#society and obligations are oppressive etc etc

[non-un-topo]

Feeling a little bad that I didn’t even decorate or get a pumpkin, an although I’ve got maybe two hours until trick-or-treaters come out, I just can’t find the energy to do any festivities. Partner and I simply had too much work to do. And also I want to read my book.

[gingerhastoomanyobsessions]

for a webbed site that claims to love rehabilitative justice tumblr sure has a love of vengeance huh. somehow we’ve created a digital atmosphere where literal murder is less bad than (checks notes) not emerging from the womb with a perfectly calibrated moral compass and the Correct Political Opinions

I’ve seen people on here say that, not only can people Not Change, but that people who try to change are a) lying b) manipulative and c) undeserving of the chance to change. besties…becoming a better person isn’t about whether or not you deserve to become a better person, it’s not even about becoming 100% perfect, it’s about doing damage control after you realize you fucked up. like yeah people you’ve hurt aren’t obligated to like you/forgive you/interact with you, but tumblrites seem to think that anyone who’s ever made a serious mistake should be exiled from society and/or guillotined. we’ve gone from reasonable and correct takes about how people change (ex. “it’s not my responsibility to teach you”— yes! of course it shouldn’t be up to underprivileged random people on the internet to educate the uninformed!) to utterly deranged ones (ex. “nobody with privilege will ever realize that they’re doing harm and the ones who claim to be in the process of learning are just virtue signaling and should be punished for it”— a take I’ve seen applied to men learning about feminism, cishets becoming allies, white people learning about antiracism, relatives of shooters who go on to advocate for gun control, etc)

you do realize that people can genuinely change for the better, right? I’ve seen my parents un-transphobia themselves firsthand, going from thinking that my sibling came out “for attention” to wholeheartedly believing in trans rights. my grandma’s father was every kind of asshole imaginable and she grew up indoctrinated, but as an adult she broke away from him and has spent the rest of her life working on unlearning stuff. my cousin grew up in the rural south and parroted his rural southern dad’s opinions until he was thirteen and started actually thinking for himself, at which point he did a total 180 and is now studying history with a focus on the evolution of the rights of the underprivileged

so when I see people on here say that people shouldn’t change because they don’t deserve to change it rubs me the wrong way. cause at that point it sounds like you’d rather have that person stay harmful so you can stay mad at them, instead of letting them change and gaining yourself an ally. again, you don’t need to interact with them, but. at this point it kind of feels like you care more about hating The Oppressors than about protecting The Oppressed.

[limeade-l3sbian]

Pro kink rant:

So i’m in several shipping fandoms. I’m not against people shipping characters in a sexual manner, but I’ve definitely noticed the more and more extreme versions of sex fans and fanfic authors enjoy their pairing going through and it’s alarming. Today someone I follow who ship two male characters whose canon dynamic I enjoy talked about how much they enjoyed a fic they had read about them, where one of them was whipped so severely, another third character had to help with the clean up because there was so much blood. Sounds alarming right?

Well I pointed that out, while also talking about how the person who’s capable of getting off on another persons pain, especially such a severe degree, should not be something to glorify and is scary and twisted.

The other person replied that they are two consenting adults(characters) and obviously that’s true, but why does that matter? What pushes a person to actively get turned on when the person they are participating in sexual activities with is in pain and even bloody? How is such a person allowed to be in society? Sure it’s consenting but beating someone bloody is not and never will be a neutral action. It’s always someone being beat. Someone could argue missionary can be rape and yea it can but not only don’t i agree with the notion of rape being a form of sex, even if it was, sex in and of itself is a neutral action. if we take any violence away from it, if we take any force, if we take any feelings of obligation out and someone just has sex with each other bc they are attracted to each other, that is a totally harmless. There’s nothing about sex at its core that is malicious. Beating someone(or another popular kink in fandom nowadays, choking) is an act of violence at its core. You cannot just remove that factor.

Then there’s also the reality that most people having violent sex, amongst those the person who gets beat, degraded, choked, etc., is almost always women, whereas the one doing the beating, degradation, choking, etc., is usually male. It’s not a coincidence. It’s not because biologically women just like being beat, we can all agree on. It’s because women are not only socialized to become vessels for men’s desires, we are also degraded both psychologically, sexually and physically through every day life, whether it’s done by someone directly, teachings, media, pornography, oppression.

And then one can obviously argue that those two characters that started this whole thing are male, so who cares, but is it not curious that the character that got beat was the “bottom”? The “receiver”?

“Getting fucked” is not a female thing, that’s not what i’m saying, but whether it’s female or male, getting fucked inherently puts that person at a more vulnerable position. Not only due to higher risk of injury but also psychologically. Letting someone into your body is always gonna require more vulnerability than putting in. So why is it almost always the person in that position being the “masochist”?

There’s also the fact that consent matters little. Not only is it a common occurrence for woman or male bottom to be pushed too far, it’s also downright impossible in a lot of these physically and psychologically extreme situations to say they retract consent. And even if they do manage, it’s once again also very common for the sadist to continue on until they reach climax. Not to mention all the abuse and murder being committed and brushed under the rug because the perpetrator can simply claim the other person wanted it. And it’s perfectly accepted in todays society because “don’t kink shame!”. And sure in some of those situations it probably was a situation that went too far on accident, but if it had never taken place in the first place, if the sadist didn’t get off on the control over the other and their pain, it would not have happened. It’s still an abusive situation. You cannot neutralize violence. A violent act is still gonna be a violent act even if you do it in the bedroom.

1/2

[ari-does-epi]

Let's Talk Zionism And Anti-Semitism

There was a good post floating around earlier, but it's unrebloggable now. So, here's some common anti-Semitic rhetoric that's been floating around in anti-Zionist circles and how to tackle it!

1. Conflating anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism

Judaism is a religious belief, whereas Zionism is (usually) a political view that Jewish people have exclusive rights to the land of Israel/Palestine. It's worth noting there are other meanings and understandings of Zionism, particularly within the Jewish community, that are less blatantly ethnocentric. Those are absolutely subject to criticism as well, but those are mostly intracommunity discussions.

