#teachers can no longer discuss homosexuality/gay rights

[biarritzzz]

I'm watching a tv documentary about the school where Samuel Paty, the French teacher who got beheaded by muslim scum, used to teach.

Teachers are being interviewed. They all sound and seem shaken of course but many still try to somewhat excuse the students (some were DIRECTLY responsible by posting about their teacher online and calling him islamophobic) and I'm just like. Wow. One of your colleagues literally got beheaded and I get this is your job and you are traumatized but enough with the feel-good bullshit.

Or is it just for the cameras? Because there is one female teacher who is clearly on the verge of a mental breakdown (and who can blame her) and if she could say what she actually thinks, we would finally hear something truthful.

Like: yeah it's hopeless.

It's over. The damage is done. These kids are rotten to the core and islam is dangerous and everywhere there are muslims, the same awful shit follows. No amount of education, patience and good will can ever change that.

Wake up. I believe that's what this teacher's devastated face is saying. But she can't say it out loud. Even now. Even after everything.

[kerosene-insomniac]

To Be So Lonely

Pairing: Bakugou Katsuki x Midoriya Izuku

Warnings: Violence, mature language, homosexual behavior, alpha/beta/omega dynamics, major character death (not bakudeku)

Word Count for Chapter: 1,701 words

Summary: Midoriya Izuku has always wanted to be a musician. Something about the lyric working with a melody to convey his feeling just made his heart race. After his father died when he was three, Izuku has always relied on his mother. She worked two jobs to care for him and always supported his dreams. But when his mother is diagnosed with breast cancer just after he graduated high school, Izuku has to shift his focus. 

Now he’s working two jobs and takes care of his mother with the help of his gay neighbors. In an attempt to learn self-defense, Izuku takes a few classes at a local gym. It’s there that he meets Toshinori Yagi, an older beta who used to be a professional heavyweight boxer. Yagi notices Izuku’s potential and encourages the small omega to eventually go pro. So, in order to make more money, Izuku eventually agrees.

Bakugou Katsuki has only ever wanted to fight. Orphaned as the young age of four, Katsuki has been fighting to live for his entire life. Fighting is all he’s ever known. After fighting underground for a couple years, Katsuki is noticed by Todoroki Enji. The older alpha takes him in at 19 and names him the official successor of his legacy (especially since all of his actual kids hate him). 

Now, Katsuki is 25-years-old and the professional heavyweight champion.

In a whirlwind of events, Katsuki meets Izuku in the unlikeliest of places. He watches the small omega perform and can’t help it feel extremely protective and absolutely enamored with him. The older alpha gets to meet him and say goodbye without even learning the omega’s name. Katsuki isn’t sure that they’ll ever meet again. 

That is, until Katsuki officially meets Izuku at a professional lunch with his manager’s rival.

{OR}

The one where Katsuki is a professional alpha boxer with arrogance issues and Izuku is a stubborn omega that’s way little too reckless with his well-being. 

With a wacky cast of characters (including three idiots, a manly best friend, a traumatized bastard with daddy-issues, and many more) absolutely hell-bent on getting them together, neither men can seem to catch a break

{0.3} Special

“There was something beautiful about his scars, something lovely about his fallibility.”

― Grace Curley

K A T S U K I

“Square your shoulders.”

Katsuki ignored the monotonous voice and delivered three jabs to the blue punching bag in front of him. Honestly, he’s imagining the bag as Todoroki’s stupid face.

Stupid.

Fucking.

“You look tense. Maybe you would like some soba-“

Katsuki growled and dropped his stance, whirling around to face the other alpha. “Shut the fuck up, Icy Hot! Focus on your own bullshit!!”

Todoroki blinked, sipping his tea. “It’s not as entertaining.”

It’s been two days since Katsuki’s adventure at the bar. For some odd fucking reason, he can’t stop thinking about a certain freckled nerd and the bandages on his hands. To make things much worse, Shinsou has been ignoring his attempts at contact.

Now Katsuki’s training at his manager’s professional gym. He’s been with this manager for six years and wasn’t planning on leaving anytime soon.

However, his manager’s son definitely makes Katsuki consider leaving.

“Stop pissing me off.” Katsuki grumbled, turning to face the punching bag again.

Todoroki chuckled, but the tone was still indifferent. “You’re the one getting mad, Bakugou. You should control your emotions better.”

Katsuki scoffed, using his forearm to wipe sweat from his brow. “Shut the fuck up. At least I don’t have a meltdown every time someone boils water.”

“You should come up with better comebacks.”

That was enough to make Katsuki freeze.

“I have enough survival instincts not to tell you. Stick to the shitty nicknames.”

Katsuki swallowed thickly, blinking multiple times in an attempt to snap out of his daze. Now, thanks to Icy Hot, his mind was preoccupied by freckles, green eyes, and the smell of chocolate cherries.

His mind had been a muddled mess since that night.

“Bakubro! You good?”

Katsuki snapped out of his daze again and locked eyes with a worried Kirishima. The other alpha was watching him with obvious concern.

He nodded. “I’m fine.”

“You don’t sound so sure.” Kirishima murmured, glancing at Todoroki. “You have a tournament tonight, so we can’t afford you overworking yourself.”

Katsuki immediately bristled at the alpha’s tone, his eyes flashing angrily. “Stop looking down on me, Shitty Hair! I don’t need your fucking pity and I don’t need your concern!”

Kirishima didn’t even flinch. “There’s no need to be so defensive…”

“Fuck you, I’m not defensive!”

“You’re just proving my point!”

“Fuck your shitty point!”

Todoroki, who simply watched the interaction with bored eyes, finally cleared his throat and made both alphas freeze. “Perhaps this is about the potential celebrity that’s supposed to be at the tournament?”

Katsuki’s eyebrows furrowed. “Hah?!”

“All Might is supposed to be involved in the tournament.” Todoroki murmured, pursing his lips.

That was enough to make Katsuki’s nerves much worse.

Todoroki ignored Katsuki’s gobsmacked expression and focused his gaze on the laptop in front of him. “Father had been raging about it for days. Apparently Toshinori has chosen a successor.”

“No way!”

Kaminari’ s voice echoed throughout the gym as he raced towards them with Mina and Sero hot on his heels. If Katsuki wasn’t so shocked, he would’ve yelled at the lot of them for running inside.

Yagi Toshinori, or All Might, had been a famous boxer back in the day. He was best known as the beta who took on an alpha heavyweight champion and won.

He was easily Katsuki’s favorite boxer.

Toshinori had retired years ago and disappeared from the public eye. He didn’t come to tournaments and definitely wasn't associated with the community. So the idea that he had chosen a successor was mind-blowing.

If anything, Katsuki felt jealous.

“Bakugou? You look pale.”

Katsuki snapped out of his daze and glared in Todoroki’s direction. “Do you know who his successor is? What’s his weight class?”

Todoroki hummed, looking at his laptop again. “According to the website, his name is Izuku Midoriya. Light Heavyweight.”

“He must be a beta.” Kirishima murmured thoughtfully.

“Actually, it doesn’t say.”

Katsuki stood up a bit straighter at Todoroki’s words, his heart thudding in his ears. “It doesn’t say? Everyone is required to list they’re secondary gender when applying.”

Todoroki shrugged. “It only lists his name, weight class, and type of fight. There’s no picture or mention of his gender. Apparently this is his debut tournament, but he’s been underground for the past year.”

“Is he boxing?” Mina asked, obviously invested.

The alpha sighed indifferently. “Kick-boxing. Honestly, I’m more excited to meet the beta who kicked my father’s ass.”

Katsuki huffed to himself and focused on the punching bag again. He wouldn’t be fighting All Might’s mysterious successor, but he had the urge to show him who’s boss.

What could be so fucking special about Izuku Midoriya?

********

I Z U K U

“Parry or guard, Deku!”

Izuku huffed and guarded his face with his forearms. He was sweating wildly as Uraraka directed high kicks towards his face. The green mouth-guard between his teeth was clenched tightly as he concentrated.

Uraraka had been doing this much longer than him, so her skills were a little more precise and powerful.

But she also takes a second to get her bearings after kicks or jabs.

Izuku waited a split second after her last kick to pull his left leg back and swing it to hit Uraraka’s torso head-on.

Uraraka gasped on impact, caught off-guard.

That’s all Izuku needed.

In quick succession, Izuku delivered three jabs and ultimately finished with a right hook to take down his opponent.

Sure enough, Uraraka collapsed on the mat.

Izuku straightened his stance, panting wildly as he used his wrists to maneuver the head gear off of his curls. He was sweating like a pig, dressed in a form-fitting tank and spandex shorts.

Uraraka was panting as well, spread eagle on the mat. “That was good, Deku. Wasn’t expecting a roundhouse kick.”

“I can’t let you win every time, Uraraka.” Izuku huffed, chuckling lightly.

Before the female omega could respond or even think of a witty response, a gruff and familiar voice spoke first.

“Excellent job, my boy.”

Izuku glanced to the side, where two betas had been watching the sparring match. Shinsou was one of them, sipping on what looked like iced coffee. The other, however, was Izuku’s teacher and close friend.

Izuku bowed, his face hot. “Thank you, Toshinori-sensei.”

“Your reflexes have improved quite a bit.”

Uraraka sat upright, humming in agreement. “Compared to yesterday, Deku managed to study my reflexes and react accordingly.”

Toshinori grinned, leaning on his cane as he walked over. “I noticed that as well. He’ll need that skill, especially since all the alphas tonight will try to crowd him and get a solid hit.”

“They'll have to catch me first.” Izuku muttered, wiping his brow.

The blond beta chuckled at his response. “That’s correct, my boy. If you stay light on your feet, then it should be fairly easy.”

Izuku nodded, still slightly out of breath.

“However, we do need to discuss something.”

This doesn’t sound good.

Izuku’s eyebrows furrowed in obvious confusion, his stomach already churning with anxiety. Toshinori looked serious and stressed, which was a tell-tale sign that something was wrong.

“Endeavor reached out to me today.”

Endeavor?

Izuku shared a glance with Shinsou and Uraraka. “What did he want? I thought he only reached out to try and challenge you to a rematch?”

Toshinori’ s mouth twitched slightly. “He’s very intrigued with the fact that I’ve been training a successor. He’s offered us a chance to train at his gym and spar with his successor.”

“Why would he do that?”

The elder beta shrugged, smiling lightly. “I think it might be his way of sizing up the competition. Personally, I think it’s a good idea.”

Izuku cringed. “Endeavor’s gym is full of raging alphas with pride issues. I really don’t want to put up with courting requests or the assumptions that I need extra assistance from them.”

“But he has access to better training gear.”

The green-eyed omega sighed, his boxing gloves feeling heavy on his hands. “I’ve heard of his successor, sensei. From what Shinsou has told me, he’s loud and aggressive in or out of the ring.”

Uraraka, who was watching the conversation, rolled her eyes. “Just give him an attitude adjustment, Deku.”

“It’s not that-“

Shinsou, who had been listening silently, effectively cut him off. “You’ve already met him, Izuku.”

What?

“No, I haven’t.” Izuku murmured, hopelessly confused.

The purple-haired beta chuckled, placing his iced coffee on a table before approaching them. “He’s the alpha who insisted on walking you home after kicking Dabi’s ass.”

And just like that, Izuku couldn’t breathe.

Hell, he couldn’t even process the information.

Blondie, who Izuku had pushed to the back of his mind, was nothing like Shinsou’s description of Endeavor’s successor. He was rough and loud, but he did make any move to attack him.

However, Blondie did assume that Izuku was helpless.

This can’t be the same-

“Deku, you’re mumbling again.”

Izuku froze, his skin immediately reddening as he glanced around the room. “Oh. I didn’t realize that I was….”

Shinsou raised an eyebrow at Izuku, grabbing a gloved hand and beginning to unlace the wrist. “I guess he made an impact on you, too. He won’t stop harassing me about your wellbeing, you know.”

“What?” Uraraka screeched, making everyone else wince.

Izuku sighed, ignoring the nervous flutter in his chest. “He probably thinks I need protecting. How does he know that you’re friends with me?”

The beta shrugged. “I was out with Denki and his friends that night. We went to the bar you perform at and Bakugou basically started drooling.”

“He’s sounds proper infatuated, Midoriya.”

Izuku groaned at Toshinori’s teasing tone, using his newly freed hand to rub his face. His bandages felt rough on his skin, but it was nice. “Not you too, sensei. I’m sure that this Bakugou person is just looking for a boost to his ego.”

Toshinori chuckled, obviously amused. “Be that as it may, I already accepted Endeavor’s request. We’re having lunch with them before the tournament.”

“I don’t remember agreeing to that.”

His teacher grinned. “I didn’t give you a choice, my boy.”

*********

[radfem-moira]

This never happens

I’m 19, back from a year abroad, ready for a fresh new start after a bout of depression. I spent my whole summer coming out to be people. It’s not that coming to a sudden realization during my depression made me want to scream it from the rooftops. It’s that literally every single of my parents friends’, my relatives, the neighbours, my high school friends, keep making that same joke. “Did you meet a nice foreign boy over there?” No. No I didn’t. I met a nice foreign girl. It didn’t go anywhere. I regret being such a coward. But I’m not a coward anymore.

I start college again, with a new direction. I’m a brand new person now. I know where I’m going in life (or so I think). I know what I can and cannot do. I know what I want and what I don’t want. I feel so self-confident, so done with this pushover doormat bullshit I used to pull as a way to avoid responsibility.

