and smiled "My destiny was to die protecting the king and the prison. Now go before they get you too. You're too young to die." Namjoon wanted to do another round before he saw the head of the Colonel falling,in addition thhe man's blood splattered over his face as he wasn't more than 3 meters away. "Chef. Ils nous ont encerclé⁸. We must go." A new smoke torch was thrown by the youngest soldier on the ground,blinding the revolutionists as he held back his chief from going rampage over the ones who killed the one he called father. "NO I CAN'T. I CAN'T LET HIM DIE." Namjoon screamed frantically as Nathanaël was pulling him by the arm, at the same time asking for help from his troop mates. Two other men came to hold the new and young Sergeant down,escorting him to a hiding place,not wanting to lose their only commandant in this butchery.

15 Juillet,1789.

After staying up all night,the sun was rising. 'Finally', (Y/N) thought to herself. The night was long enough already when she simply had woken up from night terrors and waited for the light of the day to reassure her,but now that she had to wait for her brother, it seemed like an eternity. Sitting on the roof of the house Maître Robespierre lived in,she had the privilege to eat something that many couldn't, an apple. The thought of saving that guy in the early afternoon was prancing around her mind, not fully understanding why she did what she did. 'I should've killed him. Now he's one of my countless problems.' Her inner monologue was eating her up,much like she was munching on the green fruit. Due to the bad harvests of the previous years,it was as sour as her mood.

After finishing the apple,eating the core,even if it was more than just acidic and putting the seeds into a small pocket of her leather pants,she knew she should get down the roof and change back into her normal attire to hide her activity. As long as Maximilien didn't know about anything,she was safe. He wouldn't condone her actions even if she was killing the noblemen he oh so strongly opposed. As murderous as his desires were, the thought of a woman being better than him made his skin crawl. The crowd had finally died down too,people went back to their residences or the small shelter they were at to sleep,it was around two in the morning that the chants started to become more and more quiet and at three,not a single soul was seen wandering the streets. It was although now five in the morning and she knew,her brother would soon come back from the whorehouse he went to. After finally getting into her dress,she went out the door to finally get some bread. 'Oh to be a man and not give a piece of mind about the opinions of others.' she thought as she entered the local bakery.

"Bien le bonjour, mademoiselle⁹ ,early today,i see! Let me guess,the usual or are we changing it up today?" The baker, Jean-Hugues Lefèvre, was known for his kindness towards his costumers although since bread was a missing article nowadays,he always managed to sneak some to the poorest families,giving up his rations to save others. The baker had already started packing the two loaves,as usual until his actions were interrupted by (Y/n)'s voice.  "Just one loaf will be enough,thank you. I'm only buying for my brother,i am going back home today." As he was choosing the best loaf,he raised an eyebrow. "Oh? So soon? It hasn't been two months thought,as you said ten days ago." She smiled awkwardly,not knowing how to engage in the small talk,making herself feel smaller. "Well...i guess the Parisian air made me feel a little bit exthau-" her phrase couldn't be finished as somebody barged into the shop.

"Bonjour, Monsieur Lefèvre." The intruder was a tall man,smelling like gunpowder and cologne "Bonjour, Sergent Kim. Congratulations on your rank. You fought well. I am sorry about what happened with the Colonel. What can i serve you with?" Jean-Hugues gave (Y/N) the loaf as he told her the price and the  another man looked at her. "Three loaves please..." Thoughtful was the only way to describe him once he caught a look of the eyes of the woman,and (Y/N) had a suspicion why,so she ushered herself out of the bakery. "Wait a minute." The man called out. So she turned around "Yes?" Trying to seem confident out of the cape and mask that hid her face yesterday was harder to do than to say. "Haven't we met somewhere?" A genuine curiosity was displayed on his face. As much as she knew the right answer,the lie was necessary. "I don't think so. Have a nice day,Monsieur Lefèvre." And the girl started heading to the Robespierre residence.

Left dumbfounded and with three loaves for his 10 men, Namjoon was thinking about where he had seen those eyes before. "The girl from yesterday."

+

+

+

Translations

¹ Let me enter

² Your request is ridiculous. And you know that well.

³ I'll make sure to never argue with you again.

⁴ Is it clear?

⁵ What?

⁶ Chop his head off!

⁷ Father.

⁸Chief,they have surrounded us.

⁹Well good morning there,Miss.

