#treating someone like a lesser human for not looking like a stereotype

[thegreatclowncat]

God doesn't look at what's on the outside anyway

[mdhwrites]

I was thinking your takes of how TOH fails at making a bigotry allegory with the witches that I can’t help be reminded of this post regarding Netflix’s The Dragon Prince (I’m not sure if you watched the show): https://www.tumblr.com/chronicallylatetotheparty/757857588414152704/i-think-western-media-has-relied-on-non-human

The writers of both TOH and TDP have far more interest on [insert magical creature]. They’re unintentionally bias that narrative reflects on it.

They make humans look worse than [insert magical creature] for reason that justified (in TDP villagers attacked a dragon who was harassing them for days and TOH have witches eat babies in the 1690s while they have a main villain be against witches and was probably in the same time period). They ignore certain details that make [insert magical creature] look bad and result in messy world building and messages (in TDP there was a reference to the Trail of Tears that the humans have to endure from the elves and dragons and in TOH witches sees humans as inferior).

Amphibia actually doesn’t ignore that the fantasy creatures can be messy. In fact they have Anne deal with being treated like a freak because the frogs never met a human.

They have Andrias and the Core be the bad guys who attempted to take over Earth. They considered humans as lesser beings because they have knowledge, power, and technology humans don’t have.

Amphibia is by far the only recent fantasy story that is willing to let the magical creatures be flawed and their society changed.

So I think you and the blog you cite are actually two very different points. The blog you linked is about lazy recycling of tropes from better media to the point where we have stopped considering what made those tropes powerful and those stories impactful. Anime is also facing a problem of this but when you try to apply it to more allegorical elements, like trying to use non-humans as an oppressed underclass (something even most classic fantasy fucks up in a number of ways) you get some really abhorrent, accidental undertones.

Your complaint on the other hand is... A little hard to tell if I'm being honest, especially since the TOH stuff (I haven't watched TDP) appears to either be VERY arguable (the Isles does not give a flying fuck about humans, positive or negative) or seems to be taking words that I assume either were said as a joke or by Belos, the bigot, about witch behavior in the past. "They eat our babies" is just about as stereotypical of bigot speech from someone who's a moron as you can get.

And I keep trying to find something to grab onto with your point and I'm just struggling. Honestly, it just sounds like the general complaint of 'smart' stories actually being dumb as rocks. The stories that can actually tell a complicated narrative that portrays every side properly in a conflict is extremely rare. This is how you get TOH being so pro-self expression that acknowledging ANY societal requirements, or any amount of engagement with 'the system' is portrayed as negative when like... Luz assaults people in the first five minutes as part of her 'self expression'.

It is preachy and lazy and leaves these cultures with no actual culture because they are there to make a statement. A lot of sci-fi struggle with this because of The World of Hats problem where they want to comment on one type of person so an entire race is just that type of person, like the ever present Warrior Race in all speculative media. It is the storytelling equivalent of writing an analytical piece with the conclusion set in stone. Your ability to make the piece properly will inherently be tainted.

I haven't watched TDP but for TOH, this is how you get Belos' death as it is in the show. Belos claims that humanity has mercy. Has sympathy. That a human is moral enough that if they see someone in agony, they will be compelled to save them, unlike these witches. However, the thesis behind TOH is that witches are good and people like Belos are pure evil. As such, he is written lazily and so are the witches. Belos' speech is 100% just recycled from elsewhere. A final plea to a hero to be saved, with the witch response being a badass one liner or meant to be one that makes them look cool and superior. It plays to the thesis and 'theme' of TOH... Without examining the details for even half a second because if you do, yeah, they're rancid. This race accused of not caring for other people or their lives just agrees with the villain before proving him right by stomping him to death. This isn't saying that Belos should have lived, absolutely fucking not, but that someone who was worried more about their point, who was being careful about their allegories, might have made it so that instead of glee, literally one of them calls murder 'satisfying' which... Dear god why? They might have made it horror, or hesitation or a dozen other emotions that do have this race thought to be monstrous consider reaching out to this man who has hurt them so much. That in his final moments, Belos would be proven wrong because while they hurt him and so they could never forget, they at least provide him with mercy. Genuine empathy that he never gave them despite everything he's done because, you know... They're good people and not what he thinks they are.

But if you are certain about your message, entirely unquestioning... Why would you do that? Not when you can do the 'subversive' thing despite the fact that these tropes exist for a reason and subverting them might not happen a lot for a reason. That some plot beats are just mandatory for the sake of making your point function. It is being a confident dumbass about your story because you're never going to blink as far as questions on how well you did go.