It takes a full semester before I try joining the GSA again, like I did before my gap year abroad. I'm apprehensive, but since I know most of the old members have graduated, including the one who’s been haunting my nightmares for over a year now, I feel relatively okay going in. I meet new people. New friends. New friends-of-friends.

Some of those friends-of-friends are trans. There were only three trans people in the GSA back when I left, but now almost a third of the membership identifies that way. Mostly “AFAB” nonbinary people and transmen. I think nothing of it. My LGBT etiquette is decent, I think. I know what’s fashionable to say and what’s not. The first time I hear someone call one of our members, a lesbian, a “TERF” for stating that she could not have sex with someone who has a penis, I stay quiet. I don’t think the other lesbian ever came back.

-

I’m 20. One of our senior executives at the GSA is another lesbian. But then one day, at an educational panel which I’ve organized (I was elected president by that time) at the request of a teacher, she suddenly declares, to an auditorium of over 100 people, that she’s actually “homoflexible”. She tells the whole 100 people that lesbian is the label that she’s “most comfortable with”, because most people “understand it right away”, and anyway she doesn’t think it’s likely she’ll ever date a man again, but she likes to “keep an open mind”, because “you never know”.

A cold feeling of betrayal invades me. I ask myself why. Why? Why not “bisexual”? What’s wrong with “bisexual”? Why do you have to do this to me, and to other lesbians? Why do you have to launch yourself on a diatribe explaining why you, as a bisexual woman, feel more comfortable telling everyone that you’re a lesbian? When actually, you’re perfectly aware that you’ll be a lesbian until the right man comes along? You’re literally playing right into dangerous stereotypes that make existing as an actual homosexual woman a living hell!

Three years later, I’m 23, I have a minor disagreement with a bisexual friend on Facebook, over some unimportant semantics. We’re settling it quite calmly, like adults. Enter homoflexible girl, barging in, berating me for saying something she perceives as “biphobic”, accusing me of “transphobia”. Through that interaction, I learn that homoflexible girl is now dating a “pre-operative trans woman”. Her friends join in for a good old-fashioned dogpile. Eventually, I have to block all of them.

-

I’m 19 again. One of the friends-of-a-friend I’ve met through the GSA is a transwoman. Well, our GSA has two transwomen. But the other one is different, and we don’t interact much. She’s “straight”, for one (as in, she’s a transwoman who dates men), and lived as a gay man for years before starting her transition. She passes better (because she’s been transitioning for longer, and also because she’s very invested in replicating femininity), and I feel like I relate more to her, although I can’t put my finger on why. I now know that it’s because I related to her same-sex attraction and experiences of homophobia.

The other transwoman is a “lesbian” - she only likes women. Specifically, she likes lesbians. Particularly cis lesbians. I don’t really know how to respond to her awkward, even creepy attempts at flirting (she follows me to the train station multiple times). She’s clearly very nerdy and very socially awkward, and so am I. But beyond that, I can’t find it in me to return the affection. I know I should be able to experience it, but I never could. I just can’t do it. No amount of reading about terfs and genital fetishism and transphobia and how wrong and sick and worthy of death all this is can make me right. I desperately want to want her. I know I should be able to.

The school year ends. Summer comes. I meet my first girlfriend on some dating app. By the time I’m back to school, I’m unavailable. The transwoman switches her attention to someone else, to a new, younger lesbian. I say nothing.

-

I’m 23 again. Every single girl who called herself a lesbian back in my GSA day is either dating a man, dating a transwoman, or is now openly calling herself pan/bi. One of them berates me on Facebook for objecting her demands that we relabel the LGBT community as the “Queer” community. Continues to call me queer and dyke throughout the discussion despite my repeated expressions of distaste for the slurs. One of her friends jumps in and calls me “privileged” for being a "cis lesbian”. The former lesbian blocks me after I deadname her - that’s right, she identifies as a “him” now. I didn’t even know until someone else told me later. A small loss.

-

I’m 22. It’s Pride and we’re at a gay club, so while the club is full, I’m perfectly aware that the actual ratio of gay to straight is not typical of the establishment. I’m also very aware of how I look on a clubbing night. It’s fine if someone is attracted to me, if they try to flirt with me, even if they’re male. I get it. But once I’ve stated obvious disinterest, and once you see me clearly trying to hook up with someone else, you should leave me the fuck alone.

The transwoman who shows up with my friend - apparently she’s her roommate - doesn’t understand this simple rule of etiquette. She tries to hit on me in the most awkward, pathetic way, while I’m desperately trying to wriggle away. I don’t want to hurt her feelings. Tonight is a night of celebration, and I’m not actually mean, contrary to popular belief. I’m also drunk, and I’m not sure how drunk she is, but I really don’t want to anger her. And finally, there’s this other girl. Ex of an ex. She’s a cutie. I want to tap that. But it’s hard when a scrawny boy wearing a choker and eyeliner keeps trying to get between the two of you.

All night long, the transwoman interferes in the other lesbian and I’s attempts at finding some time alone. She follows us to the atm. She sits between us when we find a table on the rooftop. She keeps trying to talk to me about the most absurdly uninteresting things while I desperately try to stay in group conversations. She’s so obsessed with herself, talking about her job, her parents, hell, even her hormones, and I’m not even sure if she even asked me anything about myself at any point, or if I ever got to spontaneously share. It may have been the alcohol, but throughout this whole ordeal, all I could think of was how heterosexual our rapport felt. She, the male, talking at me, apparently not seeing utter disinterest in my silence. Me, the female, not wanting to hurt her male feelings, quietly enduring.

Finally, we all decide to call it a night. We all need to take the last subway to go home. But as I’m about to join my friends, the girl I’ve been trying to hit on holds me back. “Wanna go dance?” She asks. She knows I’ve been wanting to, but no one else would, so I didn’t. I’m elated. I say yes.

The transwoman turns around. Looks at us. And says “you know what? I think I’ll stay.”

I don’t remember ever feeling this angry at someone in my life. By this time, she was more drunk than anyone else - she’d even been sick (in the women’s bathroom, naturally). We were responsible for her. But all we wanted was to go dance and then go home and have good old fashioned gay sex.

The night had a happy ending regardless of this “woman”’s interference. I regret not simply telling her, at the subway station “sorry, but we’re going home after this and we’re going to have sex and you’re not invited”. But there’s something terrifying about saying no to someone who is supposed to be oppressed, but still behaves like they have privilege. You know others will quickly jump to their defense if you don’t handle their feelings like they’re made of glass. And at the same time, they still have the power to seriously harm you.

-

This was just a collection of ramblings about the modern LGBT movement. There’s no conclusion to it. This is just it.

[quarterfromcanon]

1-4. For the asks

Thank you so much for sending these! <3 

Once I started to answer them, I realized there were comparatively few recent television shows appearing on the list. I seemed to keep gravitating toward older ones I remembered from years ago. I took a handful of days to mull it over in case I was forgetting something, but nothing else comes to mind. Maybe my ongoing list of Shows to Watch During Quarantine will turn up some fresh results but, for now, it looks like I’ll be taking a little trip down memory lane. :) 

This turned out to be a pretty long and rambly post, so I’ll stow it under the cut!

Top 5 TV Shows 

1. Crazy Ex-Girlfriend - I can’t imagine this surprises anyone who has been following this blog for the past two years or so. It brought fellow fans into my life, got me back into writing fic, and prompted countless tags of meta. It’s the show my mind drifts to on a weekly basis (if not daily) even a full year after the finale. Just when it seemed I’d reached an age where that level of intense fandom involvement and character attachment might be fading, it proved that quite the opposite was true. I’m very thankful to the series for that, and for the people whose paths have crossed mine as a result.   

2. Schitt’s Creek - This is my #1 Feel Good show and, though I’ve been dodging spoilers for the final season until it gets uploaded to Netflix, I get the impression that it will remain in that top spot. The world feels softer and more hopeful there. It’s healing for my soul. I’m going to have a dreadfully difficult time saying goodbye, but I’m glad there are six season to revisit whenever I want. 

3. Stranger Things - The theme song alone sends such a rush of excitement through me. I love the aesthetic and the atmosphere. I sometimes have mixed feelings about the romances but the FRIENDSHIPS sure do have a direct line to my heartstrings. I think the way they’ve combined media influences into their own story is really neat. You get something that’s new and engaging, but you can also go back and enjoy the sources of inspiration with fresh appreciation. 

4. Joan of Arcadia - I can’t help it. The snark, the jackets, the early 2000s songs, the performances -- the nostalgia for this show is so strong. It’s not without its problems, but it did have some really good things to offer as well. I remember an episode that was one of my earliest introductions to the concept of a trigger, and the effect it could have on a person if exposed to one of theirs. The series dealt a lot with grief and the many forms it can take (I STILL can’t hear Fiona Apple’s cover of “Across the Universe” without getting misty-eyed). I’m also surprised, looking back, at the somewhat positive way I recall them discussing homosexuality on the several occasions that it came up in the show. Not to give too much credit since I don’t think there were recurring canonically LGBTQIA+ characters but, for a kid who spent most days around closed-minded people of a certain religious leaning, it was meaningful along my individual journey. I’d like to provide the several examples that are most vivid in my memory:

A. A girl with short hair, short nails, little to no makeup, and a bulky leather jacket is generally assumed to be a lesbian by the bullies at school. The show directly confronts the fact that “gay” should not be used an insult, that identity should not be assumed without the person telling you so, AND makes sure that the character in question never pushes back by saying harmful things about lesbians despite not actually being one herself. 

B. A boy who is questioning is able to confide in his big brother and have a fairly calm conversation about it; the awkwardness mostly comes from neither of them being accustomed to openly discussing emotions, not from the possibility of a negative response regarding the subject matter. 

C. Another character is accidentally discovered to be gay (he only appears in the one episode, if my memory serves), and some of the leads have the opportunity to share that for personal gain. However, even though he is a popular jock who is a bit of a jerk in the hallways, the show makes it clear that the right choice is still to leave the telling of that information up to him and him alone. 

Like I mentioned, it can’t be said that representation was in abundance here - for instance, I don’t believe anything other than straight or gay was presented as a possibility - but any accepting acknowledgement in a faith-centric series was something for me to hold on to in my still-deeply-closeted days. As a final Very Important personal side note, this show brought Judith Montgomery into my life (pictured below on the left), and that feels like it merits a shoutout for being what I consider a rather significant marker in my awakening. 

THE OVERWHELMING CRUSH I HAD - and still have - is one for the books. 

5. Pushing Daisies - This is another show with an aesthetic I adore. The series has such a fun, whimsical energy. The crime-solving! The clothes! The cast! There's a lot to love. It’s the kind of world I wish I could visit... well, minus the evidently rampant murder rate. 

Top 5 Overrated TV Shows

1. Once Upon A Time - *deep sigh* I tried to stick with it for so long. I think I’ve seen five out of the seven seasons in their entirety. It just felt like everything got mired down by excessive (and increasingly convoluted) subplots, often for the purpose of tossing in as many fairytale and/or Disney characters as possible. Plus, quite honestly, there was too much emphasis on romantic love. For a show whose first season involved a curse being broken by [potential spoiler, I suppose] a mother kissing her son’s forehead, I ultimately found myself up to my ears in romantic ships. It reached such a stifling extent that, if you were not particularly attached to those pairings, there wasn’t a whole lot else to entice further viewing. 

2. Under the Dome - I don’t know for certain what the general public opinion of this series was, but it felt like the commercials always featured alleged rave reviews, so I figured I could include it here. I was vaguely interested in Season 1, mainly as a fan of Rachelle Lefevre’s work. Season 2 pulled me in with the introduction of a new townsperson and I threw WAY too much of my heart into that attachment, which backfired when that character was killed. I made quite the spectacle of my heartbreak, so much so that my family doesn’t let me mention this show around them anymore. :P Season 3 was, to phrase it delicately, not a great time. The series did introduce me to a few new-to-me actors, though, so that was cool. 

3. Bates Motel - Even the incentive of learning that the two characters I liked most share a lot of screen time later in the series hasn’t been enough to call me back to this one. I don’t know if it was the pacing that put me off or what, but the prospect of finishing the remaining seasons feels so daunting. There are evidently five seasons in total and I believe I’ve only seen two of them thus far. I will probably muddle through it someday just to see how it goes, but the fact that I am so disinclined to prioritize it made this feel like a fair addition to the list. 

4. Lost - My interest in this series unfortunately waned right before fervent fandom spiked. I don’t have any specific complaints that come to mind about what I saw; I just sort of drifted and then stayed away. Teachers I liked and peers I spent time with were starting to latch on to the show and I couldn’t find even the slightest inclination to give it a second try. However, did I still dutifully read all the latest installments in my friend’s Sawyer Ford and Kate Austen fanfiction when she passed me handwritten copies at lunch? Sure. I was glad it made her happy, even if I was no longer a viewer. 

5. Hemlock Grove - I say this as someone who still mourns the fates of some characters in this show, so I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that the series stopped being able to make me feel anything. I’m just of the opinion that, in some ways, it might’ve been better off stopping at one season. That’s where the book it was based on ends, and things just didn’t feel as cohesive after that. Season 3 especially was - borrowing from my above review of Under the Dome - not a great time. That being said, there are also certain elements from the book that I could’ve done without in the Season 1 adaptation but... well... here we are. 