2. Claiming Jewish people should simply "go back home" or be deported.

Jewish people have a legitimate claim to Palestinian land. There was an extant, peaceful Palestinian Jewish community in that region prior to 1948. If the Israeli occupation ends, it's possible many Jewish Israelis will choose to leave Palestine, but it's also likely many will choose to stay and help build a more equitable society.

3. Insisting Jewish people must talk about Zionism before discussing anti-Semitism

This gets tricky! All people in positions of privilege (those of us who are White/non-Black and Indigenous, Western-born, middle class, etc.) have an obligation to speak out against the oppression of those without those privileges. This includes an obligation for American Jews to speak out against the oppression of Palestinians. That said, not every conversation is going to be about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and that's okay. Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are intrinsically tied. Muslim and Jewish communities need to stand in solidarity with each other, and that includes holding space and time for dismantling anti-Semitism within anti-Zionist spaces. No one is free until we're all free.

4. Holocaust denial/ignorance

It's worth reading up on the history of the Zionist movement! The U.S. (and essentially all other countries) were complicit in the Holocaust, and this precedent fuels the fears of many Jewish people who think Israel is the only thing preventing another Holocaust. White supremacy plays on this fear to pit minoritized groups against each other.

5. Identity Politics

No group is monolithic! We should be analyzing our positionality, but simultaneously it's important to understand that every group is comprised of diverse individuals with widely varying opinions. That includes me! I'm speaking as an ethnically and religiously Jewish person of color, an American, and as a queer person. Those positions and experiences certainly influence my views, but at the same time, you can 100% find people with exactly those identities who have very different opinions. Be wary of anyone who claims that they alone speak for the Jewish community. The way around this is to interact with lots of Jewish people (especially Palestinian Jewish people!) What views seem to be common? Who seems to have good points?

[anchorandrope]

hi alex, hope you’re doing well. i have a question um… why people, including you, say that queerbaiting doesn’t exist for real people? like what does that means? thank you in advance for your answer and happy holidays 💝

hi dear,

first of all, i recommend you to check this post (it gives the definition) and my tag queerbaiting.

queerbaiting is a term that is used for companies, for characters, etc. NOT for real people. why?

real people are allowed to not know their own sexuality/gender and play with gender expression or try having relationships with people of the same gender without having to give explanations as lgbt+ people owe NO explanations to cis-straight people.

real people are allowed to know their sexuality or gender identity and not want to tell their friends or a public because 1) we don't owe explanations to anyone. 2) coming out of the closet is literally a health risk both physically and mentally and if a person decides they don't want to go through that process, they should be respected and not accused without knowing.

lgbt+ people who use the term:

do you remember being in the closet? how would you have felt if, when you were just discovering your sexuality/gender identity, you had thousands or millions of people accusing and insulting you? you would have felt pretty bad, wouldn't you?

cis-straight people who use the term:

why the hell do you care so much if a person is ambiguous about their gender or sexuality? why does it bother you that you don't know EVERYTHING about EVERYONE? why do you think its an obligation for lgbt+ people to come out of the closet?

for all people:

do you really care that “cis-straight” people don't “use” or “benefit” from the lgbt+ community or do you only care about satisfying your own expectations? do you understand that you cant force people to come out of the closet against their will? you do understand that accusing a person without knowing what you are accusing them of is stupid, right?

then:

i want a non-queerphobic explanation as to why celebrities like billie eilish, harry styles, madonna, bad bunny, etc. are accused of literally NOTHING.

there is no such thing as “using” the lgbt+ community. the community and the people within it are not objects to be “used”.

there is no such thing as “profiting” from being lgbt+. WE LIVE IN A QUEERPHOBIC WORLD!!! HOW THE HELL AM I GOING TO BENEFIT FROM BEING AN OPPRESSED AND DISCRIMINATED MEMBER OF SOCIETY?

lgbt+ people are not bothered (or should not be bothered) that other people are discovering themselves as we all went through that process. we are not bothered that a person is in a closet as we were all in one at one time.

stop trying to use us lgbt+ people as an excuse to continue with the cancel culture.

i propose something ❤️LIVE AND LET LIVE❤️

—————————

anómino preguntó:

hola alex, espero que te vaya bien. tengo una pregunta um... ¿por qué la gente, incluido tú, dice que el queerbaiting no existe para la gente real?

greedy-queen responde:

hola cariño,

primero de todo, te recomiendo chequear este post (da la definición) y mi tag queerbaiting.

el queerbaiting es un término que se utiliza para empresas, para personajes, etc. NO para personas reales. ¿por qué?

las personas reales tenemos permitido no conocer nuestra propia sexualidad/género y jugar con la expresión de genero o probar de tener relaciones con personas de nuestro mismo género sin tener que dar explicaciones ya que las personas lgbt+ no le deben NINGUNA explicación a las personas cis-hetero.

las personas reales tenemos permitido conocer nuestra sexualidad o identidad de género y no querer decirla a nuestro conocidos/amigos o a un público por el hecho de que 1) no debemos explicaciones a nadie. 2) salir del closet es literalmente riesgo para la salud tanto física como mental y si una persona decide no querer pasar por ese proceso, hay que respetarlo y no acusarlo sin saber.

personas lgbt+ que usan el término:

¿ustedes recuerdan estar en el closet? ¿como se hubiesen sentido si cuando recién estaban descubriendo sus sexualidades/identidades de género, hubiesen tenido a miles o millones de personas acusándolos e insultándolos? se hubiesen sentido bastante mal ¿verdad?

personas cis-hetero que usan el término:

¿por qué demonios les importa tanto si una persona es ambigua respecto a su género o sexualidad? ¿por qué les molesta no saber TODO de TODOS? ¿por qué creen que es una obligación de las personas lgbt+ salir del closet?

para todas las personas:

¿a ustedes realmente les importa que las personas “cis-hetero” no “usen” o no se “beneficien” de la comunidad lgbt+ o solo les importa satisfacer sus propias expectativas? ¿ustedes entiende que no pueden obligar a las personas a salir del closet contra su voluntad? ustedes entienden que acusar a una persona sin saber sobre lo que se esta acusando, es estúpido, ¿verdad?