A/N: Hello there. There will be probably a part 3,but i don't know when. I don't promise it will be before april but i'll try to write it before. Please note that i try to stay as close to history as possible but as this is an AU,there are some modifications here and there. This is pure fiction please do not take this for something real. Thank you. (Only saying because i've gotten some hateful DMs bc of the first part).

[pandawritesmanythings]

(A Medieval!AU Loki x Stark!Reader Story)

Chapter Summary: Where you meet you future groom. He doesn't seem too happy about you, though.

Word Count: 2,503

Warnings: Allutions to misogyny, an old man being sexist (Not Odin), Loki being Loki.

Masterlist

A/N: I am so excited about this story! Thank you guys again for your support, and please be patient with me, I'm still not super confident in my own writing but I'll keep trying my best!

"Absolutely lovely..." You sighed as you admired the room that would be your quarters in Asgard.

"I'm happy it accommodates you, Princess. Please, allow me to help to ready you for bed." The blonde girl asked as she moved to help you get out of your tight dress.

"Thank you, Sigyn." You smiled and raised your arms so she and Wanda could get to work.

They helped you out of the dress and Sigyn handed you a flowy nightgown that she explained was a gift from the queen herself to you.

"Oh, I couldn't possibly..." You hesitated as you touched the soft material of the dress.

"Please. It is a gift from the Queen. It is considered quite rude for someone to reject a gift from the nobility." She explained.

You looked into her brown eyes and nodded, accepting the gift. It was the softest fabric that you had ever touched and it made you feel weightless as it softly flowed with the salty wind that came from the open window.

"It's gorgeous." You said as you softly smiled down at the gift. "Please tell the queen that I am truly grateful for her gifts."

Sigyn nodded and after finishing helping you get ready she shuffled out of the room, head hung low.

"Sweet girl, isn't she?" Wanda asked as she brushed your hair.

"Shy, but very nice." You agreed.

"It is a beautiful garment, the one you've been gifted."

"I agree. Queen Frigga has impeccable taste."

Wanda also finished up and went to a side door that had a bed for her, a small closet, and a bathroom for herself. She bid you goodnight and disappeared.

Sleep hadn't come easy for you for almost a year now. Tossing and turning were oftentimes how you spent most nights, nightmares waking you when sleep finally overtook you. But for the first time in a very long time, sleep came fast and no nightmares were present. 

That of course meant that you were of very good humour when you presented yourself for breakfast that morning.

The king, Odin, was very pleasant if a little bit straightforward. But overall he did nothing to make you feel overly uncomfortable.

Frigga was a delight, words sweet as honeysuckle and ambrosia, smile kind, and open arms to receive you. 

Thor was as friendly as the night before and greeted you amiably.

But the other brother... To say that he wasn't exactly excited to see you was an understatement.

"My son, Loki." Odin presented you to him with a gruff voice.

You curtsied. "My prince, it is a pleasure to meet you."

Loki didn't respond, he gave his father a lopsided look. "Really? Her?"

Oh, lord no.

Odin paid him no mind and turned to you. "I hope you can forgive my son's indiscretion, it's truly a pleasure to have you here. If you'll follow me."

He led you away from the dark prince while he stared at you like he was plotting how to exactly make you disappear. So you shot him a look that told him that you reciprocated his feelings.

You paid him no mind the rest of the morning. He was awfully quiet, adding nothing to the conversation and you began to doubt this was the clever strategist that your father had talked to you about.

Well, he had called him some particular names that you kept out of your vocabulary, and slowly you saw the reason to use them.

"We're truly happy that you've decided to go through this alliance, my dear," Frigga commented at some point during the meal.

"I'm grateful that you even considered siding with us your majesties. It is truly an honor to have Asgard's favor."

"Speaking of. We'll finish our treaty after breakfast if that's alright with you." There was no room for discussion in Odin's tone.

"Of course, your majesty."

"And afterward, we shall feast!" Thor raised a glass in excitement.

"I would like nothing more, my prince." You smiled politely at his open display of joy.

"I must object in this alliance, of course."

"Loki," Frigga warned with her tone.

"I'm sorry, mother, but as a pawn, at play, I must get a say." He said, sarcasm dripping from his mouth.

"Loki, please. Stop." Frigga warned him again.

"... No. I don't think I will." He said before pushing his chair and storming outside of the room.

It felt hard to breathe, it was definitely tense in the room, but Frigga tried to lighten it.

"Forgive him, please my dear. He hasn't taken the news very easily."

"I can see that." You looked after where he had left.

"He just needs some time to process it."