Top 5 Underrated TV Shows

1. Picnic at Hanging Rock - Another one that won’t surprise followers of this blog. I have rhapsodized about it quite frequently since I found it a little over a month ago. It’s a period piece mystery miniseries with LGBTQIA+ representation, gorgeous costumes, and Samara Weaving. This felt specifically designed to wedge its way into my heart, and I’m quite content with the space it now occupies.

2. Dark - I’m so intrigued by the overlapping timelines with all of the morally gray characters. It’s possible to like one of these people in the timeline where they’re young but dislike them as adults, or vice versa. It also makes me think of Rant by Chuck Palahniuk a little tiny bit with the idea that time travel, specifically tampering with your own timeline, might make you physically and behaviorally unrecognizable to yourself. And the SONG CHOICES! I have gotten some solid new music selections from this series. 

3. Sense8 - I still need to watch the finale. I really do. But I knew it would make me sad so I’ve avoided it for... two years now? Pretty close, I think. The concept is fascinating and the cast is so strong. Plus the cinematography! They came up with some of the coolest ways to depict the link these characters share and what it’s like when they connect over distance. The planning and careful editing it all must’ve taken... I remain in awe. 

4. Penny Dreadful - There were definitely some story/writing choices I didn’t particularly like along the way, but I did get engrossed in the creepy goodness and the performances -- Eva Green’s Vanessa Ives most of all. It left me wishing for more period piece “monster mash” stories, because having all those classic characters in one place was a blast. It also helped me understand why Helen McCrory was once slated to play Bellatrix Lestrange because she can be terrifying. Oh and Sarah Greene in her Wild West outfits? Perdita Weeks with short red hair in fencing garb, and later in all leather with boots and a long jacket? I WAS NOT PREPARED AND I HAVE STILL NOT RECOVERED. I NEVER WILL.

5. Wonderfalls - There’s some cringe-inducing handling of certain representation in the series, but I have such a weak spot for quippy outcasts who become reluctant chosen ones (Joan Girardi in Joan of Arcadia, Wynonna Earp, Jaye Tyler in this series, et cetera). I also really love the sibling dynamics here. They bicker, tease one another, help each other out of trouble, and have rare but genuine heart-to-hearts. Caroline, Lee, and Katie all did such a great job blending their characters’ adult personalities with certain childhood attributes that rise to the surface in the presence of family.  

Top 5 Movies

1. Addams Family Values - I’ve rewatched this movie at least once annually since I found it in Media Play at age 13. Usually, I’ll play it around Halloween or, at the latest, Thanksgiving. It’s mouth-along-with-every-line level ingrained in my memory. I find myself leaning forward in my seat before favorite parts because I’m still that excited to relive them. Why this movie, and why this devotion to such a degree? It’s hard to explain, even to myself. I can tell you, however, that I hold up every other portrayal of the Addams characters to the versions found in this. Everybody in the cast just feels that perfect for their part. 

2. Clue - I was already pretty fond of this movie to begin with, but then my sister got older and claimed it as a favorite of her own, so now she just supplies me with further excuses to watch it repeatedly. It’s also been a bonding piece of media with a couple of close friends and such through the years. It’s incredible to think not everyone in it was the first choice for their roles; what everybody brings to the table is so top-notch that I wouldn’t have it any other way. I also LOVE knowing that it originally went to theaters with different endings depending on which showing you attended. I gather people weren’t terribly thrilled with the stunt back then, but I kinda think some moviegoers would be into that approach these days? Then again, one hit that tried something different tends to start a fad, so maybe I’d end up regretting the suggestion after a while. :P

3. The Craft - This. Movie. Yes, Act III is a major bummer even though I know it’s coming, and I’ll always wish it ended differently. Even so. This. Movie. I tend to headcanon mostly for shows and sometimes books, but The Craft is a beloved exception. I love so much about it: the magic, the music, the clothes, the settings, the dynamics within the friend group, the performances. I had no idea when I first got the DVD at 17 that it would become such a part of my life, but I’m so glad it found its way to me. 

4. Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion - The soundtrack is a glorious ’80s and ’90s treat for my ears. The colorful costumes are perfectly suited to the main characters’ version of the world. There are so many great lines and it feels like everyone is having a lot of fun in their roles. I LOVE HEATHER MOONEY SO MUCH. She’s my awful, scathingly sarcastic, little grungy grump and she fills my heart with joy. 

5. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - I was pretty sure at least one of the three had to appear on here. I think, if I were to tally them all up, The Return of the King features most of my favorite moments, so it wins the spot. “I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you!”, ‘Edge of Night,’ Éowyn in battle, The Army of the Dead, ‘Into the West’... I end up crying during the end credits every time. So, yeah, ultimately, I would choose the third part of the trilogy if I could only watch one. 

Phew, that’s it! All the questions answered, all the shows and movies listed! Thank you to anyone who takes the time to read it all, and thanks again to @monaiargancoconutsoy for sending in the prompts! <3

[gleeandintersectionality]

         Intersectionality was first defined by scholar Kimberle Krenshaw and was described as a ‘but for’ analysis- I would have received that job ‘but for’ my race, I would have gotten that promotion ‘but for’ my gender” (Molina-Guzman and Cacho 72). Intersectionality “challenges predominant understandings of race and gender as discrete social identities shaped by and formative of distinct social experiences” (Molina-Guzman and Cacho 72). Intersectionality is ultimately the overlapping of different identities like race, gender, and sexual orientation that make an individual’s life more challenging as they identify with multiple minorities. For example, Krenshaw specifically addresses how black women can experience sex and race discrimination (Molina-Guzman and Cacho 72). Intersectionality can be found in the characters on FOX’s teen comedy-drama, Glee. This blog will focus on mainly on Mercedes, a black woman, Santana, a Latina lesbian, and Unique, a black trans woman. 

         On Glee, there is constant competition between the two arguably strongest female singers of the club: Rachel Berry and Mercedes Jones. Rachel is Jewish, but light skinned and Mercedes is black. Throughout the series, Rachel receives many solo numbers, while Mercedes is denied the same opportunity. Dubrofsky explains how Mercedes is seen only performing music by black artists and being denied solos because of her attitude: “If Mercedes is presented as having the talent and appropriate voice for a solo, she is portrayed as lacking the drive or the ability to tame her emotions to claim center stage, reproducing stereotypes of the angry black woman” (91). While Rachel has the right voice for every genre of music, Mercedes is pegged by her race. To make sure audiences don’t call Glee racist, they act as if it is Mercedes’ lack of ambition and drive that denies her solos. When auditioning for the school musical, West Side Story, Rachel and Mercedes both audition for the role of Maria. The play directors are impressed and shocked with Mercedes’ audition expressing how they have “never seen Mercedes so ‘glamorous’” (Dubrofsky 96). This could be seen as whitening Mercedes into an elegant, classy performer igniting a reaction and performance typical of Rachel. However, after Mercedes’ stunning performance, the play directors are still torn about who to cast: “Rachel appears not only the safer choice, but the obvious one—seamlessly, unquestionably having what it takes to play the role, while Mercedes is an assumed risk. Why Rachel possesses what it takes, and what the doubts are about Mercedes, are never specified” (Dubrofsky 97). While neither girl fits the role of Maria who is Puerto Rican, it is never explained why Mercedes would be the riskier choice or why Rachel is the stronger performer. Dubrofsky explains show Glee shows “whiteness as an undefined but everpresent and desirable quality” (97). This scene shows that if you want to be leading lady material you have to be white or light skinned. 

          The person who mostly gets blamed for selecting solo performances is Mr. Schuester, the white and male Glee club teacher who gives Rachel a plethora of solos. It is not until season three that Mercedes calls out Mr. Schuester on his biased attitude: “You give that skinny Garanimals-wearing ass-kisser everything. For two years I took it. Not anymore” (Futterman par. 5). For two years, Mercedes has accepted her lack of solos, but in season three, Mercedes becomes outspoken and confronts the situation head on. She knows she is a star and will no longer play second fiddle to Rachel. The episode ends with Mercedes joining a new glee club. Because of Mercedes’ race she works twice as hard as Rachel and the other white glee members to be seen as talented and multi dimensional. Mercedes wants to be more than a stereotype and show that she can sing all genres of music and display a range of emotions. This shows intersectionality as Mercedes being a black woman has to work twice as hard against the light skinned Rachel to get what she wants. 

        The next character I will be discussing is Santana Lopez. Santana applies to intersectionality because she is a woman, Latina, and a lesbian. When discovering her sexuality, Jacobs explains how compared to Kurt, a white male gay student, Santana’s coming out is even more challenging as she is isolated from other gay women and particularly gay women of color (339). Besides her sexuality, Santana's ethnicity marks her even more as an outcast as she identifies with two minorities and therefore lacks people similar to her within her small town and high school. Jacobs also discusses the rejection Santana faces from her grandmother when she comes out to her. Jacobs explains how it is not shocking that the “only overtly homophobic adult is an old, Catholic Hispanic woman, aligning phobia with a benighted, ethnic/ racial religiosity” (342). This shows how age, religion, and ethnicity affect how one responds to gay people. Since Santana’s family is Latin, they are strongly religious and therefore do not accept homosexuality. In comparison to Kurt Hummel whose father immediately accepts him, Santana faces rejection because of her family’s ethnicity and religion. 

          Villagomez also discusses the pivotal moment of Santana’s coming out to her abuela. The rejection Santana experiences after coming out “not only showed the rejection LGBT’s face (or fear facing) when coming out, but the rejection Latinos specifically encounter which, usually, can be related to strong religious and cultural beliefs” (Villagomez 1). This shows that although all LGBT teens may fear coming out, many Latinos have it harder because of their family’s strong religious beliefs that go against homosexuality. This is the case with Santana’s abuela as she says that Santana has committed a sin (Villagomez 2). Villagomez further explains how Santana’s rejection shows how emotional and complicated coming out can be. Santana was also the only gay character on Glee to face rejection and ultimately showed LGBT teens that it may be better “to leave the negative people out of their life, especially after you’ve given the relationship and seach for acceptance your all” (Villagomez 2). 

         In the series, Santana forms a relationship with Brittany who is white. Through their relationship, they experience unfair treatment compared to the straight couples at school. Gilchrist touches upon this when Principal Figgins finds Santana and Brittany leaning in for a kiss and interrupts them. Santana interjects “This is such bullcrap! Why can’t Brittany and I kiss in public? Because we’re two girls” (Gilchrist 2). Figgins explains how the high school does not allow any types of PDA between any couples, but alas, he has been receiving complaints about Brittany and Santana’s relationship. Santana asks if any complaints have been made about Finn and Rachel who are publicly making out in the hallway. As a new religion club has began at the high school, Figgins is attempting to stop Brittany and Santana from kissing to make those who are religious feel comfortable. Santana clearly upset says, “All I want to do is be able to kiss my girlfriend but I guess no one can see that because there’s such an insane double standard at this school” (Gilchrist 2). Referring to how Finn and Rachel and other straight couples get away with kissing in the hallways, Santana is frustrated because she is denied this right because she is gay. As the religion club sends singing Valentine grams for straight couples, Santana requests one for Brittany. After praying about it and having a long discussion, the club decides to sing for Brittany and Santana. This shows how Brittany and Santana are not given the same privileges as their straight couples at school and must hide their relationship to make their straight peers feel more comfortable. 

         Snarker focuses more on Brittany and Santana’s relationship by discussing how media does not highlight their relationship and oftentimes focuses more on the gay men in relationships. In an article by EW, they claimed: “Kurt is the most important character on television right now” (Snarker par. 13). Snarker explains that although the way Kurt deals with being gay in a disapproving world is inspiring, she wishes more people would focus on Brittany and Santana’s relationship, saying, “For gay women, Brittana is every bit as engaging, albeit on a smaller scale, than Kurt is for gay men. Their legitimate, if unlabeled, relationships matter to us. We’d like it if it mattered to you, too” (par. 15). Snarker also points out that when the media does address Brittany, they address her relationship with Artie, a boy, rather than with Santana as Brittany is sexually fluid within the series (par. 10). Just like being white was preferred for Mercedes, being straight is seen as the preferred norm on Glee. Brittany and Santana align with intersectionality as they get outcasted within their school and get ignored by the media. 

        I will now be moving on to Unique Adams, an African American trans woman. When Unique first joins the glee club, she wants to perform in women's clothes. Mercedes and Kurt, both fear the reaction Unique will receive with Kurt saying, “ ‘I’ve worn some flamboyant outfits, but I’ve never dressed up as a woman.’ To which Unique replies ‘That’s because you identify yourself as a man. I thought you of all people would understand’ ” (Kane par. 4). This shows how even members of the LGBT community like Kurt still misunderstand transgender individuals and label them inaccurately. 