entonces:

quiero una explicación no queerfóbica de por qué celebridades como billie eilish, harry styles, madonna, bad bunny, etc. son acusadas por literalmente NADA.

no existe “usar” a la comunidad lgbt+. la comunidad y las personas que estamos dentro de ella no somos objetos que se pueden “usar”.

no existe “beneficiarse” de ser lgbt+. VIVIMOS EN UN MUNDO QUEERFÓBICO!!! ¿COMO DEMONIOS ME VOY A BENEFICIAR DE SER UN MIEMBRO OPRIMIDO Y DISCRIMINANDO DE LA SOCIEDAD?

a las personas lgbt+ no nos molesta (o no debería molestarnos) que otras personas estén descubriéndose ya que todos pasamos por ese proceso. no nos molesta que una persona este en closet ya que todos estuvimos en uno alguna vez.

dejen de querer usarnos a las personas lgbt+ como excusa para seguir con la cancel culture.

les propongo algo ❤️VIVAN Y DENJEN VIVIR❤️

[microcomets]

#i have like………an entire MA thesis' worth of thoughts about the 'running away' trope in queer romance #because it SO consistently appears within specifically queer stories for a reason #text #queue

Please elaborate?

a friend just asked me to elaborate as well LOL so i'm gonna copy over my brain-dump to them under a read more!

basically the main thought i have is that existing in the metropolis, wherever that may be represented in a story, means being subjected to a purveyance of domestic order, which inherently enforces oppressive systems of heteropatriarchy. so i think the reason WHY the "running away" trope persists in so many queer narratives comes from a yearning to escape those structures that are enforced by whatever the site of "civilization" is, which i think is why again so many of these queer fantasies of escape or retreat have a bucolic/wilderness feel to them; a desire to exist apart from that heteropatriarchal surveillance that demands adherence to survive. i think that visceral longing to be free from surveillance (which requires a constant SELF-surveillance of masking your true identity, self-closeting or hiding your relationships, etc.) is something that is very uniquely queer. this could all be much more simply boiled down to "desire for escapism" lol but i think looking at it from a spatial theory perspective is neat…queer folks are used to being marginalized, so with this narrative desire there's a spatial drive toward the margins of society, "uncivilized" wilderness (cottagecore, farmcore, being out in nature etc). of course that dreamworld is always disturbed by reality and the expectations therein, which is that even with a geographical move away from the metropolitan center there is no true escape from its systemic reach; nowhere is truly untouched or a tabula rasa in a modern world, and there are too many strings tethering the characters (family or filial obligation is especially prevalent in queer asian media, but also due to career and self-sustenance reasons). anyway i've seen this in a lot of shows now — e.g., first one that comes to mind is the thai BL bad buddy, where the characters literally DO run away to the coast to escape the expectations of their parents where they're free to be a couple, but then eventually return to society because of the reasons i cited — but i just think it's interesting the sheer amount many queer or queer-coded romances that either portray this as an arc or have its characters express this desire, so much so that that i think it's notably distinct from het romances i've seen

[heraadora]

Biphobia and Lesbians

I don't think any bisexual woman is serious about the whole "Lesbians Oppress Bi Woman" thing. But if they are indeed serious - and think Bi/Pan Men, Aro /+ Ace Men or Gay Men are a better ally to them in comparison to your average Misandrist Lesbian- uh - they probably need help.

I think they just say this because Lesbian and Bi Woman Online are always on a cawk measuring contest and you win by making yourself look more oppressed. Lesbians win in this at the expense of living as a subhuman in Society to Queer Community

And then there's Bi woman are too bothered about that one random mean comment a Lesbian made about their Bf or Fave celeb, Anime Boy or K-pop Male Idol crush and another mean comment of a Lesbian calling them a C0ck addict to actually care about the material reality of Biphobia.

Because Heterosexuality is a privilege, regardless No matter what. Men harming Bisexual woman in a heterosexual relationship is a manifestation of Biphobia in Interpersonal Interactions. Lesbians or society is not responsible for this "Biphobia", it's Men.

If the Very Gender that I date and the Gender that makes my Bisexuality Bisexual - and then that very Gender kills me for it- directing my anger to mean minorities on the internet will be my way to deny the fact that the Gender I love - hates me. It's willful ignorance.

Specially because the "Mean" ness of these minorities are often a coping mechanism to deal with the everyday dehumanization they face. They don't have the power to harm Bi Woman. Men have it. So, I don't get the vitriol lesbians get for something that they don't even do.

And a lot people will argue that Men being Biphobic is just misogyny as Men will despise and Fetishize Queerness of Women who are dating them and will not see their Queerness having any relevance if that is threatening their Male Right over that Queer Women, i.e: Cheating.

Idrc about the way you want to describe this, I don't have issues to see this as a Unique Bigotry towards Bi woman for being Queer, aka Biphobia. All I care is the vitriol being biased towards lesbians instead of the Gender that Abuses Bi woman- MEN.

Minorities like Lesbians don't have the obligation to take the complaints of Bi woman about Biphobia seriously if they are gonna make us instead of men the villain of the story + use the systemic privileges they have regardless for liking men in order to hurt other Queer women.

And I am mentioning other Queer Women cause Bisexual woman will hurt other Bisexual woman too over a Man. Make Fun of them for dating lesbians. Etc. Maybe if Queer Women are Mean to you, Lesbians are mean to you, 90% of time the reason is you hurting them. So Cool down.