You smiled at her, calmly, trying to show her your understanding. "I believe you, your majesty. It's been something to assimilate for me too. So I don't fully fault him. I just hope that we can come past our differences someday."

This seemed to relax everyone in the room, even the servants who had tensed up when the prince left.

"Thank you, my dear."

-

The room was filled to the brim with unfamiliar faces. The only ones you recognized were Steve and Bucky who stood guard by your side, Odin who sat high on his throne, and his two sons who stood by their father.

Thor looked at you with a kind smile, Loki was basically sneering at you.

"We have gathered here today, to make an alliance with our brothers. An alliance with the people of Midgard. May their representative rise." Odin's voice boomed through the room and commanded everyone's attention.

You stood with your head held high, through your mind speeding all of your mother's lessons in etiquette and diplomacy.

"Great leaders of Asgard. I represent my people, so that we may yet achieve peace. We face a common enemy, and we know that together we may stand a chance if they ever were to strike upon any of us." You began your speech. "I recognize Asgardians' accomplishments. Your technology is without a doubt superior. Your armies are well prepared. And though it may seem unnecessary, something that Asgard lacks is something that Midgard thoroughly possesses.

"Our forefathers', those who rose from the ashes of the earth, gained something that the forefathers of Asgard lacked. You have never faced the enemy. We have managed to keep them at bay for a century. We understand how they think. What they do. Name something. Anything. I will be able to provide intel. And not only me. Ask two of my bravest soldiers and companions. Captain Steve Rogers and Lieutenant James Barnes." You pointed to the two men standing right behind you. 

"They have faced the enemy ever since they were young." You looked around the crowd, trying to find a face that looked incredulous, or bored. You expected Loki to not be paying attention, but you actually saw him fully invested in your speech. Eyebrow raised at your defiant look around the room.

You finally found an old man towards the front who looked unimpressed.

"Pardon me, sir. May I ask for your name?" You politely requested.

"Lord Finnean Kendrick" He answered with a bored look on his face.

"Lord Kendrick. Would you like to ask any of us a question?" You offered.

Everyone turned their attention to the man, now put in the spotlight. "O-Of course! After all, if it is knowledge you claim to have, you must prove that is trustworthy knowledge!"

"Go ahead then."

He took a second and readjusted in his seat. "Lieutenant Barnes. At what age do Jotun's begin training their children?"

Bucky stared at the man, that was obviously common knowledge. "As soon as they begin to walk."

He hummed in approval. But that was too easy. "Captain Rogers. Are women often found on the battlefield, or do they stay and raise the young?"

"They are commonly found in battle. Children are raised as a warring community."

That last bit wasn't exactly common knowledge, which raised whispers around the room.

The man gritted his teeth and then looked you right in the eyes. "Alright woman. Your turn."

Oh, how calling him colorful names would help me calm down right now.

"If there was one thing you could say will destroy a Jotun, what would it be?"

You glared at him. You didn't care if the whole Asgardian court was watching you. You were actively and shamelessly glaring at the old man.

"Well, Lord Kendrick. Besides obvious fatal wounds that come from stab wounds, internal bleeding, and getting their faces smashed in by our warriors wielding maces. The most devastating thing to a Jotun is their honor and loyalty."

The room was silent expecting you to elaborate, but you didn't.

"And of course I would say more, but I only could under the assumption that this alliance is still taking place."

Whispers began circling the room once more, and although pensive, Odin had a shadow of a smirk pulling at his lips.

"Spoken like a diplomat, princess. Very well. We look forward to hearing more information from you and your generals." He conceded.

"Thank you, your majesty. I will send for all of our records on Jotuns as soon as the treaty has been signed." You nodded.

"Good." Odin stood and approached you, standing towards the center of the room. "Now, I suspect that you would like to discuss the other side of the alliance?"

You braced yourself, this was the part you weren't prepared for. Looking over at Loki, any spark of curiosity towards you had been snuffed out. In its place, a look of disdain was all that remained. You weren't sure if it was directed at you, but it didn't really matter.

"Of course."

-

"Tell me Sigyn," You called to the maid who was fetching your dress. "What might I expect from tonight's... festivities?"

She seemed to hesitate for a moment before speaking. "Well, first there will be a feast of traditional foods and drinks."

She passed the green layered dress over your head before continuing. "Then there will be dancing. That's why you can take layers off the dress." She pointed to a series of secret zippers. "Some dances are freestyle, so you can shed layers until you are comfortable."

You nodded quietly and allowed her to continue.