        One of Unique's biggest plot lines in Glee is when she catfishes Ryder Lynn, a heterosexual white male, as a girl named “Katie.” As Sandercock explains Unique takes on an identity unlike her own: “Unique portrays herself online as a thin, white, blonde, cisgender woman – a hegemonic ideal of beauty – an identity and embodiment that exists in opposition to her as a large, black, trans woman” (442). Sandercock further explains, “This highlights the intersectional nature of gender, race and beauty ideals that impact on the marginalisation of trans women of colour. Her avatar reveals beliefs about what is most beautiful and desirable, and her fears of embodying none of these ideals” (442). Unique knows that as a black trans woman she does not embody the standard of beauty which is white, thin, and cisgendered. Through becoming Katie, she is trying to disown her intersectionality and become the image that is desired most in society. Ryder is mean and lashes out at Unique in real life for not understanding her gender identity. Unique tells him that she is a “proud black woman” (Sandercock 442). He decides to mention Unique and how he feels about her to Katie. Katie replies, “This Wade/ Unique guy believes he is a girl. He doesn’t need any proof. It’s his truth. And like what you said, what’s true is true” (Sandercock 443). After this, Ryder changes his point of view about Unique, however Unique has already told Ryder that she is a woman, yet he only believes it when it comes from Katie. Sandercock explains how “this highlights the role of race but also the economy of desire whereby ‘loving’ Unique becomes crucial to winning the affection of ‘Katie’ who intersectionally embodies normative femininity, whiteness and cisness” (443). This scenario shows that trans people and people of color know they are not the image of ideal beauty, and therefore, are insecure about the way they are seen and if they will find romantic love. This scene also shows that white, cisgender and heterosexual people may only accept and believe in those who are trans, gay or black only when it is explained and accepted by someone similar to them. 

          Glee portrays a vast range of races, genders, and sexualities through their characters. Intersectional characters teach audiences the difficulties of being a part of multiple minorities and how it affects their lives. Although Glee can be controversial in its representations, it ultimately shows that those applying to intersectionality experience specific hardships that white, straight, and cisgendered individuals do not understand.

[mobianflame]

Characteristic Pulls Gay Wedding Ceremony Ad After Stress coming from 'One Million Mamas'

Hallmark has drawn four ads from the wedding event preparation website Zola featuring a homosexual wedding ceremony, along with bride-to-bes kissing after stress coming from the United States Family Organization subgroup One Thousand Moms. Towleroad reported on the project due to the conservative team earlier recently.

The NYT records: "Asked to discuss why the adds had actually been actually denied, an employee of Trademark's parent firm stated the stations did decline advertisements 'that are actually regarded as disputable,' depending on to an email substitution discussed with The The Big Apple Moments. A spokesperson for Hallmark claimed the girls's "shows and tell of love" breached the stations's policies, however he refused to discuss why an almost exact same advertisement featuring a couple kissing was not rejected."

The "debatable" aspect of the advertisement was the kissing, according to the Hallmark spokesman.

That doesn't apparently apply towards heterosexual PDA. The NYT includes: "In among the 2 adds that were actually permitted to remain to sky, a couple caress passionately at the church."

Created One Thousand Moms on its own site: "The Hallmark Stations has always been understood for its loved ones pleasant motion pictures. Even its own commercials are actually normally secure for family watching. Unfortunately, that is certainly not the scenario any longer. Just Recently, One Million Moms obtained problems concerning Trademark airing an industrial from Zola.com in which 2 lesbians are actually presented kissing in the end of their wedding celebration service. ... Conservative customers are going to be disappointed to discover that Trademark possesses tips of moving past opening just commercials along with LGBT content and levels to making LGBT motion pictures later on."

"Embarassment on Characteristic for opening commercials along with same-sex pairs as well as also thinking about motion pictures along with LGBT content as well as protagonist," they proceed. "Right now, parents can zero longer trust Characteristic due to the fact that Hallmark is actually no more permitting parents to become the major teachers when it relates to sex and sexual principles."

OMM informed Trademark in a request character on their web site: "Please reconsider broadcasting commercials with same-sex pairs, and also please do certainly not add LGBT films to the Characteristic Stations. Such information counteracts Religious as well as traditional market values that are vital to your key viewers. You will definitely lose visitors if you cave to the LBGT agenda."

The message Hallmark Pulls Gay Wedding Ceremony Add After Pressure coming from 'One Thousand Mothers' seemed initially on Towleroad Gay Updates.

This content was originally published here.

[study-lit]

how to edexcel a level lit: prose comparative essay

wow, back with another semi useful post! :) I’ll use my mock essay as an example of what I mean -- warning: this will be really wordy.

question: compare the ways in which the authors of your two chosen texts criticise human behaviour. you must relate your discussion to relevant contextual factors. (40 marks)

INTRODUCTION: In my view, the introduction is difficult to get right, but it pays off when done well. This is the first bit of your paper that the examiner will read; setting out your thesis well in your introduction lets them know what you’re about.

Human nature, according to Richard Dawkins, is dictated by an ‘unrivaled selfishness’, the internalised want which focuses humanity on its goal of personal success seeps into the functions of us, as humans.

In my opening sentence, I focus on the topic of the question. In this mock, I misinterpreted ‘human behaviour’ and replaced it with ‘human nature’, but really this didn’t impact my mark too badly. It’s good to show some sense of critical theory, but in terms of the assessment objectives, this isn’t imperative like it is in the drama exam.

This ‘selfishness’ is utilised in both Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ and Margaret Atwood’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ to, perhaps, demonstrate the innate failure of human nature in that its natural state, individualism, even when well meant, creates a catastrophic outcome for both the protagonist, and wider society.

Then, I relate the critical theory to the texts. How do the authors present human behaviour? As the topic title is ‘Science and Society’, I make sure to get in ‘wider society’ in order to demonstrate I am aware of what I was taught.

For an A/low A*, that’s all you need to do. I am going on my teacher’s marking, but for this essay I got 36/40, a low A* if an A* is 90%.

BODY:

I’m going to use one point from my essay, as I wrote two rather long points. I’d try for three or four points (a side and a half for each text per point), but three is probably the happy medium.

Thesis/Comparison:

I try to write a paragraph of direct comparison before I go into the individual texts and their relationship to my thesis. In this case, I break it into two parts:

Humanity’s selfishness directly contributes to the so-called ‘amity-enmity complex’, the social state which dictates individual societal positions.

My point is about the demonstration of the amity-enmity complex in both books, so I make this clear, and define what it means.

Both Shelley and Atwood commentate on the effect the utilisation of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ has on the individual, perhaps products of their respective contexts: the Religious Right of 1980s America dictated collaboration of White Christians in order to rule over homosexuals or people of colour, whilst Victorian Britain’s main entertainment was the ever-popular ‘freak show’, where those predisposed were taunted for their bosses to make money quickly.

Here, I compare the texts and relate it to the books’ contexts in order to get those AO3 and AO4 marks. Plus, it shows the examiner that I’m clearly considering the methods used in both texts, not just one or the other.

Text One - Frankenstein:

This is long, so I’ll try and break it up...

In ‘Frankenstein’, Shelley utilises Victor’s monster in order to demonstrate the roots of the eventual downfall Victor’s family succumbs to, creating a societal outsider whom Victor shuns. “His hair was a lustrous black [...] teeth of a pearly white [...] these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes” -- Shelley juxtaposes the traits deemed attractive by society with the ‘watery eyes’, a trait common found when crying. The appearance of the Monster -- by which everyone treats him (’wretched daemon’) -- invokes Victor’s amity-enmity complex, which itself, in shunning his newly born Creature, begins the events -- as mirrored in The Handmaid’s Tale -- of the oppressed rising against the oppressor.

So, here, I make my main point: the amity-enmity complex pushes the Creature to revolt against his ruling class (Victor), and in turn sets in motion the events of the rest of the text. Pretty standard stuff (or at least I think so)!

For instance, later in Shelley’s work, the Monster laments that “even Satan has accomplices; fellow demons [...] I am abhorred by all,” a personal outlook imposed by Victor’s human nature to shun those who are different. In his own self interest -- hiding his ‘damned’ creation -- Victor contributes to the creation of the ‘beast’ who leaves Elizabeth, William and Clerval ‘lifeless’, just like the Creature began his lifetime.

Here, I’ve linked my main point to an example further on the text, and rounded it off. Shelley criticises Victor’s human behaviour of abandoning his ‘son’, and punishes him through the tragedy his family (and Clerval, who is totally his gay lover and you can’t tell me otherwise) succumb to.

Text Two - The Handmaid’s Tale:

This point is like 2 and 1/2 sides... your points don’t need to be this long, I just got a bit carried away.

As aforementioned, the amity-enmity complex makes an appearance in ‘The Handmaid’s Take’ where it, too, leads to an outsider rising against the ruling class. Whilst Offred is not an as explicitly an ‘outsider’ like the Creature, her use as a Handmaid creates the divide between those who rule and conform (the Commanders and their Wives) and those who serve (the Handmaids and Marthas). The room Offred resides in, and its contents, demonstrates a ‘return to traditonal (New Right Christian) values’: works of ‘folk art, archaic made by women’ out of things ‘that have no further use [...] waste not, want not.’ The proverb ‘waste not, want not’ and design of things from materials no longer used under the Gileadian regime reflects the commodity of the women used as Handmaids: they’re all ‘sisters dripped in blood’, pairs that ‘mirror’ one another, a group of people who are, by the amity-enmity complex, pulled from the fringes of society (Janine was raped, Offred married a divorcee) and forced into a collective for abuse by their superiors, who joined Gilead when it was little more than a segment of the Moral Majority of Reagan’s day.

If I’m honest, I still don’t quite understand why I got marks for this point, as my language analysis is not quite as developed as I feel it should be. In some ways, this could cover the ao1: I talk about my point - the amity enmity complex’s means of splitting society into groups, and back it up with some loosely relating quotes. I don’t get to the meat of my point until this bit:

Offred, by name, is a possession. Thus, the blatant societal divisions present in Atwood’s text helps assist in creating ‘Mayday’, a rebellion against Gilead’s bourgeoisie. It is Offred, like Shelley’s Creature, whose ostracisation is a catalyst for the events which culminate in the Historial Notes: ‘the past is a great darkness’ which no longer exists. As such, the means of reproduction, and creating a social hierarchy through the view that Handmaids are a commodity, due to human nature’s amity-emnity complex, leads to the felling of a successful society.

This makes more sense: jumping to conclusions and treating people as ‘lesser’ will result in a communist-esque revolution. In referencing the whole text, I can gain provide the examiner with proof that I’m considering all of the text.

Thus, both authors’ texts reflect on the existence of humanity’s prejudices as a direct cause of societal failure and familial tragedy, criticising the human nature of having powerful ‘insiders’, and ostracised ‘outsiders’.

I always culminate my points in explaining the explicit point I’m making.

CONCLUSION:

Here, you’re not just summing up your essay. If your teacher has told you that’s the case, then by all means listen to them, but maybe try this format once. My conclusions come as ‘why should you care, then?’

Human behaviour is, ultimately, criticised in both Shelley and Atwood’s texts as detrimental to the surivival of the individual, but also creates change in the world around them. Both Victor and Offred succumb to the demise often ascribed to Machiavellian villains who practise self-preservation at all costs. Their fates do, arguably, come as a direct result of the actions they take due to their human nature.

I don’t actually mention Machiavelli elsewhere in the essay; I saw this opportunity to leave the examiner (in this case my teacher) with a potential reading. Are Victor and Offred Machiavellian due to their determination to survive over everyone else? Possibly.

I like to make the fact that the authors are telling us, the reader, why we should/shouldn’t be like their characters the final sentence of my conclusion.

As such, through a demonstration of key human attributes such as desrire and the amity-enmity complex, Shelley and Atwood criticise the actions of their own creations whilst giving their readers their own warning: we, too, are prediposed with these traits, and thus have the ability to destroy as well as create.

well, there you go! a breakdown of my essay with “helpful” tips. I hope this assists you guys in your a level or even gives you some new ideas!

[expatimes]

The odd friends: The young liberal and the elderly conservative

The waitress at Cracker Barrel looked confused when she stopped at our table. Among the snow globes, animatronic weasels, and ceramic pineapples, Richard and I were yet another random curiosity. A 30-something year-old woman in jeggings and a pixie cut next to her 92-year-old friend with the rodeo belt buckle and scraggly beard.

Richard flashed a gap-toothed grin at the waitress. “Hon, can you bring us one of them baskets? With extra biscuits?” he asked. He knows I like biscuits better than cornbread. At 92 with his sweet smile and wispy white hair, Richard’s “Hons” and “Sweeties” lack the demeaning quality they might have with a younger man in a position of power. Still, I studied the waitress’s face. I started to tell Richard not all women like being called “Hon,” but the waitress’s expression softened into bemusement. “Of course, Hon,” she said, then headed towards the kitchen.

In an era when the political is personal, people make assumptions about others’ beliefs based on their appearance. Many of the assumptions one might make about Richard are correct. He is a lifelong Texan and a white evangelical Christian who dropped out of school in the sixth grade. Like 55 percent of men with no college degree, Richard is staunchly anti-abortion rights. He has voted Republican since before I was born, including a vote for Donald Trump in 2016.

If Richard fulfils a stereotype, so do I. Like 51 percent of Americans aged 30 to 49, I supported Hillary Clinton. I identify as a feminist and an atheist. I earned my master’s degree from a music school on the East Coast. I organised watch parties for President Barack Obama’s election, donated to the Bail Project, and vote Democrat.

Once a week, a Facebook friend brags about ending a relationship with a friend or family member who voted for an opposing political party. I have blocked Republican friends myself, usually for posting memes or rants that incited violence or discriminated against marginalised groups. But Richard and I have been friends for eight years, despite openly discussing our ideological differences.

When the basket of biscuits arrived, Richard reached for one. Then his eyebrows shot up. His hand flew to his mouth. “I forgot my teeth,” he said, meaning his dentures. We laughed.