[salt-volk]

i've never had much energy for typing paragraphs, ngl, so i'ma try to keep this short and not accidentally say something stupid. first of all, i appreciate your sincerity... buuut your condescension could use some work. for you to assume me ignorant, which is itself out of ignorance, is pretty hypocritical of you, especially while you are condemning the same ignorance in your post. "marginalized people" as if i don't know? you don't know my life, homie, you have no clue what kind of 'oppression' and 'marginalization' i've experienced.

you're not gonna agree with me on this i'm sure, but throwing around the term 'dogwhistle' on the internet is the dumbest shit. to ASSUME someone is a crackhead extremist without any REAL evidence is MESSED UP. you wanna ostracize and condemn someone for making a pop-culture reference when you yourself didn't originally know what people were upset about either? bruh. that type of shit can fuck someone up. why not... i don't know, ASK if you're curious???

it is important to deal with bad people i.e. murderers, ACTUAL REAL pedos, abusers, etc. that's the point of a justice system, but the jumping to conclusions like this is insane. not cool. it's like the 'that escalated quickly' meme, except you're fucking with peoples' self worth and in some cases their livelihood.

i didn't accuse anyone of anything, i'm making an observation. it was poorly worded, but man. i am. tired. are you SERIOUSLY telling me that someone going behind my back and starting shit about me is a victim? dude. what. the fact that you can even entertain that thought is insane to me.

been here before, this is online bullying. i don't care how you justify it, it is what it is AND i know i'm not the only one. that's why i messaged you, not to "defend myself". right now, i'm messaging you kinda hoping you might take your own advice and LISTEN. society as a whole uses cancel culture as a crutch and it's fucked up. you gotta stop. you ARE NOT PROTECTING ANYONE. you are hurting people.

-which leads into your next point. yeah, you guys are attacking me. i say "you guys" because YOU did participate. i can feel the judgement from AAAALL THE WAY over here. and... then you go and ASSUME i must have 'responded' to something in some way that warranted this? i grew up in abuse, this is too fucking familiar. don't do this shit. what you are promoting is not self awareness, it is mob mentality and bullying.

i like the matrix. what the fuck. i never imagined anyone would notice the little note i left for myself on my page, nevermind the drama. it's disgusting and pathetic, do you guys not have hobbies? we could've had a moment of appreciating a cool movie, but instead it turned into a mini online struggle session. tl;dr you gang up on someone, accuse them of some crazy shit, and then avoid responsibility by framing yourselves as victims in your own minds. you assume that anyone who doesn't conform to your standards of behavior is not worth kindness. this is not what 'community' is supposed to be like. i'm not "open to learning" about the sick ways that people justify this behavior and i do not care who i ideologically offended. please, grow a spine or better yet some real empathy.

nvm keeping it short, i guess i failed. oh well. i'm not prepared for anyone to WANT to have a reasonable conversation. i'd be delighted for you to prove me wrong. there's a character limit on asks, so i'm putting this in submissions. feel free to msg me on dv where i am contractually obligated to not curse

i didn't see that there were so many replies to the first thing i sent. i wish all of you could understand the gravity of what you're doing. to the mod, i hope you are doing ok despite all the drama and sudden political bullshit. what you wrote me was difficult to read and i stand by the submission i sent, but i really wish you the best. i liked the chicken ask, that was funny.

[kissmeau]

Autumn doesn't have a birth certificate. He knows when his birthday is because of his mother's death certificate: complications from delivery. What does that even mean?

He doesn't mourn the loss of his mother nor wonder how his life would have turned if he had been raised by a loving mother and a gentle father. The answer is simple: privileged, weak, spoiled, careless, etc; like most humans are. However, he can't believe that the death of a mother was treated with such tactlessness.

A woman loses her life doing what society calls "her duty" and the experts treat the cause of death so vaguely, and then is accepted as a fact.

Complications from delivery have a wide range of possibilities, from common pregnancy-related diseases to malpractice. Autumn, just like his father; just like everyone else, doesn't know the reason behind this woman's life loss. The only ones who could tell the truth, decided to put on some lawful words and had a free pass to dismiss their ethical obligation. Autumn, therefore, can understand his father's despair.

Autumn gets his father's hopelessness and sorrow of not being able to do a thing. How minuscule he became that even truthfulness was decided to not be worth it for him. He was oppressed and ridiculed. It's only reasonable that this man became insane.

It was either that or taking his own life. This man could've been pitiful, but he was brave enough to carry on with such an ache. Autumn's father was determined not to give up.

Perhaps, that's that one lesson his father gave him —unintentionally.

"Insanity is rational in an outrageous world."

[housecatclawmarks]

Obviously not everyone rlly enjoys giving head (and not everyone enjoys receiving it!) and that’s fine but I do think sometimes queer ppl get super fucking weird about foreplay for reasons I will never understand..like if ur cishet u get taught cishet sex ed and certain societal standards that downplay most aspects of sex but if ur queer why r u buying into that at all. Why do I ever see any queer adult saying shit like ‘umm actually it’s oppressive to ask someone to go down on you during sex’ and like ‘if u only want someone to pleasure u and find the thought of touching their body disgusting that’s okay and u can tell them so💞💞’

Like obviously no one should feel pressure to participate in sex acts they don’t like-but that doesn’t mean anyone else is obligated to have sex with them either and expecting sex to be reciprocal is fine as long as u listen if the other person says no to something. I think it’s really strange to see queer adults promoting the idea that certain sex acts are disgusting & unpleasant or that it’s weird and unnatural to want to bring your partner pleasure during sex or to want someone else to do the same for you. Especially when our bodies & sex lives are so stigmatized already. And if you do have very strict boundaries around sex and touching it’s your right to have them respected, but it’s also respectful to communicate them clearly to the person you’re initiating sex with because they /also/ have a right to say whether or not they want to be touched, or how much, or where, and a right to not want to have sex with you if your desires are incompatible.

Idk it really feels to me like some queer people have this idea of a certain type of person (usually a sub, or bottom, or person w a vagina) being a passive partner constantly in conflict with a society that wants to inflict things (sex, penises, etc) on them, and their sexual partners being the ones inflicting them, instead of just like. two or more people with their own lives and desires and autonomy and capacity to hurt and be hurt agreeing to have sex in ways they both want to and the way I see some people talking about sex it just seems like they have no idea how to communicate & r probably pretty shitty to their sexual partners about it.

[amaryllis-sagitta]

Embracing Dirthamen’s Gift of Prophecy: DA Dreadwolf Lenormand Grand Tableau (1/ ?)

I thought of something that would be a fun exercise in cartomancy that's both harmless and relevant to my interests, so I cast a Grand Tableau for the upcoming DA: Dreadwolf!

Please note that I am not a professional reader, I just do it for the entertainment value!