"Afterwards there will be more singing, dancing and drinking. The festivities are pretty loose since after a couple of pints everyone is too drunk to follow or establish any tradition." She lightly giggled.

You chuckled. "Are you sure that's all there will be?"

"I believe so." She tightened your corset. "But if there is anything I left out I'll make sure to let you know. But decorum is long forgotten in Asgard after the third and last waltz."

Looking at yourself in the mirror, you frowned. "Sigyn. Pardon my question but... Why green?"

She looked as if scandalized. "Well, you are engaged to Prince Loki, are you not?"

"Yes. But-" You looked back at your reflection at a loss for words.

"Then you must wear his colors to formal events. It is scandalous to wear another man's colors to any public event." She continued when your words couldn't come out.

"I see..."

"Is this not a tradition in Midgard?" She asked as she worked on your hair.

"Not really. We haven't found the time to establish many traditions when it comes to parties and formal events."

That was true, the few parties that you had ever partaken in everyone dress up however they wished (following the dress code, of course) and it mostly consisted of choreographed numbers and fine dining. You had yet to see what an Asgardian feast looked like, but by what Sigyn had described it wouldn't be incredibly similar to your feasts back home.

And Sigyn was, in fact, correct. After a hearty dinner, accompanied by not only the royal family but lords and dukes, you all followed to the dance ball where couples were pairing to dance in unison.

You didn't know the dance, the culture of each realm were well-kept secrets. They barely spread, only enough to be polite, but dances and literature never reached beyond frontiers, unless they were prohibited books.

But after the first waltz, you seemed to catch the drift. It was actually very similar to some of the Midgardian waltzes.

You were unsure if to ask anyone to dance with you. At this point, you were still so oblivious to Asgardian etiquette that you feared doing something that might upset the king. Even if the alliance had already been signed and Bucky had gone to deliver the news and to bring some of the sages and historians to begin the exchange of information.

But it wasn't necessary to worry much since as soon as the music of the second waltz was finalizing, you heard someone clear their throat beside you. Glancing to your right you found prince Loki, your betrothed, standing awkwardly by your side.

He didn't look at you, he just extended his hand for you to take, and when you did he pulled you softly towards the dancing floor.

Soft and careful weren't words you expected to use while describing your interactions with the dark prince. But life had a way of surprising you.

"I must admit that I don't know the Asgardian waltzes." You tried to ease into a conversation.

He seemed to smirk but he didn't meet your eyes. "Just follow my lead, princess."

He led you through the whole thing and didn't make a single teasing comment, which was nice.

"Thank you, my prince."

"What for?" He yet hadn't met your gaze.

"For giving me a chance."

"It's not like I have much of a choice. We both know it's in both of our nation's best interests." He reluctantly conceded.

"It is. And I know that this arrangement is probably not what you wanted, but if we are to spend our lives together, may I offer a truce to get to know each other?"

He was pensive as you glided through the ballroom. "I cannot offer you love."

"And I am not asking for it. I need an ally. And I think that as underestimated you are, you are the best choice in the room."

That cracked a smile on his face and finally made him look at you as if searching if you were being honest. "Better than the mighty Thor?"

"What are brawns without a brain to control them? Flesh can only get you so far." You grinned but kept your head raised in solemnity.

Loki searched in your eyes, yes there was a level of teasing, but he knew you weren't lying. It had been a while since anyone had been truthful to him.

The music ended and everyone applauded towards the musicians. The men and women with their instruments bowed, but instead of beginning to file out, they sat again and prepared.

"I hope you're ready for the next round princess," Loki whispered to you.

(TAG LIST OPEN)

[failure-friendly]

How to Stop Burnout - the unexpected solution (It’s not more ‘self-care’)

I was burning out every second week, sleeping the weekends away, burdened by the guilt of letting people down when I couldn’t keep my commitments, and I was pissed off that I had zero energy for me. 

‘Enough!’ I finally snapped. With a mission to become more productive, consistent and in control - I began researching burnout. I was going to hack my way out of the vicious cycle that was stealing my confidence. 

Boundaries (saying ‘no’ to others) and self care (saying ‘yes’ to yourself). That was what the internet told me to do. I found that attempting to hold boundaries and maintain rigorous self care routines without first dealing with why you’re people pleasing yourself to death - is a recipe for even more burnout! Next.