Leaving school at 12 and college degrees

I first met Richard in 2012 when he called me about violin lessons. To liberals, America in 2012 was a warm cocoon. Social safety nets like the Affordable Care Act told poor or sick Americans for the first time they mattered. Neo-nazis hid rather than marching down streets brandishing torches.

It was in this year that Richard, at 84 years old, decided to take up the violin. His wife had died in 2011, and he had recently found his grandmother’s violin in the attic. The local music shop had given him a list of teachers’ names and contact numbers. Mine was at the top.

At his first lesson, I handed Richard a copy of my policy and expectations for students. Nodding solemnly, Richard pulled a pencil out of his bag and took notes in neat cursive penmanship. He has practised nearly every day in the eight years and counting he has been my student.

More American millennials than any previous generation have college degrees. Like many people my age, I took for granted that my education would continue after high school. Higher education whisked me from my homogenous suburb onto a campus with peers who had different religions, abilities, ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, and sexual identities. My professors taught me to critically engage with the news, which influences my voting decisions today.

Richard, however, did not attend school past the sixth grade. One of the defining moments in his life occurred when at age 12, he asked his father for a nickel. “I haven’t got a nickel,” his father told him. “You want money, you go to work.” Shortly after, Richard left school and got a job “pearl diving” – washing dishes in a restaurant. He performed manual labour before enlisting in the army. Thirty years later, he retired from the light company where he had worked his way up to foreman.

Richard poses with his violin during a lesson [Photo courtesy of Meghan Beaudry]

The Bible and speaking your mind

During that first year of weekly violin lessons, our conversations began to extend beyond the violin. I responded to Richard’s stories of his late wife, Beverly, with anecdotes from my own recent marriage. Richard reminisced about his military tour of Japan and Korea at the tail end of World War II. I learned to appreciate his sharp wit. Once, Richard mentioned a car he had seen that had crashed into the gates of a cemetery. “People are just dying to get in there,” he said dryly. With his mischievous smile, he looked like a schoolboy who had just slipped a toad into a classmate’s desk.

I first glimpsed how much Richard’s ideology conflicted with mine several months into our lessons. Richard had offered to take my husband and me out for dinner. We met him at Spring Creek BBQ. He wore cowboy boots and a giant silver belt buckle. Richard’s devout Christianity had never been a secret, but I hadn’t realised until then how much his religion influenced his politics. Perhaps I should have. Eight out of 10 evangelical Christians say they plan to vote for Donald Trump in 2020. Once seated, he questioned my husband and me about our nonexistent religious beliefs. “You need to think about what happens after you die,” Richard urged. Then he passed out anti-abortion rights pamphlets to random diners, who accepted them with polite but confused nods. The title: God Has a Plan for Your Child.

Richard would persist in his efforts to convert us for months. Years later, I would learn to see his determination for what it was: a strong desire to save a young couple he had grown deeply fond of, in the only way he knew how. But once during a lesson, I couldn’t contain my annoyance. “Are you here to learn the violin or not?” I snapped.

Richard paused. “I am,” he said. Then he looked at me with genuine curiosity and asked what exactly I had against the Bible. I thought of the priest at the church I had attended each week as a child – of the blistering sermons condemning gay people and women, but rarely men, who had sex before marriage. I remembered the time I had endeavoured to read the entire Bible as a teenager. I got as far as Sodom and Gomorrah before closing the book forever. What lodged in my developing brain was not the allusions to homosexuality, but a father who offered up his own virgin daughters to be raped by a mob.

“I don’t think the Bible treats women well. Almost all the stories in there are about men,” I told him. “I just don’t see myself in that book.”

Richard sat in silence for a moment. I hadn’t yet visited his house and seen the dozens of Bible verses embroidered, carved into wood, or painted in frames on his walls. I hadn’t seen the dog-eared King James version on his table, bright tabs and sticky notes poking out from the worn pages. When Richard spoke, he didn’t lash out. He didn’t defend the belief system that defined his life. He complimented me. “One thing I respect about you is you always speak your mind,” he said quietly.

Hurt and friendship

For several years, Richard’s and my opposing beliefs lay between us like a faded stain on the carpet. Present, but rarely discussed. The 2016 election dragged these differences from the periphery of our relationship to where they couldn’t be avoided.

Shortly after Trump’s victory, Richard and I went out for lunch. Like many liberals, the 2016 election had sent shock waves through my life. Our new president spewed hate and threats atop the most public platform in the world. To me, a woman with serious chronic health issues, many of these threats were not existential. They were life-threatening. I worried about the gay couples I knew. I worried about my friends of colour. Which is why I stopped eating when Richard stumbled upon the topic of gender roles with all the grace of a drunken soldier careening through a field of landmines.

“It’s in their DNA,” he said. “God created men and women different. That’s just how it is.”

“So you think women are put on earth to clean up after you?” I asked.

Richard speared a tomato with his fork. “I think everyone should do their job and not complain.”

Living in a “free country” does not protect American women from being talked over, underestimated, and disregarded. Four out of 10 American women have been discriminated against at work because of their gender. One in three American women will be stalked, raped, or assaulted. Sexism had dug its claws into my life well before I had the vocabulary to name it. I began picking up after my brothers in elementary school. By high school, I was folding their underwear, scrubbing their toilet, and carrying their dishes to the sink to wash after meals. I will never understand why my time and energy was viewed as disposable, but my brothers’ wasn’t.

After that lunch with Richard, I reacted differently than he had towards me the day I told him I would never believe in the Bible. Deeply hurt, I was unable to see past the rhetoric he had espoused. At his next lesson, I told him that I would still teach him the violin, but we would no longer spend time together as friends. He hung his head, then shuffled slowly to his car.

People’s words and their character

“All lives matter. Her body, her choice. Choose life.” Taken at face value, these words are immutable truths. What begins as a reaction to injustice becomes a slogan. These slogans and chants, so necessary to mobilising people and elevating marginalised voices, pull us into their orbit. They grow to encompass a movement, attracting other slogans like paperclips to a magnet. The movement adheres itself to a political party. The party becomes an identity for supporters, even though the average American has neither the time nor resources to become an expert on the nuances of public policy. Instead, we scream slogans across the street or share video clips to our own self-constructed echo chambers. If you believe Black Lives Matter, you must want to abolish the police. If you didn’t vote for Hillary, you hate women. Even when our intentions are noble, we stop listening to any voice that doesn’t mirror our own. Like spilled red and blue ink, the opposing parties grow larger, separated only by the election on which the future of America teeters.

It took months for my hurt feelings to fade enough for me to see through Richard’s rhetoric to the person underneath: a man who took over the housework while his wife studied for her nursing degree. A man who married young and worked to support his wife while she finished high school, despite his own lack of education. A man who had been married for 50 years, yet responded with compassion and acceptance when I told him my four-year marriage had ended. Richard had once relayed to me a conversation in which a man in his forties had lamented his lack of a wife.

“I just can’t find a woman willing to submit to me,” the man had told Richard.

“Submit? Well, that’s not how any marriage I know works,” Richard had snorted.

I learned to pay attention to Richard’s behaviour rather than the slogans he repeated. I had heard racist jokes and comments from liberal friends, only to watch them flood their social media with Black Lives Matter slogans once the movement rose to prominence. Growing up, the most judgemental people I knew always seemed to be devout church-goers. Richard’s actions paint a consistent picture of who he is as a person: kind, accepting, and empathetic.

Richard and Meghan’s dog, Wilbur, who loves to snuggle with Richard [Photo courtesy of Meghan Beaudry]

Richard never said another derogatory word about women. He became the first man I had ever met who, when confronted with his own misogyny, cared enough about me to change.

It is not easy to see past someone’s words to their true character. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump spouted promises. Walls to keep America safe. Lower taxes. The return of jobs to our country. Words have the power to wound, but also to uplift and spark hope. Some words, especially when they are words we want to hear, even have the power to veil the speaker’s true character. I began to see why so many Americans were hoodwinked by him.

Curiosity, respect and empathy

My conversation with Richard about gender roles set a precedent. We began to talk frequently and openly about our political beliefs. After some experimentation, we developed a tacit set of rules: Approach conversations with genuine curiosity about the other person’s perspective. Treat each other with respect and empathy. This empathy stems from an understanding that vastly different life experiences, many of them painful, have shaped our beliefs.

One of Richard’s most deeply held beliefs is that abortion is wrong. According to Gallup’s Values and Beliefs Poll, 46 percent of Americans are anti-abortion rights and 48 percent are pro-abortion rights, with 6 percent undecided. The difficulty in discussing abortion stems from who each camp views as the victim. When anti-abortion rights advocates talk about abortion, they talk about the babies. When pro-abortion rights people talk about abortion, they talk about the women. As a feminist, I can’t imagine being forced to carry a child I didn’t choose.

Richard and his wife raised just one child – a son who never had his own children, who lives 10 hours away and has his own life and health issues. Richard spends Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter with me at my parents’ house. Richard’s wife, Beverly, suffered miscarriage after miscarriage before giving birth to their only son. One of their children that didn’t survive is buried in a cemetery without a headstone because Richard and Beverly had been too poor to afford one. To come home to a house full of light, laughter, and grandchildren is Richard’s greatest desire. As I dropped him off after a family dinner one night, I watched Richard slowly shuffle up his driveway. Then I pulled away from the dark empty house. It suddenly clicked why Richard talks about “the babies”. It was never out of hatred for women.

The shape of our wounds

I have accepted that Richard and I will never be on the same page ideologically. Our friendship and ability to discuss divisive topics hinges not on our differences, but on our similar approach to life. We both believe in treating others with respect. We both harbour a magnetic curiosity towards those who are different than us. I will always be a liberal. But I have learned it is not just liberals who dream of a better America. From my friendship with Richard, I have learned that Americans’ ideas on how to improve our country often take the shape of their wounds.

Telling stories from the past is either the privilege or burden of the old. Richard revels in this role, peppering his stories with advice like “don’t buy no strawberries but Driscoll’s.” “Never tie two cats’ tails together and hang them over a clothesline,” he warned me once quite sincerely. But I always enjoy his stories and advice the most when Richard talks about the Great Depression and World War II.

“The government found out they were spying on us and rounded them up,” he said once about America’s Japanese internment camps.

Richard’s voice hit me like a shovel to the chest. His matter-of-fact tone implied that this was something everyone knew, like the events of Pearl Harbor or the reason for the American Revolution. We like to believe we are free in America. That we are different from countries like North Korea or Russia, who brainwash their citizens with a steady diet of pro-government propaganda. Richard’s statement summed up American propaganda in one phrase.

“That’s not true, Richard. They were Americans, too,” I said.

Two years later, I would learn about the Tulsa race massacre for the first time. In school, racism had been portrayed as an evil that Americans had long since vanquished. Video footage of police murdering Black people has long since eviscerated this lie. Since Richard’s statement, I’ve often wondered who I would be if I had no access to reputable news. What would I believe if I grew up under different circumstances?

My focus on Richard’s actions rather than his rhetoric was most tested the few times he used racially insensitive language.

Racism isn’t a personality quirk. It isn’t a vestige from a quaint antebellum past, like one-room schoolhouses or horse-drawn carriages. Racism is trauma that lasts for generations. Racism is lost lives and ruined futures.

I’m a liberal. A feminist. A believer that science is real, Black Lives Matter, and love is love. But perhaps the piece of my identity most deeply rooted in my heart is teacher. For me, that has always been the identity that makes allyship possible.

I speak up. “Richard, we don’t say that any more. It’s ‘people of colour’ now.”

Richard never argues. “OK,” he always agrees.

Access to the news

“Where do you get your news?” I asked recently. No TV hangs in Richard’s living room. His home is a museum dedicated to his late wife; Beverly’s floral curtains and silk floral arrangements remain untouched by Wi-Fi or cable. No copy of the New York Times lands on his doorstep each Sunday. An old radio sits on his kitchen table.

“Mostly from what people say,” he shrugged. “And sometimes the radio.”

My heart sank. From the day we met, Richard spoke openly about his lack of education and his humble background. As a teacher, I recognised his fierce commitment to learn shining through the unvarnished front he presented. As an adult, Richard had taken flying lessons and painting lessons. He approaches the Bible the way a scholar of history would. He pores over gardening manuals and maintains an encyclopedic knowledge of the flowers and trees in his garden.

I had convinced him to trade in his flip phone with T9 texting – “it’s not a phone, Richard, it’s an ancient artefact,” – for a touchscreen Android. He has since become a connoisseur of selfies and of video clips of the American flag in his garden waving in the wind. Richard strikes me as an independent thinker – someone who isn’t fooled by con men or false political promises. But from our conversation, a clearer picture emerged: an intelligent man, but without the resources to access the news or discern its accuracy.

I scribbled a note to myself to print and bring some news articles to our next meeting. The New York Times. The Atlantic. Maybe a Christian news source with solid reporting. No op-eds – just straight news so Richard could form his own opinions.

Richard told me he had listened to the first debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump on the radio.

“I couldn’t sleep it bothered me so much,” he said. “(Trump) denied what Joe told him he’d said. But everyone very well knows what Trump said. People have ears.”

“Thou shalt not bear false witness. It says that clearly in the Bible,” Richard added with a frown.

Richard and Meghan take a selfie after playing a concert at a nursing home [Photo courtesy of Meghan Beaudry]

Past the slogans and rhetoric

As Richard has aged, the lines in our relationship have blurred from teacher to friend to caregiver. I want him to know he always has a place at my Thanksgiving table. That I’ll be there in the hospital when he wakes up from his heart procedures. That my family will keep filling his fridge so he can quarantine safely.