But do you know what happens when you don't blink? Irritation, which sure seems to be how people feel about these mixed messages. See you next tale.

======+++++======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[whereserpentswalk]

You're a demon but you're a relatively human looking demon. Outside of having sharp teeth and slit pupils you could pass for a kind of pale skinny human. You don't have any biological sex, but when you're wearing clothing you can hide that.

You've been told by a certain type of demon that you don't really cont, that you're just a human faking it. They tend to be the type who fit the popular conception of a 'good' demon, they useally look pretty stereotypical with the horns and the red scales, and they tend to believe that they can only be redeemed in human eyes by admitting that they're lesser then them. The type who blame demons who think they're equal to humans for the hate that demons get. You don't spend time around people Iike that anymore.

You never feel more like a demon then when you're around humans. You understand that they're more likely to exist near someone like you then they are around a demon who looks like a living shadow, or someone with tentacles covering the lower half of their face, or someone with giant wings and a bird head. But they still treat you differently, humans don't feel safe being touched by you or being with you alone once they know what you are, they get uncomfortable when you talk about your culture or when you act 'too demonic' near them. And sometimes they'll ask you strange questions, or if certain things are ok for you that they wouldn't ask for a human. You've been threatened with holy water for trying to "seduce" someone once, it's the type of thing that makes you want to never talk to anyone.

Now that you're in college you have freinds who are also demons, most of them being less human passing then you, but none of them really see you differently because of it. One of your closest freinds is nearly completely biomechanical, and almost insectoid looking, the type of demon who gets rejected by parts of the community for being "too weird" or "irredeemable". Another one has a lamprey mouth instead of a face, and is the son of a high ranking member of the abyss, one of the few fourth generation demons you know. Even when a problem in the demonic community doesn't directly effect you, it still effects the people closest to you. Everyone feels so close and so understanding. You can look at a flaming skeleton with raven wings, or a living suit of armor with glowing eyes, and feel like you're part of the same community, you have the same culture, the same history, and the people who want to hurt you and the religions that preach for your extermination all see you as the same too. You start dressing more demonically, when you first became a demon as a kid your parents made sure you dressed as much like a human as possible, now you want nothing more then to show that your humanity is long gone.

One day you meet a girl who recently became a demon. She doesn't pass at all, her eyes turned completely black, and her skin completely white, and she has this massive mouth filled with sharp metal teeth that are visible even when it's closed. She's constantly upset, she doesn't understand why anyone is proud of being a demon, she feels like this is the worst fate she could have. She became a demon in the middle of the semester, and her parents blame the fact that she went to college so far away, in such a large city. It doesn't sound like her parents are going to see her again.

You invite her to some of the meetings demons have. But she's still to upset with what she's become. Talks about going to a church that has a way of making her not a demon anymore, you warn her that it's not going to go how she wants it to. She hopes that if she prays to her god that he'll make her human again. But you know that if that god is real, he doesn't love her anymore.

The next time you hear about her everyone in the demonic community is talking about her. She was praying at night in a church downtown, one of the paladins saw her, and saw her as they saw any other demon, praying or not. She was killed by a silver bullet, and her body devolved in holy water. Her parents will remember her as if she was human, make up a story about how she's a human again in the after life, members of her church will talk about how she was never really a demon as long as she didn't give in, and her grave will be fat from the city she died in. But your community will light a memorial, showing her as she looked when she died, and here she will be remembered a demon. And it will be remembered amoung paladins that when they harm one of you, that they harm them all, and that there are members of your community who can fight back.

[natsmagi]

reading your posts about body diversity in enstars and i don't want to. echo chamber or anything but as a guy with a small waist/large hips/sizable chest it always makes me happy 2 see people give fem tsumugi similar traits without it being. inherently sexual (do not get me wrong it Can be. i think big boobs are hot. bounce bounce. but sometimes it's nice to just.... see a guy like me without it being treated inherently as a sex thing). like sometimes people just have big proportions and that is ok <3 lalala love and joy on earth

YEA!!! and omg DONT WORRY ANON UR NOT BEING ECHO CHAMBER-Y!!! youre sharing your opinion and life experiences!! and individual experiences are always important to take into account!!