(Also just in case: I don't work for BioWare, don't have access to any leaks, if any of it turns out correct it will be solely by virtue of Dirthamen's Red Rubber Dodgeball of Prophecy)

Lenormand cards are a deck designed in the 18th century by a famous French fortune teller. The cards are always interpreted at least in a pair with another card, to form a “sentence” that has a “subject” and a “predicate” at least.

The Grand Tableau is a great table spread that utilizes the entire deck. The questions are asked ad hoc about sections of adjacent cards, and the answers are determined using many patterns, techniques and figures. The reader jumps freely around the entire reading as they need.

By default, the deck contains two gendered signifiers for the Querent, but one can pick any card as a signifier that they consider in character. All the cards can be signifiers for secondary characters in the reading, areas of focus etc.

My chosen signifier for the Subject of the reading, or the game’s protagonist, is The Birds. My reason for choosing this particular signifier is the Rook codename teased in early internal development materials.

So, just to kick this off, here’s the spread as I laid it out according to the 8x4 + 4 formula:

Central cards – the core issue or theme: Stork (12th) – Cross (13th) – Anchor (20th) – Ship (21st)

There is a new beginning or a long-term transition in sight, that appears to be upsetting or very chaotic. It will be discovered and brought to light by the protagonist (Stork chained with Birds in 31st). It will require a great sacrifice and likely bring a lot of suffering to unsuspecting, innocent parties, who are unaware or kept in the dark (Cross chained with Child in 6th). But at the same time, an ideology or cult in support of that transition will stabilize its position in the society, seemingly having allies everywhere (Anchor chained by Garden in the 18th). The protagonist's main goal will be some kind of a journey by the sea (Anchor + Ship) that will encounter recurring trouble. The mission will put the party into obligations that will weigh heavily on them, or they'll become indebted to their rivals (Ship chained to the Mountain in 25th).

Reading the corner cards in the Grand Tableau provides extra context to the reading: an important figure, signified by the Woman card, seals a contract with the protagonist (Ring in 8th) to investigate, swindle or outsmart (Fox in 32nd) something or someone considered to be a major setback (Mountain in 25th).

Pairs of cards knighting the Ship show more about the nature of this mission that won't be known right away. Following the Key in 4th and Child in 6th, the party will dispense some confidential intel to the uninformed. Next, with Tree in 11th and Tower in 14th, there seems to be some oppressive, disciplining form of physical control that will call for urgent action. Something that comes to mind here is the Antaam’s incursion into the territories of Tevinter and Antiva happening thoughout the recent secondary media (Tevinter Nights, comic books, As We Fly). Rider in 27th and Birds in 31st hint that in order to succeed, the party will have to find out and deliver some vital information very quickly. Per the Letter in 34th and Bear in 36th, this intel relates to an authority figure who causes the protagonists major hardships or sets numerous trials in front of them. I’ll note here that the Lenormand Bear card stands for protectiveness, authority, dynamics of power and financial management, sometimes being linked with strong maternal figures. The Cross as a house meaning might also represent something permanent or neverending. These associations bring Mythal to mind.

Our protagonist: “The Rook”

Traditionally, Lenormand Birds represent a group or a network, socializing, but also distractions, anxiety, impatience, chaos, or multiple minor factors playing into something. Looking at their respective row in the table – as rows represent the level of agency the querent has – they start off from a place where they don’t seem to have much influence over the events. Since the Birds card lies in the 31st position of the spread (House of the Sun), this appearance of a bunch of underdogs or a mere distraction might be their greatest strength. They will have a reputation of lone wolves (sic), inquisitive and skilled in investigation, discreet, good at work behind the scenes, skilled in trickery, fraud or disguise (Fox in the 32nd). If that is the case, our protagonist would match Solas in their preferred modus operandi.

Looking at the cards surrounding the protagonist, we see the Bear in 36th on the diagonal, which is also the card culminating the entire reading. The Bear card in this position suggests that the protagonist has been persecuted or wronged by authorities. They might be victims to ideologies, religions, power imbalances. Looking at the Heart in the house of the Lilies on the left, they might have been wrongly persecuted for some strong convictions, devotion to their family, or sexual life.

With the Fish in the 22nd, they get to choose their sources of income, they had dipped their fingers in many pies, or they might find no trouble working for opposing agendas. This would indicate people for hire.

The House following in 23rd and Mice in 24th hint that the place they call home is corrupt, decadent, ridden with disease and poverty. The protagonist might actively desire to sabotage the status quo, to weaken the established structures. This hints to me that the protagonist is Tevinter in origin, quite possibly having loose connections with, or at least cheering on the vigilante underground (The Vipers/ Shadow Dragons), the slave liberation movement, or they might have been contracted by the Lucerni – which would create a connection to Maevaris Tilani and Dorian Pavus.

This profile suits several characters featured in Tevinter Nights, like Hollix the Lord of Fortune, Neve Gallus, or Vadis & Irian – perhaps these are some companion candidates.

Reading the row where the Birds lie – which presents a subplot – a masc figure portrayed as both mysterious and knowledgeable, being the reason the party pursues certain intel (Man in 26th), has continuously sabotaged them (Mountain in 25th). An offer has arrived on behalf of the Man (Rider in 27th & Bouquet in 28th) to fight a certain relevant figure represented elsewhere by the Woman card (Whip in 29th). With the Whip lying next to the Heart in 30th, this might have been a person who had wrongly persecuted some party members in the past or abused their trust. The trace of this Woman card takes us to the very beginning of the spread.

The card is knighted by Tower in 14th, Crossroads in 16th, Ship in 21st, and Book in 35th. The secret tea on them seems to be that they anticipate to be (wrongly?) sentenced due to some sort of trickery. With the Fox card chained with the Tower, the protagonist might be framed or scapegoated as a thief, con artist, or a fraud. A force larger than them might force them to choose (Tower + Crossroads) that particular job (Crossroads chaining Fish in 22nd). Although, with chaining Stars in 7th, they will be misinformed in this choice or their judgment will be clouded. It seems that their journey will be difficult, ridden with accidents and devastating loss (Ship chaining Scythe in 3rd).

Additionally, a diagonal line from Birds, telling us about motivations, leads through Fish in the 22nd and Cross in the 13th to the Key in 4th. The party's task to search for secret answers will feel unrewarding or unnecessarily harrowing. However, the Cross usually represents hardships that one can persevere.