“You don’t have to tell me,” I said. “And if you do, we’ll still be friends no matter what. Who do you think you’ll vote for this election?”

“I believe in what our forefathers said in the Declaration of Independence. But as culture has changed, my thoughts have changed. Being Christian doesn’t mean you have to be Democrat or Republican. It means voting what you believe in,” Richard said.

Our friendship has taught me to see past slogans and rhetoric to the person underneath. That actions convey character in a way that words can’t. But in this respect, perhaps Richard is miles ahead of me.

“I think Trump has accomplished some things,” he said with his characteristic respect for our country’s leaders. “But those things might have been accomplished anyway through other people. He seems to really support all his friends and companies. Not the little man.”

“You know, I think I might vote for Joe,” he added after a pause. Outside Richard’s window, his American flag waved in the wind.

. #world Read full article: https://expatimes.com/?p=12610&feed_id=11683

[maxwellyjordan]

Tribute: Formidable teacher, friend and still “somewhat of an enigma”

Sionaidh Douglas-Scott is the Anniversary Chair in Law at Queen Mary University of London and an honorary research fellow at Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford.

It seems, and of course is, a long time ago that I first met Justice Anthony Kennedy in Salzburg, Austria, in July 1993. I had been invited to co-teach a course on fundamental rights in the United States and Europe with him, to take over the European part from an older, eminent U.K. academic who had just returned to the bar and was no longer available. I was a young academic, teaching in the law school of King’s College London, a law school well-known for its focus on European law. I was nervous, somewhat overawed at the prospect of co-teaching with a U.S. Supreme Court justice, and I wondered if my connection with this course would outlast the summer. It seems to have done so, because I am still teaching that same course, with Anthony Kennedy, in 2018.

The course is run by the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, with which Justice Kennedy has a long-standing connection, having taught in their night program when he was still in Sacramento. The McGeorge course has been frequently confused with the famous Salzburg seminar, which was founded in 1947 to encourage the revival of intellectual dialogue in postwar Europe (although Kennedy also interacted with the Salzburg seminar). Nonetheless, McGeorge was well ahead of the curve, running one of the oldest U.S. international programs in Salzburg, with innovative internships and trips to Eastern Europe, well before other U.S. universities became interested. Kennedy has been teaching in this program since the 1980s. The location in Europe indicated a desire to broaden the outlook of U.S. law students – a generation back, far fewer had traveled overseas than is the case today. Law students from elsewhere in Europe – e.g., Russia, Spain, Denmark and Turkey – also joined the program, adding to its diversity. A large network of “alumni” of McGeorge’s Salzburg programs has grown up, now numbering many influential U.S. and European lawyers and judges.

When I arrived, back in 1993, to co-teach that first time, Salzburg, and Europe, was a different place. Austria had not yet joined the European Union. The Berlin wall had recently come down, and new democracies, fresh from the Soviet bloc, had either just joined, or were in the process of becoming members of the European Convention on European Rights (It now has 47 members, but back then, it numbered about half of that.). Kennedy certainly took great interest in that phenomenon, making frequent trips to advise and be consulted by those fledgling democracies.

The McGeorge summer program has been lucky enough to teach its courses in the law school of Salzburg University, surely one of the most beautiful law schools in the world. Sited immediately below Salzburg’s striking hilltop medieval Festung (Fortress), the law school is housed in the 17th-century Prince Archbishops’ (former rulers of Salzburg) palace, in palatial buildings set around courtyards. Many classrooms are lavishly frescoed (although usually not air conditioned, which can be a problem in Salzburg’s often blistering summer heat). It is a wonderful environment for American law students to be taught personally by a Supreme Court justice and to encounter other systems of law (often) for the first time. We structured our fundamental-rights course around selected case extracts, and teaching was interactive – usually Socratic method, with frequent joint sessions or dialogues between Kennedy and myself. Kennedy loves teaching and takes a real interest in students. He was more than happy to spend time with them on social evenings in Salzburg, where students could talk with him and his wife Mary, along with other professors on the course. I was interested by the huge status of Supreme Court justices in the U.S. – many of them household names for lawyers and nonlawyers alike. This “veneration” contrasts with the position in Europe, where the senior judiciary are often far more distant figures, and books about Supreme Courts and particular judicial philosophies much rarer.

Salzburg is a very beautiful city, rightly world-famous for its summer festival encompassing music and the arts, but that part of Austria, so close to Bavaria and the German border, was also the Nazi heartland, and a formidable place to be focusing on human rights. Justice Kennedy and I co-taught cases on arrest, search and seizure, torture, the death penalty, privacy and freedom of expression, and in so doing, we touched on all of the crucial issues of the day. The course’s subject matter – fundamental rights in Europe and the U.S. – clearly emphasized the continuing importance of human rights, but also introduced students to new legal systems and ways of thinking. And this exposure to “foreign” law, as it turned out, seemed to be a matter of considerable interest to Justice Kennedy.

In the course of his career, Justice Kennedy became a leading exponent of employing international law to assist in interpreting the United States Constitution. This marks his approach as cosmopolitan but also contentious. Did Kennedy’s 30-odd years teaching in Salzburg have any impact on his approach? It is hard to say – Supreme Court justices make many judicial visits to other countries’ courts, providing ample opportunity for judicial mind-broadening, and of course, education plays its part – in Kennedy’s case, a spell at the London School of Economics, studying for the LLM degree. Yet, I would think that all of those summers in Salzburg, co-teaching a course that necessitated reading and discussion of so many cases from the European Court of Human Rights, must have played their part.

Some of the most interesting classes we co-taught were those that revealed a significant difference in U.S. and European approaches. An early point of comparison was the contrasting approaches taken by the U.S. Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights to the criminalizing of male homosexual acts. In 1981, the European Court had decided Dudgeon v U.K., ruling that laws against gay sexual activity violated the European Convention on Human Rights. Yet when the Supreme Court heard Bowers v. Hardwick, in 1986 (on similar facts), Dudgeon was not even argued by lawyers before the court. Twenty-five years into teaching in Salzburg, I am still teaching Dudgeon, but Bowers is no longer on the course syllabus. In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not criminalize sex between consenting adult homosexuals. In his majority opinion in Lawrence, Kennedy cited Dudgeon: “[T]he decision [in Dudgeon] is at odds with the premise in Bowers that the claim put forward was insubstantial in our Western civilization.” And of course, in 2015, the Supreme Court, with Justice Kennedy writing for the majority, ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

In these (and other) decisions, Justice Kennedy appeared to adopt a vision of a living Constitution, one evolving with societal changes, a view very much in contrast to those of originalists such as the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But an evolving approach very much accords with the approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights, which stresses that the Convention is a “dynamic” instrument that changes with the times.

A comparative approach accepts that judges throughout the world encounter cases based on similar facts, and have many values in common. However, one area in which Europe and the U.S. seem to have diverged concerns proscribing hate speech. Kennedy is well-known as an enthusiastic supporter of the First Amendment. But supporting the First Amendment sometimes requires difficult decisions, such as Snyder v. Phelps, the Westboro Baptist church case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that public, virulent, highly offensive protests conducted outside military funerals are protected by the First Amendment. This decision contrasts with some European cases, such as Vedjeland, in which the European Court upheld a ban on anti-gay hate speech, and U.K. cases in which “poppy burning” (The poppy is a long-time symbol of remembrance of the war dead in the U.K.) at military parades has brought convictions for incitement and public-disorder offenses. These decisions illustrate a greater willingness in Europe to take into account the hurt and offense of those confronted with this conduct. Kennedy and I long debated the difference between our two jurisdictions, but neither was able to persuade the other of the rightness of their own jurisdiction’s approach (although I found it intriguing that Kennedy could recite word-perfectly the poem that begins, “In Flanders fields the poppies blow, Between the crosses, row on row”)

Reciting a poem on poppies was only a small part of Kennedy’s literary achievement. For several years, Kennedy taught two courses in the McGeorge Salzburg Program, the second being Law and Literature (an interest elsewhere reflected in “The Trial of Hamlet” mock trials over which Kennedy has presided for years in the U.S.) which could lead to open-air Greek drama recitals in the palace courtyards. This course followed immediately after Fundamental Rights, giving Kennedy a very busy morning indeed. And yet, to be sure, this was only part of his work. Much of the rest of his day would be taken up with cert petitions, and then, of course, there were numerous work-related trips across Europe, which Kennedy also had to fit in during his time in Salzburg.  How did Kennedy find the time – and the energy – for all of this? Work, of course, was not the whole of it. Friends and family were important as well. He was accompanied every year by his wife, Mary, and frequently by children, and then grandchildren, family being central to him. Over the years, too, other judicial figures joined us, if only briefly, in teaching this course – memorable to me are Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia and Elena Kagan, as well as Richard Goldstone and Navi Pillay.

I suspect it’s rare for an American judge to spend as many summers teaching in Europe as has Kennedy. In July 2017, as a consequence of this longstanding connection, he was awarded the freedom of the city of Salzburg. On the other hand, one should maybe not overstretch the “European” or cosmopolitan approach. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Kennedy sees his role as one of promoting the rule of law, and American ideals, drawing on foreign approaches where beneficial.  Last summer in Salzburg, his good friend, the Salzburg lawyer Wolfgang Berger, had arranged an evening of discussions over Brexit between Kennedy, myself and Gina Miller (the litigant in the famous “Brexit” case that determined the U.K. government must seek the U.K. Parliament’s permission to instigate Brexit). Gina Miller is a fervent opponent of Brexit, and for me, Brexit represents a rejection of both Europe and the European approach to law that I have spent a lifetime studying. And to Kennedy, the judge who has shown such an interest in foreign, and particularly European law, what does Brexit represent? I do not know. I sensed a certain ambivalence there, and agreement that “taking back control” could be a thing of value.

I have learned so much from 25 years of co-teaching with Justice Kennedy in Salzburg. Kennedy is a formidable teacher, and I could not have had a better introduction to the study of the U.S. Constitution. However, in the end, even after 25 years of friendship, Kennedy is still, to me, somewhat of an enigma.

The post Tribute: Formidable teacher, friend and still “somewhat of an enigma” appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/tribute-formidable-teacher-friend-and-still-somewhat-of-an-enigma/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[nicemango-feed]

Forbidden Intersectionality: Liberal + (Ex) Muslim

Some of you may have seen my interview on Cracked recently. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to speak on a larger platform. Below is a blogpost thats basically an extension of my thoughts from there: ------- Being of Muslim background in the West right now...in this Trumpian, 'rising far right' era is tough enough as it is....but being a secular, non-religious person of Muslim background is a whole other level of fucked up at the moment... So many of us thought there weren't others like us, questioning Islam, questioning conservatism in our communities...because these things just aren't talked about. The risks are too great especially if you're living in a Muslim majority country like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia (the two places I've lived). And when, through the internet, we found each other....us secular/agnostic/atheist types of Muslim background were just so relieved that there were others...that there was a growing voice for us...that we banded together on something that doesn't tell you much about a person's values: rejecting/challenging religion. Now...as the political climate changes in the West, we see the cracks in the ex/reformist Muslim movement more obviously than ever. There are those of us who were coming at it from the angle of opposing conservatism, rightwingery whatever form it may take, and others who were specifically only opposing Islam. As a result the people who prioritize opposing Islam alone, are happy now to side with the Western right. Some even going as far as joining anti-Muslim movements, the alt-right, supporting Trump, etc. Back in the old country, expressing doubt about religion or challenging cultural boundaries can mean serious consequences. At the very least resulting in alienation and being ostracized, disowned, ex communicated (we are not free from this consequence in the West either) ....and at worst it means things like blasphemy accusations, death.  So I do understand where the anger and bitterness some have is coming from (I don't excuse it, but I can see what created it). This taboo and loneliness surrounding Islamic apostasy is also why finding others simply to align with you on this one thing feels so big, that almost nothing else matters.

However, as more and more of us come out and express ourselves, we begin to see the diversity among Islam's apostates too. Still we are often lumped in as one, and even at times put on an unnecessary pedestal in the western atheist scene when discussing Islam. I hate to be the one to say it, but ex-Muslims can be wrong in their assessments and opinions of Islam too, like anyone else. And if they are allying with the Dave Rubin's and Kekistanis of this world then it's increasingly important to see beyond the 'ex Muslim = they're infallible when it comes to speaking about Islam' view. Ex-Muslims too can overshoot in their criticism or overreact, tainting a movement that began with thoughtful critique.

Yes the stigma and risks that come with apostasy in Islam are high and frightening. I'm a living example of how high the stakes are, I have to work under a pseudonym to feel safe. But at the same time, it's important to keep in mind that things aren't always that intolerant and there are all types of people in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia too, people who are struggling to be heard - further silencing them with generalizations is not only unjust but also counterproductive if reducing extremism is the goal. Liberal, accepting-of-apostasy Muslim families do exist there, but sadly in small numbers. It is voices from those minorities that need to be empowered...but so rarely are. Instead, the narrative that Muslims are always conservative rules the airwaves in the West, be it left or right leaning media. Yes...there are crazy mullahs saying ridiculous, vile, intolerant things (often focused on by the right) ....and yes there are hijabi women who need our solidarity (often focused on by the left), but Muslim existence isn't limited to these simple caricatures - yet most representation of them is (and no, I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between vile intolerant mullahs and peaceful conservative Muslim women who wear a headscarf). It's been incredibly hard to break that mould...and the few instances of people trying to represent the more secular, liberal types of Muslim existence are met with a huge amount of resistance from all across the political spectrum. I mean....we already have so much to deal with from within the community, that tacking on these external battles, simply for a foothold... for a place to say "I'm here, and I exist"...are disheartening and exhausting. As if dealing with angry Mullah’s against fun and freedom wasn’t hard enough! Image from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7IpMIhR6Yg

The left, the right, Muslims and non Muslims too, can all be hurdles for secular, liberal and progressive Muslims.