Inconsistent vs Cyclical, that was my big discovery and the quick fix I wanted. My research led me to what every female used to be taught at the initiated of their first period. This is what I learnt: 

The moon has a 28 day cycle in which it changes from full, to half, into total blackness, and then to half again. Females also have a 28 day cycle. This is not an insignificant coincidence. Men’s hormone levels (where they get their energy) rise high in the morning and fade into the evening - just like the sun. Meaning everyday they have the same amount of energy, they’re designed to smash out workouts or work earlier in the day and switch off into the evening.

Women’s hormone levels are very different, they rise and fall according to where they are in their 28 day cycle. We need different hormones to menstruate and a very different hormone cocktail to ovulate. Like the moon, sometimes we’re full of energy and other times our light fades. We are designed to be reflective and still in the week that we bleed, then a powerhouse of energy the week we ovulate, an abundant nurturer the week after we ovulate and then more reclusive or nurtured in a premenstrual week. 

If you compare a woman's energy to a man’s it seems very inconsistent, changing rapidly from day to day. But if you zoom out you’ll see that we are extremely consistent to a rhythm of our own. When you know what’s coming and what you need in each phase of the cycle, it doesn’t have to be a rollercoaster!

The hero’s journey. This was a very important piece of the puzzle that helped solve my burnout problem. The hero’s journey is a metaphorical story used to teach the universal truth: we need to go through some shit, shitty experience that brings us face to face with our fears, that challenge us, makes us want to quit but force us to reach inside of ourselves and overcome, emerging from the darkness stronger than before, as a hero. (The premise of not only every movie you’ve ever seen but also all ancient mythology and religious teachings). 

Our culture today glorifies the easy and convenient, struggle is something to be avoided at all costs, making us unequipped to deal with difficulty. The hero’s journey normalises hard times and reminds us they are an important part of life, because on the other side of heartache there is wisdom. It’s a lesson. 

It took me a minute to embrace my cycle. I wanted to skip the slow energy side and just ‘man up’, be in that addictive fiery ovulation energy all day everyday. So of course I continued to burnout but each time I would wonder what was the lesson in the burnout. Each time I sat with the discomfort I began to uncover mind blowing, empowering truths. Such as:

Productivity is overrated. 

Without taking the time to get clear, slow down and reflect, ask why we’re doing it, what is working and not working, is there a simpler way, is it making us happy - we just make more and more of the same old boring shit. We end up creating more work for ourselves rather than results, we make silly mistakes that could have been avoided if we just cleared our heads, and we fail to notice great opportunities that are right in front of us. Action without rest is insane, it’s imbalanced, unsustainable and suicidal. Realising this illuminated to me how toxic my work environment (and mind) had become. Everyone jacked up on testosterone, trying to work harder and faster, doing more, more, more. To rest and reflect was considered lazy and not okay. It was killing us all, but especially the women whose health is jeopardized by too much testerone. It was a problem deeper than stress, the toxicity was rooted in misogyny. It’s not just women who have been labeled inferior but feminine traits like sharing emotions, nurturing safe spaces and taking time to reflect. I began to value mental clarity over busyness, I stopped trying to do everything and just excelled at what made sense. I saw and felt it working which gave me the confidence to push back whenever the ‘more, more, more’ voices started nagging. 

Consistency is boring.

When I stopped fighting my cycle and accepted that I wasn’t designed to perform consistently at the same level everyday, I realised how clever the patriarchy was. To my surprise the slow times were not wasted time at all, on the contrary! When you align your energy with what’s happening inside you, you tap into a huge power that I will struggle to put into words. If you’ve ever had a difficult mediation experience where you couldn’t slow your mental chatter, it’s like the opposite of that. It’s easy stillness, wombing, where healing and release can happen, which gives you greater cleaner energy, truths and next steps reveal themselves, and you can feel a magnetic pull from inside you making it easy to manifest what you desire. It’s a dreamy place that I’d choose over hustling and grinding any day! It may not look like much from the outside but it’s powerful, it recharges you in a way that 50 billion coffees never could. Your actions may be slower here but they are magnetised. If you really embrace the slow times you will emerge with what feels like superhuman capabilities in your ovulation week, which will more than make up for the perceived loss of productivity. It does hurt to find out you’ve been fed a lie and taught to devalue the very thing that holds your power, so that you actively disempowered yourself. But like in the hero’s journey, this hurt is the source of much healing, wisdom and empowerment. 

Control is the root of all evil. 

After a few hero’s journeys the answer was staring me in the face, the way to stop burning out and feeling like I wasn’t in control of my energy, was to surrender. It wasn’t necessarily my work, or the fact that I had a cycle that was burning me out, it was the way I kept fighting the current of my own nature, trying to control it. It takes way more energy to suppress nature than it does to go with it. 