TO BE CONTINUED

[bixariaclubnight]

DOOR POLICY/Letter of intentions

The boss, La Gitana, invites you to their never-ending birthday party, a hyper profitable new enterprise. Keep one eye on the boss as you are the horse. At BIXARIA we play wharf*uk the boss want. To enter BIXARIA ,  you will need to be blessed by Mother Lucí, who will magically touch you Queer/ CUIR. Mother will be there the whole party to love and care for you, any doubts or discomfort cry to mama. 

SAFER SPACE:  The struggle to produce Queer futuristic realities is a long term struggle that depends on social movements, social work and cosmological change. At BIXARIA  We want to propose a space where we can be BRAVE by taking care of each other, and letting go of the heteronormative standards imposed on us by the cis-tem. 

Please read our door policy prior to attend to the event:

We are here to celebrate and experiment, you are invited to make your own experimentations and attempts with gender, sexuality and dance. You can shake your ass, but you are not obliged to.

You don’t need to look like anything, wear any specific type of clothes or have previous experiences. You are not too old to start. You are queer enough. 

Stay focused on your body sensations and feelings and not on speculations about other people.

We don’t assume gender or sexuality of anyone here. You might receive flirting from anyone, be open, caring and respectful while saying yes or no. 

The protagonists of this party are People of color, immigrants and gender dissidents , help us to hold space for them by engaging and celebrating their existence. 

CUIR for us is anyone who cant’ fit in hetero-normative society or feels it’s unfair, unjust, oppressive and ridiculous. 

If you receive harassment, discrimination, racism or any phobias, or if you need emotional support or mediation come to the awareness team that will take you to Mama. We respect her mediation above all. People might be escorted out in the case the mother decides to. 

We will play Brazilian contemporary electronic music, but it’s not a rave party. The first DJS will play Baile Funk, Brega Funk, etc. The 3rd DJ plays techno brazilian. 

There will be a place to dress up in the case you don’t feel safe to come to the party with the clothes you would like to use. 

Arrive early so the first DJ doesn't feel unseen. 

People in Amsterdam generally feel safer if you ask before touching them for any purpose.

WE ARE ALL AT HOME, THE PLANET EARTH. WE ARE ALL FROM HERE.

[dfroza]

people living in the absence of the fear (reverence) of God go astray from morality and truth

we have a God-given conscience as humankind yet some don’t view (acknowledge) it as such

some don’t see the existence of our lives and each breath we take comes from our Creator

from the ancient Proverbs:

Reverence for the Eternal, the one True God, is the beginning of wisdom;

true knowledge of the Holy One is the start of understanding.

The Book of Proverbs, Chapter 9:10 (The Voice)

Let us begin. The worship of the Eternal One, the one True God, is the first step toward knowledge.

Fools, however, do not fear God and cannot stand wisdom or guidance.

The Book of Proverbs, Chapter 1:7 (The Voice)

yes, we live in cursed bodies on a cursed planet (of sin and death) and we all have to deal with this anxiety. people find many different ways of coping with it.

but there is healing coming, and it was God who declared the end from the very beginning.

the world will experience great Judgment in the time to come, yet there is no fear in this for those who belong in Love.

“there is no fear in Love”

from John’s writing:

God is love. Anyone who lives faithfully in love also lives faithfully in God, and God lives in him. This love is fulfilled with us, so that on the day of judgment we have confidence based on our identification with Jesus in this world. Love will never invoke fear. Perfect love expels fear, particularly the fear of punishment. The one who fears punishment has not been completed through love.

We love because He has first loved us. If someone claims, “I love God,” but hates his brother or sister, then he is a liar. Anyone who does not love a brother or sister, whom he has seen, cannot possibly love God, whom he has never seen. He gave us a clear command, that all who love God must also love their brothers and sisters.

The Letter of 1st John, Chapter 4:16-21 (The Voice)

we are destined for new bodies just as A new heaven and earth in A grand end of time

and it will be Just even though this current world is not.

A post about social justice (beginning within) by John Parsons:

Surely this nihilistic and moribund culture of anarchy, relativistic chaos, and "radical" politics needs to hear the Torah regarding matters of social justice...

====

Our Torah reading for this week (Shoftim) begins with the commandment that the people of Israel should appoint judges (i.e., shoftim: שׁפְטִים) and officers (i.e., shoterim: שׁוֹטְרִים) so that justice would be respected throughout the promised land (Deut. 16:18). The duty to establish justice is famously stated as, “tzedek, tzedek tirdof” (צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדּף): “Justice, Justice you shall pursue” (Deut. 16:20). The word tzedek means “righteousness” and involves the obligation to adhere to moral truth.

Throughout the portion the theme of social justice predominates, as the ethical characteristics for judges are defined, as well as for elders, kings, prophets, and priests, all of whom are responsible for maintaining a just and healthful society. As the prophet wrote: “The work of righteousness shall be peace” (וְהָיָה מַעֲשֵׂה הַצְּדָקָה שָׁלוֹם), and “the service of righteousness (וַעֲבדַת הַצְּדָקָה) shall be quietness and security forever” (Isa. 32:17).

Note that the call for justice, “tzedek, tzedek tirdof” (צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדּף) is stated twice to teach that justice must be pursued in an entirely just manner, that is, the methods used to obtain justice must themselves be just... Corrupt law enforcement and judicial systems, political persecution, etc., are all condemned. The Scriptures therefore do not advocate pragmatism or utilitarian thinking. There are no “noble lies” in the Kingdom of Heaven. Violence (verbal or physical) or deception done in the name of God is always forbidden and will be judged by the LORD. We must execute great restraint and caution when we seek to confront oppression in the world. If you want to change the world around you, begin with yourself....

[ Hebrew for Christians ]

========

Deut. 16:18 Hebrew page:

https://hebrew4christians.com/Blessings/Blessing_Cards/deut16-18a-lesson.pdf

Hebrew reading audio:

https://hebrew4christians.com/Blessings/Blessing_Cards/deut16-18a-jjp.mp3

Shoftim pages:

https://hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Parashah/Summaries/Shoftim/shoftim.html

H4C audio podcast:

https://hebrew4christians.com/training/parashat-shoftim-shavuah-tov-podcast/

8.13.23 • Facebook

­

[nothorses]

I’m having a shitty day and then I go on the transandrophobia tag cause ig I’m a masochist, and the top post is one calling us whiny losers. Yey, now my day is even worse.