This is so incredibly untrue, as secular, liberal portrayals of Muslims are onlyjust starting to break through into the mainstream. While we have a wholehost of characters that play the token religious character, or 'the terrorist', etc. 

There's really no winning as a 'secular Muslim'.

People want to shove you into a box with extremists and nothing will stop them.

"Why don't Muslims tolerate apostasy, it's outrageous!" - well here's a Muslim woman

expressing support for people who have left the faith, and this is what she has to hear.

Why Don't Muslims fight for LGBT rights? Some do. And when it's not the western far right trying to get them to adhere to a literalist interpretation of Islam, it's a Muslim right-winger who wants to drag them back.

Muslims lie. There you have it. Because lying is totally unique to Muslims.

There really is no winning. As a liberal+Muslim, someone always turns up

to either discredit that you're truly liberal or that you're truly Muslim.

And thus, 'Forbidden intersectionality'. 

---------

As an ex-Muslim, I still very much consider myself a part of the Muslim community - like any secular Jew or Christian would consider themselves connected through culture, shared history, family, holidays, etc. Never before has my need to identify and stand in solidarity with the Muslim community felt more pronounced, than in a time Muslim registries and Muslim bans are casually being spoken of in mainstream discourse. 

This is truly terrifying for anyone of Muslim background. 

When it comes to things like the registry or being barred from entering the US, I don’t think secular, non-believer status matters. And when it comes to hate crimes, I'm pretty sure no one will bother checking how devout you are, either.

In fact, there have been many victims of anti-Muslim hate crime that just happened to have brown skin, or weren’t even remotely Muslim. 

All this certainly complicates things for those of us from within who do have legitimate critiques of the community and of Islamic fundamentalism. How do we demand progress in a political climate rife with anti-Muslim sentiment?

Battling Homophobia in a Muslim context

The orthodoxy Islam still commands worldwide in its adherents is unmatched by most other mainstream religions in the 21st century. For example the countries that still carry a potential death penalty for homosexuality are largely Muslim. 

Three years ago I wrote and illustrated an anti-homophobia children’s book set in Pakistan, called My Chacha (uncle) is Gay (you can get a copy here).

As I mentioned in my Cracked interview,

"I was delighted when it got picked up by some schools in the Toronto area and was used as a resource for The Day of Pink (which is an anti bullying initiative)."

The book was read out in classrooms and assemblies, and the response was incredibly supportive at first. Then, as parents 'discovered' that not only were their children read an LGBT-positive book *gasssp* ...but were read one set in Pakistan, the outrage began. 

Many claimed it was an assault on their religion, and a misrepresentation of it. Some said I was attacking the moral fibre of the ‘Muslim family', I received countless death and rape threats. Some referred to me as Wajb ul Qatal - 'worthy of killing’, they wished STD’s and Sharia punishments of being 'stoned to death' upon my *fictional* character Chacha.

This went on for quite some time. 

The most amusing comments called me 'Satan’s daughter' or compared my children's book's evilness -evels to that of Salman Rushdie’s notorious Satanic Verses! I am not worthy, but I’ll take the compliment with pride. In Toronto a radio show broadcasted calls from angry parents, punctuated with a few obligatory calls from people defending the book. Some parents threatened to sue the school board, and predictably the LGBT supporting liberal school board backed away from such a book. It was never used in an official capacity again. There were warnings being circulated on Islamic sites that people should protect their children from corruption, as they too could be exposed to this gay-turning, soul-sucking 15 line picture book.

As I said on Cracked, "Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) published a blog post claiming that the school board was the one bullying parents into teaching their kids about LGBT diversity. I was branded an ‘Islamophobe’ and that was it - a resource that many children/teachers enjoyed and found useful was no longer available." When Muslim communities have problems with integration or accepting values like being LGBT positive, the way to tackle that would be precisely through such resources. But often in the face of accusations of Islamophobia even books about love and tolerance are tossed out as controversial. It's the kids who lose out the most. Just recently, a conservative Islamic lecturer discovered my book and posted about it's 'evil agenda', sending a fresh new batch of threats and haters my way.

Click to enlarge

On the other side of this battle right wing non-Muslims accused me of trying to ‘sanitize homophobia’ in Islam and said that nice gay uncles like this simply didn’t exist in Pakistan, that I was painting a rosy picture of what it was like to be gay in a Muslim country, that Chacha would have been stoned to death in reality. I mean…it was a fictional children’s book, thus obviously simplified to a great degree. It's incredibly frustrating that If ever people from the Muslim world are challenging things and pushing boundaries the Western right often wants to pull them back to standards that Islamists would be proud of. 

For one side I was an Islamophobe, for the other a sanitizer of Sharia. And that pretty much encapsulates what it's like to discuss Islam as a liberal (ex) Muslim nowadays, caught between a rock and a hard place. 

It's like walking a tightrope...you point out there's homophobia in Muslim culture and you risk that being grabbed and used by people who want to ban Muslims.

What do you do, when stuck at this impossible junction... Being liberal and Muslim is unacceptable...invisible even.

Image from Cracked.com

It simply doesn't fit the narrative - but being liberal and ex muslim is also an overlap that many days, seems unmaintainable.

Often, you are not accepted by fellow liberals in the west (because Islamophobic) or you're not accepted by those who are interested in critiques of Islam because those circles are increasingly becoming anti-sjw, anti-feminist, anti-left...

Having few and mild opinions about the Western far-right is appreciated by many in the audience that will inevitably be drawn to you for your criticism of Islam. They usually tell you to stfu about Trump ...and accuse you of Taqqiya (an obscure concept in Islam which I only heard about in the West) if you don't, because they want to get to the 'good stuff'...the part where you confirm their ideas about generalizing Muslim immigrants, and act as a shield from accusations of bigotry.

My small patreon $ goes up when i criticize islam and goes down when I don't. This is an incredibly depressing view.

— Eiynah -- (@NiceMangos) September 6, 2017

We-ell thats not gonna happen with me....and I can't seem to keep quiet about Dave Rubin and Gad Saad, Peterson, Shermer...I certainly won't be going on Breitbart or Rebel Media to talk about how there's no place for Islam on the planet. So.....that leaves me walking a rather lonely path....and as you can read in my tweet above, often has me wondering what my place is in all this. If it's even worth it to try and counter the avalanche of bs, that seems to be coming from within the ex-Muslim movement...bs like, 'Islam can't be reformed', 'there's no place for it on the planet', 'Islam is worse than Nazism.' I mean, at this point the discussion really seems to have left the grown up table.

The Term Islamophobia Adds to the Confusion The waters are so muddied, that the term really does more harm than good. Allowing any criticism of Islamic fundamentalism, homophobia, etc. to be labelled as 'Islamophobia', gives right wing fundamentalist Muslims a chance to shield the religion from valid criticism. It's essentially the same thing as right wing Christians trying to shield their religion from criticism. Think of the absurdity of the 'War on Christmas' to get a feel for how 'Islamophobia' sounds to us. That's why I prefer the more precise term, 'anti-Muslim bigotry'. The problem is not theological criticisms of Islam or criticisms of literalist interpretations, it is the generalizations, hatred and fear-mongering around Muslims. Seeing the confusion surrounding this, the Western far-right swoops in to claim that "Islamophobia" isn't real even when its being used to describe blatant anti-Muslim bigotry. The cries of "Islam is not a race", while technically true...ring hollow in a climate where brown people are targeted based on their skin colour and appearance. And thus the cycle of confusion continues.

As anti-muslim sentiment skyrockets, the emboldened far-right uses this opportunity to gain more support. As the Western far right lashes out at Muslims, the Muslim far-right uses that opportunity to also gain more support. And the rest of us, are well and truly fucked by them both. The Hijab Debate

The Hijab is a hot topic, both within Muslim circles and outside. Well-meaning Western liberals tend to overcompensate in their desire to make Muslims feel accepted and can end up championing conservatism from our communities. This is particularly tricky now, because Muslim women are in actuality being attacked for their modesty garments. So in the West, it's not exactly on the same footing as opposing something like a Christian purity ball or virginity pledge - though it largely comes from the same place and regard for women. As a woman who grew up in a theocracy, Saudi Arabia, I was forced to wear modesty garments by the state and have encountered "morality police" on several occasions. I have seen them hit my mother's ankle with a cane for letting her headscarf slip. The memories are not pleasant. So...for me, it's rather distasteful to see the constant celebration of modesty garb. It leaves me feeling very isolated from my fellow liberals, who I assumed would stand with me in opposing body-shaming of women in my culture too. Simultaneously, I can understand that it has become hard to oppose a garment that is causing women to be targeted. My personal solution to this is that I stand in solidarity with hijab and niqab wearing Muslims when it comes to bigots singling them out because they are visibly Muslim. But I still vehemently oppose the concept of a requirement for women to cover up so as not to invoke lust. Both things can and should be done together. One can show solidarity with hijabis without championing the hijab as some great symbol of liberation, which it clearly isn't, as many Muslim girls and women continue to be forced into modesty against their will. The Media gives little coverage to Muslims who don't 'Look like Muslims' There is so much noise around supporting the hijab that non hijabi Muslim women are drowned out. This results in a very one dimensional coverage, that yet again perpetuates the stereotype that 'Muslim' is synonymous with 'conservative Muslim'. Even Playboy Magazine isn't immune to this and had to get in on the hijab celebration! Another example of this misguided support is the Shepard Fairey poster from the Women's March.

An admittedly powerful, iconic poster of a woman in a US flag hijab was displayed as part of a series. It was seen as a symbol of resistance, as the 'anti-Trump'. But it's hard for women like me to get behind one form of conservative symbolism to oppose another form of conservatism. So I created some artwork accompanied by a short audio message explaining that we do indeed need to show solidarity with hijabi Muslim women, but perhaps this wasn't the best method since there are many connotations to such a garment, not all positive. 

Despite my clearly liberal sentiments and disclaimers that it was not to be used by people spreading hate towards Muslims, despite my opposition to Trump expressed in the audio message the post was widely retweeted by Trump fan accounts as well.

It seems there's almost nothing we can do to prevent this.

Either you suffer in silence under the homophobic, misogynistic Islamic far-right, or you risk emboldening the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant Western one. 

In fact both LGBT and women's rights in Islamic countries are causes appropriated by the Western far-right now. In Alt-Right/Lite circles, you'll see gay rights used as a white nationalist tactic, it's deeply concerning and sinister that an ideology so troubling can be dressed up as 'human rights'.

They use these things as a cudgel, a mere pretext to bash Muslims with.

The trick is to express a faux-concern over these things not being up to par in the Islamic world, while having little regard for the same in your own part of the world. I cannot tell you how many Western anti-feminists champion women's rights when it comes to Islam, but will callously tell Western rape victims that they are privileged because at least they don't live under Sharia. 

Difficult Dualities

Whether it's accusations of Islamophobia or fears of emboldening anti-Muslim hate, either way, we are silenced. Just like any culture we too should be able to criticize our own, without being branded sell-outs, traitors or Islamophobes.

Except there is one problem.

In this complex political climate there *is* an actual loss of credibility too, which I covered in my interview;

"As more and more Muslim Reformers/Ex Muslims either get on the Trump Train, defend the Muslim Ban or join the Alt Right."

And on the left, secular, liberal Muslims continue to not be adequately represented. This tips the scales massively towards high-visibility of right-wing critics of Islam. 

Well known Ex-Muslim Breitbart Editor, Raheem Kassam, has said things like "If Merkel took a million rapey migrants, Hillary will take 20 million"

We also have the 'red-pilled' ex-Muslim types, who believe no Muslims are peaceful.

Now I as an ex-Muslim can tell you, that this is not representative of *all* ex-Muslims obviously, and there are many compassionate, progressive people among us. But the movement has taken an undeniable rightward turn without many denouncing the bad actors that are nudging the movement further towards Pepe. 

This is definitely not what I signed up for. 

YouTube shows that regularly feature alt right/lite figures will also court ex and reformist Muslims to come and criticize Islam from their platforms. 

When you go on Breitbart, or Rebel Media to criticize Islam - how can you complain that the Left won't take your voice seriously.

Credibility is a two way street. 

I would urge my fellow liberals to not champion Islamic conservatism and I would urge my fellow ex-Muslims to not prove critics of the ex-Muslim and Islamic reform movements correct by allying with the Western right and supporting/downplaying things like the Muslim Ban. 

This rightward shift of Islam critics has even produced a Trump-supporting, anti-multiculturalism Imam, would you believe it?  

2017, what a year!