Every time my body told me I needed rest and I refused, I was adding fuel to the fire. On top of that I spent precious energy punishing myself for not being able to keep going. Now if I feel really tired I might take a guilt free mental health day and recharge, rather than pushing through for another week making myself sick and needing to take a few days of sick leave. It wasn’t just me that I wanted to control. If things didn’t unfold the way I envisioned I burnt way more energy being frustrated and trying to force things back. When things unfold differently to what  we expect - that’s interesting. Who’s to say it’s worse and not better, who’s to say the lessons learnt through that experience aren’t more valuable than if everything went to plan. Also, that’s life, nothing goes according to plan so lamenting it or forcing it is a waste of your limited energy! It’s asking for burnout. Instead of seeking to control the uncontrollable, it’s healthier to practice belief in yourself, resilience and compassion for when the plot inevitably twits. Surrendering, especially for a recovering control freak, is easier said than done. It’s terrifying. But just as it’s a myth that rest is lazy, it’s a myth that surrender is defiet. Surrender is freedom. As you release the energy spent worrying about everything that could go wrong, you feel that energy returning to you. More focus, more clarity, more you. 

So my quest to conquer burnout didn’t go as I expected. Instead of finding more productivity, consistency and control, I found balance. By matching my very masculine perspective of action taking and goal seeking with a gentler feminine perspective of reflection and surrender I found a powerful balance. A balance that has stopped me from falling into a heap over and over again. 

Now I move like the tides now. I flow freely from high energy to slow energy, trusting my body when it tells me to rest or to run, knowing there is a reason for every season. Hallelujah. 

Practical ways to find your rhythm: 

Download a period tracking ap (Clue is my fave)

Download a full moon ap (especially if you don’t have a period, run on the full moon, rest on the new). 

Listen to the Period Queen Podcast (4 episodes, on for each phase of the cycle)

Read Goddess Wisdom by Taniska

Get less artificial light after dark, do more moon bathing. 

Spend time with mother nature (feminine energy).

Purchase Failure Friendly Action Cards to learn self belief and self compassion. 

[a-room-of-my-own]

Amnesty Irland wrote a letter (signed by a lot of "celebrities") in which they said that women don't deserve political representation (if they don't cater to the dick! -.-). It was already a few days ago and they have backpedaled since (basically calling Irish women stupid and that we misunderstood their words, because of our "lady brains"), but that they even dare to say something like this is horrifying! Misogyny is very much alive and every political party just loves to fuck women over!

I think I found it

Today, Trans Day of Remembrance 2020, members of Ireland’s LGBTQ+ community have released a powerful open letter in which they reinforce Ireland’s strong ethos of intersectional solidarity and the inclusion of our trans siblings as valuable members of society.

The letter has been signed by multiple organisations including the National Women’s Council of Ireland, MERJ Ireland and Le Cheile.

Below is the letter in full. It is now open for members of the public to sign on change.org.

For decades the transgender community has advocated, marched, and fought for equality, and inclusion. This fight has never once wavered in supporting movements that garner equality for all marginalised communities. Our work, our fight, our campaigns, have all been underscored by two things, intersectionality and solidarity. The transgender community has always worked in advancing the equal rights and acceptance of all without discrimination. For decades the work of the transgender community was tied to working in wider acceptance of queer people, even when our rights were never mentioned, nor advanced. For decades members of the transgender community marched in Pride, stood for women’s equality, all while our rights were left off the table. Internationally, women such as Marsha P. Johnson and others, marched, shouted and demanded gay rights, while every step of the way recognition of transgender identities and the inclusion of transgender rights were left behind. Here in Ireland the transgender community has continued to show that spirit of solidarity. Members of our community have worked along intersectional lines supporting campaigns that aimed increasing women’s rights, and the wider rights of the lesbian, bisexual and gay communities. Transgender people were active in campaigns in 2015 and 2016 that saw the passing of Marriage Equality in Ireland, and in the repeal of the 8th Amendment. Even now, transgender people continue to work for reforms that will increase the rights of gay and lesbian parents in surrogacy and adoption. Never have transgender people sought to diminish the rights, or acceptance of others.