Don’t feel the need to if you don’t want to, but the part they compare about us using transandrophobia as a word to white women making up a word for misogyny against them is bugging me. Can you like… idk. Refute that. I could do it myself but I’m just kinda wallowing rn, everything just hurts emotionally.

(It’s not mainly the transphobia getting me down, something really shitty happened today.)

Anyways, thanks for reading this, I appreciate everything you do, dude

I mean, the simplest refutation is that trans men do not gain privilege or power for being trans men. White women do.

This comparison is based on the idea that intersectionality is just addition and subtraction: racism + misogyny = misogynoir. Transphobia + misogyny = transmisogyny.

Therefore, transandrophobia must = transphobia + androphobia (or misandry), right?

And that's just as silly as claiming that misogyny against white women is a combination of misogyny + reverse racism. Right?

But the thing is that this isn't how intersectionality works. It's not just a combination of two separate experiences happening at once. "Misogynoir" is not When You Are Racist To A Woman, or When You Are Misogynistic To A Black Person. It's a unique axis of oppression with unique tactics that target black women specifically, not just for being black or being a woman individually, but for being black women, as a separate class of person.

Transmisogyny is not just When You Are Misogynistic To A Trans Person, or When You Are Transphobic To A Woman. It is, again, a system that singles out and targets trans women for being trans women, specifically.

Reality is more complicated than Pokemon damage types. Shocking, I know.

So: white women are uniquely privileged for being white women, in a way that is separate from the privilege white men gain for being white men. There are, for example, tactics they can employ to garner sympathy in any given situation; white women literally instruct each other to fake cry if they ever need to win an argument (source: I was one.) This is a really great article on the unique ways in which white women enact racism.

This is not +white privilege, -misogyny. It's a unique manifestation of white privilege that applies to white women for being white women- none of these things are true for every single white person, nor are they true for every single woman. These are not tactics that people who are not white women have access to.

How do trans men factor into this?

Well, for starters: society does not see us as men. It also does not see us as women.

That's true for all trans people. We inhabit unique spaces within the gender "binary" that cis people aren't typically aware of, and certainly won't acknowledge, but are taught to respond to anyway. We're "other". "Failed women" and "failed men", maybe, or "lost women", or just "wrong", or "monstrous". Whatever fits the particular bill.

Transmisogyny is an experience unique to trans women, constructed of tactics and marginalization targeted at and tailored to trans women, because trans women are viewed as a separate class of person. Not as women, not under patriarchy; as failed men, lying "women", wrong, monstrous, etc. As something other than "man" or "woman" the way patriarchy defines those categories.

Trans men are also viewed as a separate class of person. We are not Trans + Man, we are Trans Men. Failed women, lost women, wrong, monstrous- whatever fits the bill, but never Men.

We don't conform. We challenge the gender binary through existence alone. Patriarchy says that men must be awarded manhood, and women must fulfill their obligations as women, and trans men say no. We say that we can assert ourselves as men, and that we aren't obligated to do shit. And patriarchy fucking hates that.

What results is a unique form of oppression, composed of unique tactics targeted at and tailored specifically to trans men, because trans men are viewed as a separate class of person.

White women do not challenge whiteness nor patriarchy by being white women. They are not existing outside of any binaries; they are conforming (in at least some respects) to what patriarchy says a woman should be, and they are certainly not challenging what white supremacy says whiteness is.

White women were factored into whiteness from the start.

Trans men were never factored into manhood or womanhood.

[bigskydreaming]

I will say though that IMO one of the problems with trying to treat Batman (or admittedly the entire Batfam) as a solution to the problems of the police as an institution is its not as simple as people make it out to be....because people try to treat Batman/the Batfam as just another group of superheroes while ignoring that Batman’s real superpower is his resources.

What I mean by that is a large part of the appeal of stories about vigilantism is that its easier for people who have no faith in the morality of institutions to put their faith in the morality of singular individuals instead. And the appeal of superheroes is in large part the idea that superpowers give a single individual the power to stand up to large institutions or the kinds of threats that those institutions are ‘realistically’ the only usual counter to in a world without superheroes.....BUT those superpowers, while useful in a straight up fight against a supervillain or alien invasion, are so disconnected from the FRAMEWORK of societies that short of them like, using their powers to conquer society and put themselves in charge overall, there’s not the same fear of the ‘power’ of superheroes as opposed to the ‘power’ of institutions: the fear that the same power that is used to protect people can just as easily be turned against people and used to control them instead.

The danger of the Batman/Bruce Wayne concept, that I feel a lot of writers trip and fall into....is that Bruce’s fundamental ‘superpower’....is literally the SAME as the fundamental power of institutions:

Overwhelming and unmatchable access to resources.

So unlike most other superheroes, no matter how much confidence we put in Bruce’s own singular morality as compared to that of an uncaring institution....its very hard to get away from the reality that Bruce’s ‘superpower’ IS fundamentally much easier to slot into the framework of society in ways that other superpowers just aren’t. And this complicates things considerably.....because as much as Bruce is just one guy.....his RESOURCES, comparable to that of entire existing institutions....make him a kind of institution unto himself. And so it can very easily become a case of ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss.’ Whereas other superheroes, no matter how powerful they are.....they’re a little more distanced from the system as a whole and the only way for them to effectively usurp institutional power is for them to just willfully insert themselves at the top/control of society in ways most of them are never going to actually attempt.

The line is a lot more inherently blurred in Bruce’s case however.

And truthfully, this issue IS built into the entire Batfam as a whole. Its why I think yeah, it IS a problem when Jason inserts himself into the same role of judge, jury and executioner as the state does. Its why I always prefer keeping Dick as either one of the Titans, concerned with supervillains and demonic foes, or else focused on opposing the police as an institution with no real interest in stepping into its shoes. Its why I think Bruce’s greatest ‘gift’ to Gotham was investing so much of himself, his knowledge, skills, resources, in the uplifting of his various children, who all hail from all different backgrounds, communities, walks of life, etc.....