The Imam once put out an 11-step plan to crack down on Wahhabism, a literalist and harsh interpretation of Islam. It sounds reasonable in theory, but reads more like an authoritarian plan to put ordinary Muslims under strict surveillance. Australian media has dubbed him the 'Fake Sheikh' 

 ABC states,

 "...Unsurprisingly, Tawhidi's tales about Sunni Muslims' shadowy plot to instate Caliphate have been enthusiastically embraced by the far-Right, including Reclaim Australia. Perhaps less expected is the extent to which Tawhidi himself has courted such groups. In the lead-up to last year's federal election, he made offerings of roses to roadside anti-Muslim Liberty Alliance and One Nation posters, as if the face of Pauline Hanson belonged not to Australia's most recognisable anti-Islam campaigner, but a titian-haired deity."

He throws around terms like 'Fake News' and 'Lying Left' - reminiscent of Trump himself. 

It's no surprise the term 'red-pilled Muslim' is also seen in comments from his fans. I honestly never thought I'd see that combination of words, but 2017 is full of surprises. 

I hope that one day, just like Sam Bee or The Daily Show, progressive Muslims can earnestly push for change without getting lumped in with or enticed by those with an anti-Muslim agenda. 

Islam is not a monolith, neither are its adherents nor its critics. Just like Islam can be interpreted and practised in a million different ways so too can criticism of it come from different angles and politics. It's important to be aware of the general Trump-era anti-Muslim climate, but its also important not to erase the few secular, liberal and progressive Muslims that exist. 

Recognize that people in my position are fighting a battle against bigotry from all angles. 

------------ A huge thanks to all my Patrons who make this work possible! To those who's support for me doesn't depend upon how much I criticize Islam and Islam alone, those who signed up recently, and to those who have been there for a while....your support and encouragement mean so much!  If you enjoy my work please consider supporting via Patreon 

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2w8YDI4 via IFTTT

[teachanarchy]

This is a socialist journal edited by gay men. We have a two fold aim in producing this magazine. First, we hope to contribute towards a marxist analysis of homosexual oppression. Secondly, we want to encourage in the gay movement an understanding of the links between the struggle against sexual oppression and the struggle for socialism.

1975-1980

Gay Left: An Overview by Jeffrey Weeks

A particular moment

Gay Left encapsulates a particular moment in lesbian and gay history, and in the lives of its editors and writers. It was a moment that was politically, culturally and emotionally potent, but the circumstances that made it have now passed irretrievably. It feels like another age. Yet there is still a great deal of interest in the work that we set out to do, and this website, holding all ten copies of the journal, is a response both to a need to engage creatively with our history , and to recurring debates in what is now a vast, diversified and international community.

The journal first appeared in the autumn/fall of 1975, though the members of the initial editorial collective had been meeting for a year before this discussing the project, and some of us had been in gay Marxist discussion and reading groups together for even longer than that. The first flush of gay liberation energy had to a certain extent dispersed, but it was a period when gay ideas nevertheless were spreading electrically into a huge variety of areas – writing, film, art, theatre, television, history, the academy, trade unions, education, even mainstream politics - in the context of an unprecedented explosion of the gay and lesbian community. The opportunities seemed endless, despite, possibly because of, the frequent setbacks lesbian and gay people encountered For it was also a period of intense political polarisation, as the optimism of the previous decade hardened into a grim resilience under the impact of high inflation, growing unemployment, international tension and a real sense of an end of an era. There was a feeling that this was a time to stand up and be counted, and for many of us who had come of age in the cultural revolution of the 1960s and the early 1970s, and had seen our view of the world transformed by the explosive emergence of gay politics, that meant positioning ourselves firmly with the left.

Five years later, as the editorial collective announced in GL 10 a pause in publication to enable a think about what we wanted to do next – 10 issues and an edited book (Homosexuality: Power and Politics published in 1980) proved an exhausting if exhilarating journey together – the climate had changed dramatically, and in fact we soon dissolved as a group. What had seemed in the mid 1970s an inevitable movement to the Left had by 1980 become the triumph of a new sort of Right, marrying, with what turned out to be varying success, a harsh economic liberalism with a social conservatism, whose search for a return to Victorian Values (in Thatcherite Britain) or the values of the old frontier and old time religion (in Reaganite USA) captured the zeitgeist and created the basis of a new hegemonic politics in which the Left was increasingly marginalized. It was also, though we did not know it at the time, just a year or so before the HIV/AIDS crisis transformed the conditions of gay life for ever. New times demanded new urgent responses, and our earlier preoccupations often seemed redundant.

A longer term perspective tells us something different. Despite the setbacks, pain and loss of the 1980s and early 1990s we can now see that under the surface of events, dramatic changes in sexual and intimate life were taking place, a sort of grass roots revolution, that have transformed the possibilities of LGBTQ lives. These were not necessarily in the ways we anticipated or even consciously wanted in the mid 1970s. Many of our analyses have dated, inevitably. But what now strikes me on re-reading these 10 volumes for the first time in a long time, is how well we captured the dreams and realities, hopes and frustrations of gay and lesbian lives during the 1970s, and the extent to which you can see in these pages the shape of the dramatic political and cultural changes that decisively ended the long 1960s, and brought about a new political era.

The Gay Left Collective

The collective that came together in 1974 to plan what was not then known as ‘Gay Left’ (the title came at the last minute after long and anguished discussions) consisted of nine people. The group that produced the last issue five years later consisted of eight people. In between there had been a considerable churning of membership (15 people in all served on the collective), but a core of us had been with the project throughout. We were a group of men – a fact that was to prove controversial – and white men at that – something that was not especially controversial then but now stands out as a real weakness. We were London based, though in fact only one of us was born and bred in London: like most lesbians and gays we were migrants to the big city. Most of us were in our 20s or early 30s, of working class backgrounds but generally highly educated. Several of us were still students, or soon became students, most of the rest of us were first generation university graduates, characteristically working as researchers or teachers in schools, colleges and universities, but we also had two potters, a filmmaker and a lawyer. Generally we were fairly insecure in our careers at that stage. We all regarded ourselves as on the left, though our experiences had varied enormously, from membership of small leftist groups to mild anarchism and armchair Marxism. Crucially, all of us in one way or another had been radicalised through our experience of the gay movement.

What unified us and brought us together in Gay Left was a double concern: to enter a dialogue with the gay movement about socialism; and to confront the socialist and labour movements with the ideas of gay liberation. We declared in GL 1 that we were attempting to develop a ‘Marxist theory of sexuality’ and a ‘materialist analysis of sexual oppression’, and whatever the twists and turns of our efforts, that remained a consistent theme. The main vehicles for this were the collective statements we wrote for each issue. In these we attempted to work together on a specific topic – reading, discussing, arguing, and finally writing, collectively, in endless drafts. These statements probably took up most of our time, which may seem a little disproportionate when they characteristically took less than a fifth of the total contents. But they were crucial to our political and intellectual development, and to establishing the particular ethos of the journal. It is worth stressing that these were genuinely collective statements. Everyone took part. Every paragraph, sentence, phrase and word was chewed over before we produced an agreed way of saying what we wanted to say. Through this collaborative activity we helped each other, learnt from each other and grew together. Engaging with struggle But though this theoretical work was crucial we also sought to tap into ongoing struggles in the world around us. Alongside more historical articles like ‘Where Engels Feared to Tread’ (GL 1), which traced the evolution of Marxist attitudes towards sexuality and gender, were articles on struggles in the workplace like ‘Gays and Trade Unions’ in GL 1, ‘The Gay Workers’ Movement’ (GL 2), ‘All Worked UP’ (GL 3), ‘Gays at Work’ (GL 6 and 7), and ‘Work Place Politics: Gay Politics’ (GL 10); and pieces on the attitudes of leftist organisations towards the gay issue, such as ‘A Grim Tale’, about the International Socialists’ Gay Group (GL 3) or ‘Communists’ Comment’ (GL 4).

This dialogue between ourselves and with a growing range of readers inevitably shifted our perspectives. By GL 5, in our collective statement ‘Why Marxism?’ we were trying to articulate a more flexible theoretical position, open to new trends within Marxism (the growing influence of Gramsci, for example) and other social theories - the recognition of the importance of psychoanalysis (especially via the writings of Juliet Mitchell), and of the work of Michel Foucault were particularly important - see the articles on ‘Politics and Ideology’ in GL 5, and Foucault in GL 8). Other issues saw the publication of articles on key developing themes and theories, for example on the state and sexuality (GL 6), Guy Hocquenghem (GL 9) and on developments in socialist feminism (GL 10). At the same time, we were attempting to reflect the growing crisis on the left as the political climate became increasingly polarised. GL 5 carried a piece on ‘Gays and Fascism’ which began a crucial debate (see response in GL 6). We were also alive to the significance of the swing to the right not only politically but culturally (the collective statement in GL 8 referred to the election of Margaret Thatcher, which proved to be a decisive moment in British politics).

Personal politics

Our political commitments provided the spine for Gay Left in its five years of existence, but as a group of gay men we were also firmly located in the developing gay community and culture, with all their burgeoning concerns. Gay politics was still at heart a personal politics, and the bridge between the personal, social and political was an abiding preoccupation. In our second editorial statement, ‘Within these Walls’ (GL 2) we cast a critical look at our own community. But we also tried to show how central a sense of community was to coming out. ‘From Latent to Blatant’ by Angus Suttie (GL 2) movingly demonstrated that, and was a first example of highly personal articles which at the same time raised wider issues: for example, ‘Divided We Fail’ (GL 3), ‘Two Steps Forward, One Step Back’ (GL 6), ‘Living with Indecency’ (GL 8), and ‘Personal Politics - Ten Years On’, which gave members of the collective an opportunity to reflect on what had changed.

One of the key issues that came back again and again was the undeniable fact that we were a collective of white gay men. We were up-front about this from the start by declaring in GL1 that this was ‘a socialist journal produced by gay men’. That was not a boast but a bare statement of reality, though we also felt that there were advantages to remaining a closed group of men. We said we could ‘best explore our sexual attitudes most truthfully in an all-male group’, and in many ways we did indeed operate as an awareness or conscious raising group as well as an editorial collective. Our regular weekends away together to plan the journal were always shaped around intense personal discussions. In the spirit of the times, we wanted to change ourselves as well as the world around us. But our maleness and alleged exclusivity was a major source of controversy. Sue Bruley launched a vigorous broadside against the collective, ‘Women in Gay Left’, in GL 3, followed up in GL 4 by a series of responses. Although growing numbers of women contributed to the journal (and to our book) over the years that followed, and we worked closely with a number of lesbians over specific projects (such as the ‘What is to Be Done?’ conference in July 1977) the collective remained all male for the duration. We did, however, attempt to explore masculinity, including our own, as best we could, and this was reflected in several articles. The defining moment for us as a group was the work we did on our collective statement for GL 4, ‘Love, Sex and Maleness’. More controversially, we also entered the debate on paedophilia and inter-generational sex. The collective statement in GL 7, ‘Happy Families’ aroused a considerable debate in GL 8. Similarly, pornography proved a hot topic in GL 6 and 7. These issues were to prove to be immensely divisive topics in the next decade.

The fact that we were all white men was apparently less controversial at the time than the fact we were all men, but in retrospect it appears more of a problem. ‘Gays and Fascism’ in GL 5 did refer to racism, and Errol Francis in GL 10 specifically raised the issue, but there was no in-depth discussion of race, ethnicity and sexuality, which was of course to become a major theme in the 1980s, after GL left the scene. What you can see in the pages of the journal is an attempt to see gay liberation in an international context – see, for example, ‘Gays in Cuba’ in GL 1, and ‘Gay Liberation in Central America’ in GL 10. Despite this, what is not explicitly addressed in the journal is what has now become a dominating theme: the diversity of the lesbian and gay world, and though the issue of rights was a key if implicit concern, we did not anticipate the rise of the discourse of human rights as crucial to international LGBT politics. It is also necessary to note that we did not engage fully with bisexual or transgender issues. Our sense of what constituted a valid sexual and gender politics was still in evolution.

Gay Culture

In other ways, however, Gay Left was a leader in exploring gay culture in its broadest sense. Gays in film formed a continuous theme following a ground- breaking article by Richard Dyer in GL 2, with regular reviews (for example, of Fassbinder in GL 2), and coverage of Ron Peck’s attempts to make his film, ‘Nighthawks’ (Ron was then a member of the collective and other members were involved in the film making). Andrew Britton challenged ‘Camp’ in GL 6, and there were pioneering articles on ‘Gay Art’, the gay singer, Tom Robinson and the theatre group Gay Sweatshop in GL 7. Dyer’s article ‘In Defence of Disco’ in GL 8 was one of the first to take disco seriously as an expression of the new gay consciousness. Mandy Merck explored Gay TV in GL 10 at the start of what proved to be a revolution in the ways in which lesbians and gays were represented.

There were many other themes for which Gay Left provided a forum, from the emerging gay history to sexual pleasure. The journal was continuously expanding its coverage, adapting to the rapidly changing climate, and to our own personal changes, in life circumstances and political outlook. By the time we ceased publication in 1980 the kaleidoscope had been shaken again and new, yet more intricate patterns were emerging. We went our separate ways. But it’s fair to say that we have not lost the inspiration we found together in the days of Gay Left, nor have we stopped engaging with the themes we began to elaborate in the 1970s. Most of us have gone on writing in various forums, and between us we have clocked up a considerable list of books - on film, culture, history, sociology, art, photography, ceramics, the media, AIDS. And perhaps most importantly, with one exception, we are all still alive. Angus Suttie, a founder member of the collective died of AIDS in 1993. He is still much missed