Now, unfortunately, we see a rise in discriminatory organisations and vocal transgender exclusionary activists using Twitter and divisive antics to attempt to a drive a wedge in queer communities between transgender people and fracture our support from feminists. For our decades of solidarity, some seek to repay our community with a call for division based on falsities and bigotry. Let us say unequivocally that the statements of newly launched organisations that seek to defend biology or fight gender identity and expression do not represent the wider LGBTI+ community nor feminists in Ireland. More importantly, they are not organisations at all, they have no governance, no accountability, and are simply Twitter accounts. Further, they are not supported by the wider Irish community. Ireland has dealt with these pseudo-feminists before, and the work of Feminist Ire dealt swiftly with their attacks by stating “Trans women are our sisters; their struggles are ours, our struggles theirs. They were our sisters before any state-issued certification said so and will always be no matter what any legislation says, either now or in the future.” In addressing these accounts it is simple enough to refute them by stating they are not radical, they are not inclusive, and they are not feminists. They are simply misinformed and transphobic. The vitriol and disinformation these accounts and people share does not represent the beliefs of the legitimate organisations and signers of this letter, and together we repudiate their beliefs, and call for an end in giving airtime to their despicable brand of harassment. In Ireland we exist as a strong coalition of intersectional solidarity. As LGBTI+ and feminist organisations we stand together, we march together, we advocate together. We will not allow transphobia to grow and our history of work together will only continue to propel us to a more equal future for all marginalised people.

We call on media, and politicians to no longer provide legitimate representation for those that share bigoted beliefs, that are aligned with far right ideologies and seek nothing but harm and division. These fringe internet accounts stand against affirmative medical care of transgender people, and they stand against the right to self-identification of transgender people in this country. In summation they stand against trans, women’s and gay rights by aligning themselves with far right tropes and stances. They have attacked LGBT+ education in school, attacked anti-bullying campaigns, and attack access to medical services. They stand to remove equality, and cause a legacy of damaging discrimination. In particular, the road to Gender Recognition was long and public, and we in the trans community are thankful for the support of the many who stood by our side. We are thankful to the wider gay, lesbian and bisexual communities that marched and worked alongside of us for legal recognition. We are thankful for the feminists that saw, and still see, trans women as their sisters and use their voice to speak for equality. We are thankful our community was given a chance to present our case to the country, and that we secured so much support for inclusion and legal recognition. A legal battle, that to remind all, was started by Dr. Lydia Foy in 1992 for legal recognition and bodily autonomy. A twenty three year public debate and case for recognition. A battle that was full of intrusive questions, investigating peer-reviewed and solid research, and public debate. Dr. Foy and many other trans women, trans men, and non-binary people, laid bare their lives to Ireland in an attempt to be legally recognised, to have access to affirming medical care and support. As the years wore on our LGBTI+ community came alongside of us, and so did the Feminist Movement in the country. The basis of the argument is that all people, regardless of gender should have access to legal recognition, and should be treated as the best authority on their body. In the twenty years of public transgender advocacy we are thankful for the many steps toward progress that Ireland has taken. The transgender community along with the many supporters and signers of this letter will not stand by and allow toxic voices to continue to spread disinformation that seeks to restrict bodily autonomy, and equality.

Over twenty years Ireland has changed for the better. Many out transgender adults grew up in the Ireland that these discriminatory voices seek to bring back. One in which trans people were forced to be broadly invisible and silent in. An Ireland that forced trans people to be hidden, and intimidated them into the closet due to hate, discrimination and harassment. It was an Ireland that made transgender people feel ashamed and scared about who they were. The Ireland that we came out in versus the Ireland that we are now visible in, is a different Ireland to the one we were lost and shamed in. It is an Ireland where trans people are visible and legally recognised. We cannot and we must not go back from that. We do not want trans kids growing up and thinking they are the only ones who feel the way that they do or that they should be ashamed of who they see. We need an Ireland of inclusion so trans kids are not pushed to suicide, not forced to live in closets, and are not bullied for being born this way. Ireland has made great strides in terms of trans visibility and representation. Now we are dealing with those who fear and hate that and who would do anything in their power to tear us down and drive a wedge between us and the rest of the LGB+ community.  We must not let them win. Our lives and our very existence should not be up for debate. We deserve to be treated equally and with respect and to be recognised and accepted for who we are. Our twenty years of progress is monumental, and it must stand boldly against any and all fleeting voices of hate that seek to harm us.