Because even though these same problems exist in the entire Batfam as a whole, they don’t exist to the same degree or in the same ways when you look at the scenario from the angle of “what would various children from persecuted/oppressed backgrounds do if they accrued the kinds of resources that let them address the problems of their childhoods on a systemic level”......versus “how do you keep a born and raised billionaire who believes that he - in part because of his background, his education, his circumstances of birth - IS the solution to his city’s problems....from being a kind of noblesse oblige situation?”

Idk, idk. I’m just saying the Batfam franchise as a whole is messy and complicated, a lot more so than other superhero franchises, especially when you try and utilize it for social commentary....

But that’s not a BAD thing. It just means that the stories examining these problems and trying to find solutions or alternative takes on it are SUPPOSED to be weird and experimental and messy, and I think that anyone who thinks they have a simple solution or clean take that ‘solves’ the Batfam franchise’s inherent issues is well. Kidding themselves.

A simple solution or take does not exist. It can not exist.

Because the problems are manifold and hard to untangle.

That doesn’t mean they’re not worth trying to untangle or address, it just means....the way to do that is not to look for a simple knife to cut through that Gordian Knot. Rather, accept that this is not a Gordian Knot, not an abstract thought experiment. Its a whole different beast, and requires a whole different kind of analysis and exploration.

[eastern-anarchist]

Why intersectional theory doesn’t fit the description of ethnic discrimination in Eastern Europe (longread - I don't know if you will read this, but I think it's important)

Disclaimer 1: I am a historian, not a sociologist, and this affects my analysis. Disclaimer 2: I know best the history of the Russian Empire and least of all the Ottoman history. As we know, intersectional theory emerges from the concepts of "privilege" and "oppression". There are social categories that have greater access to benefits (education, good income, representation in art and media, etc.), and there are those that are oppressed for certain essentialist reasons, although the reasons are actually socially constructed (non-white skin color, non-straight sexuality, but you know about this without me). It’s important that such a system has been established for centuries, starting from about Early Modern times.

Intersectional theory is aimed at increasing the diversity of discourse and representing as many identities as possible in society. Also, the theory assumes a description of the intersections of various discrimination, where race, class, gender and sexuality aren’t separated from each other, but together form a person's identity. But ironically, this theory is very Americancentric, as it stemmed in large part from racial conflicts in the United States. It’s also partly Western Europeancentric, and includes mainly such colonial relations as between Britain and India, France and Algeria, etc.

But on the example of countries on the territory of the former Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, it doesn’t work well, and here's why.

Mostly, the intersectional theory assumes the same type of conflicts and relations (racial, class, gender) in society over the centuries, which began to be established precisely in the late 15th - early 16th centuries, and this isn’t at all obvious for Eastern Europe.

Eastern Europe has distinguished itself by its "long" feudalism. Feudalism, on the other hand, means political fragmentation instead of absolutism, a greater concentration on religious affiliation (hello to the beginning of secularization in Western Europe) and the priority of status over class. Yeah, in capitalism it was difficult for a peasant to become a worker, and a worker (even more difficult) to become a small entrepreneur. But feudalism, in principle, doesn’t imply any social mobility - everyone is literally obliged to remain within the framework of their social strata.

Thus, the Polish���Lithuanian Commonwealth remained de facto politically fragmented up to partitions in 1795. The Russian Empire retained the priority of (Orthodox) religion over class until (!) the February Revolution in 1917. For example, in imperial Russia there was such a concept as the Pale of Settlement - a territory where Jews could live and were forbidden to move outside of it. At first glance, this looks like normal segregation, HOWEVER. Christianized Jews could live outside the Pale of Settlement, and especially rich and educated Jews had the right to do so. Yes, here it’s necessary to make disclaimers that there were such a minority and towards the end of the Russian Empire there was state discrimination of "privileged" Jews (for example, under tsar Alexander III). But we must take into account this "ambiguity" of social relations.

In the three empires, very different peoples lived side by side, who didn’t live segregated from each other, and built their identity not on "citizenship", but on the same religion or even on the area of ​​residence. It can be said that Russians were an ethnic group in the Russian Empire, but this statement will tell you nothing about the relationship between Jews and Ukrainians, Poles and Romanians, Georgians and Armenians, etc. Moreover, empires had many mixed families, which significantly influenced attempts to build "nations" in these regions.

Serfdom existed for a long time in the Austro-Hungarian and especially in the Russian Empire. In fact, this is a form of slavery, but it extended to peasants, regardless of their ethnicity. In general, returning to the first point, the stratification here was very strict. In the Russian Empire, at the time the Bolsheviks came to power, 3/4 of the population were peasants and illiterate.

Oh yes, the Bolsheviks. The USSR in general confused everyone. At the beginning of the USSR, all nationalities were formally declared free (the Pale of Settlement and the priority of religion were abolished), but things went badly after the arrival of Stalin, under whose rule massive repressions were carried out against national minorities. At that time, many Germans lived in the USSR, who were a rather privileged community in the Russian Empire (recall that Catherine II was an ethnic German). But under Stalin, the Germans were among the first repressive and deported  groups (largely due to the arrival of the Nazis in Germany and the invasion to the USSR). But by God, for reasoning about whether the USSR was an "empire" and what ethnic conflicts there were, 10 more posts are needed.

Finally, relations with the metropolises. Due to the redistribution of territories, the same territories with ethnic minorities belonged to different empires. The Balkans were part both of the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Russia also wanted to annex them. As for today, the Czech Republic or Western Ukraine are unlikely to have any conflicts with Austria (but I’m not saying here about the entire Western European world). What can’t be said unequivocally about the Balkans and Turkey, and even more so about Russia and Belarus, Ukraine and Central Asia. In general, guys, it is possible to operate with intersectional theory only in the case of countries which 1) colonies were far from the metropolises; 2) capitalism developed early; 3) racial and ethnic minorities were severely segregated. And it hardly applies to countries that have been feudal for a long time, have gone through a massive revolution, a Soviet / nationalist dictatorship and suddenly become neoliberal.