As a trans community we are tired, tired of the hate, and the discrimination levied against us at every turn. Transgender people across Ireland seek to live a full, healthy, and included life. We would call on those that are standing in support with us to continue to use your voice to stand for bodily autonomy, a better medical care system, and full inclusion in society for trans and gender expansive people. We would ask that you do not engage with those that seek to simply project false information, or hateful words. Please do not use your voice to engage with people that are bad faith actors. Instead take time to share why transgender rights matter, how transgender rights make society better, and how equality means a fuller and healthier life for all. Use your voice to call on media to accurately portray trans people, and for lawmakers to value our lives. Use your voice as an ally to speak for inclusion, to speak for acceptance, and to speak for a better life for transgender people. Be visibly proud to support your trans friends, family and colleagues.

We know equality means justice and inclusion for all! Supporting transgender people, and standing for transgender equality does not lessen anyone’s rights. Rather as marginalised people are given more equality, we are all given a more equal society. No one has true equality, while some still live under the wheels of injustice. Anyone that continues to use inaccurate science to denigrate trans people is increasing discrimination. Sex and gender are both spectrums, and the full beauty of that spectrum must be supported and included. No one should be targeted or harassed for who they are. Trans children do not deserve to be sent to schools being fed lies about them. Transgender adults should not be fearful that they might be targeted and killed on their walk home for simply living their lives. These are the worries that these organisations are seeking to bring to Ireland. One that sees a rise in trans suicide, violence, and isolation. An Ireland that is not a land of a thousand welcomes, but of a thousand fears. Transgender rights do not attack feminism, they are a continuation of feminist ideals. Transgender men and women do not lessen the rights or threaten gay and lesbian spaces, because trans men are men, and trans women are women.

It is time as a society and as a queer, feminist, radical community we no longer allow bigotry to blossom. In no uncertain terms we agree that trans lives matter, trans people should be given full rights, and trans people should be included fully in society. Trans people are our friends, neighbours, colleagues, classmates and loved ones. We will not allow anyone to promote hate, to trade in bigotry, or to attack legislation, education and programs that affirm transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people. We stand boldly against the rise of exclusionary rhetoric, and name it for what it is, harassment and transphobia. It is not based in truth, it comes with no claims in fact, and is a dog whistle to bigots. We know that by and large these false narratives are not native to the queer and feminist communities of Ireland. These ideas are representative of outsiders that have not worked, laboured, or known the trans community in Ireland. These fringe groups have not been in the trenches for equality. They do not understand, nor appreciate, that together we built a radical and inclusive coalition for equality.

This radical and inclusive coalition denounces their platforms of disinformation. We reject their inaccurate science. We reject their aims, goals, and campaign for discrimination. Ireland is better when it is diverse and equal. Our diversity and equality has been showcased by our coalition of trans, queer, and feminist leaders who in their unity have won tremendous legislative victories that have improved the lives of gay and lesbian couples, women’s rights, and transgender recognition. Our unity, and our work will not stop. Our focus is now on strengthening our resolve, turning away hate, and continuing to support the trans and gender expansive community members from those that would seek to harm them. We will not be bullied, we will not be silenced, and we will not allow transgender rights to be maligned. We move forward with hope and unity for a better world, and a better Ireland

---

Nice call for censorship 🙄

[crezth]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-03/misogyny-anti-women-terrorism-extremist-groups-online/100031678

Ms Bates says anti-women rhetoric is so pervasive online that it's normalised. In this climate, groups have emerged spouting dangerous ideologies, including "women being evil and about men needing to rise up and crush them, to rape women to force them into sexual servitude, and to murder them".

She believes they should be classified as terrorist groups.

[...]

[Dr. Joshua Roose] says there's a strong "normative anti-women attitude in society" that feeds into online activities and behaviour.

His research, for example, has looked at the proposition that women deserve equal rights to men, and found that only one in 17 men disagree.

But among men under the age of 35, that figure grows substantially to one in three men disagreeing.

Dr Roose says "particularly problematic" attitudes like these are fostered in groups such as pick-up artists, incel communities and hard-line, anti-women hate groups.

"[These] groups argue that women need to be subjugated, need to return to the domestic sphere, and really need to be put back in their historical place," he says.

Dr Roose says over the last decade there's been an interesting development of groups in the manosphere mimicking techniques of recruitment similar to those employed by far-right violent extremist groups.

"There's a strong push to mobilise masculinity, when they're recruiting. To say, 'you're a man, you should be doing something, you should be fighting for something. What do you believe in? There's a reason that you're not achieving what you want to achieve. Society is fundamentally skewed against you. Join us'," Dr Roose says.

"And the basic premise is that in joining them, not only can you become a warrior and a hero, and really stand up and fight for something, but you're assuming your place as a man and you should be rewarded with women for doing so."