there is nothing wrong with liking big boobs or boobs in general, its like. a common joke here after all ASJHFKJH but the issue arises when youre unable to view the person as anything But their proportions..... people who fit the mold of "big boobs and small waists" often get sexualized so disproportionately and you can really see it bleed into how these people are treated in the real world and it makes me so sad...... no body is inherently sexual, and you most certainly shouldnt treat someone as lesser because of the traits they possess. literally any woman is capable of being hot no matter her looks, much like every woman is still a human being no matter her looks. SOMETIMES PEOPLE JUST HAVE BIG BOOBS!!! DOESNT NEED TO GO ANY DEEPER THAN THAT!!!

there is nothing wrong with drawing these bodies sexually either, and if youre sapphic i hope you dont feel shame for thinking things like "wow that girl has some big knockers and its making me think some very risque thoughts. im no better than those vile men" because youre afraid youre feeding into the objectification of women done by guys. its ok to be horny and sexually attracted to certain features, she is Literally what ur attracted to after all!!!! what matters is remembering that Thats a person at the end of the day which, as sapphics, we almost (if not) always inherently do because we have some relationship with womanhood in one way or another (be it cis, trans, nonbinary, or something else) and it will never be the same as cis men reducing women to fleshlights. so please dont feel like you need to feed into the stereotype of "love between women being soft and pure and innocent and sweet" because thats not helping anyone either

be horny!! be crude!!! BE NASTY!!!!!! but also be humane and remember that someone possessing a certain feature doesnt give u a pass to objectify or dehumanize them :')

[idreamtofmanderleyagain]

Hot takes about Severus Snape are a wierdly decent glimpse into how a person with progressive values analyses things. Literally every time someone talks about Snape, it’s like this tiny window into how one-dimentionally people actually think.

Recently saw a twitter post that was a fantastic example. Here’s how it goes (paraphrasing):

Person A:“Snape is POC and Queer coded, that’s why you guy’s hate him uwu lol.”

Person B: “Actually I hate him because he was mean and abusive to children under his care uwu but go off I guess lol”

Both of these takes are designed to be dramatic and/or reactionary. They each use partial truths to paint very broad strokes. These are get-em-in-one-hit quips. This is virtue signalling, if you’ll excuse that loaded phrase. Nobody had a substantial conversation, but now everyone who sees their statement knows the high ground they took.

At least a hundred other people chimed in to add their own little quippy hot takes into play, none of which add anything significant, but clearly made everyone feel very highly of themselves.

So many layers of nuance and complex analysis is completely lost in this kind of discussion. On tumblr, you get more of this kind of bullshit, but you don’t have a word count limit, so you guys just spew endless mountains of weak overblown evidence backing up your bullshit arguments, none of which was really about engaging in a real conversation anyway.

Here’s the thing about Snape.

He is a childhood domestic abuse victim. His abuser is a muggle.

He becomes a student at a magical school that takes him away from his abuser and immediately instills in him the idea that being a part of this magical world is a badge of self-worth, empowerment, and provides safety and security - provided that he keeps in line.

There is a war is being waged in that world over his right to exist (he is a half blood).

He is a marginalized person within the context of the narrative, forced to constantly be in the same living space as the children of his own oppressors who are being groomed and recruited into a hate group militia (the pureblood slytherins). They are in turn trying to do the same to him.

He is marginalized person bullied by children who are also part of his oppressor group, but who have “more liberal” leanings and aren’t direct about why he’s being targeted (the mauraders are all purebloods, Sirius, who was the worst offender, was raised in a bigoted household, the same one that produced Bellatrix.).

He had a crush on a girl who is a muggleborn, and therefore she is considered even lesser than him and carries a stigma to those who associate with her. That girl was his only real friend. In his entire life.

For both Snape and Lily, allying themselves to a pureblood clique within their own houses would be a great way of shielding themselves from a measure of the bigotry they were probably facing. There would have been obvious pressure from those cliques to disconnect with one and other.

Every other person who associates with Snape in his adulthood carries some sort of sociopolitical or workplace (or hate cult) baggage with their association. Some of them will physically harm and/or kill him if he steps out of line. He hasn’t at any point had the right environment to heal and adjust from these childhood experiences. Even his relationship with Dumbledore is charged with constant baggage, including the purebloods who almost killed him during their bullying getting a slap on the wrist, the werewolf that almost killed him as a child being placed in an authority position over new children, etc. Dumbledore is canonically manipulative no matter his good qualities, and he has literally been manipulating Snape for years in order to cultivate a necessary asset in the war.

He is a person who is not in the stable mental state necessary to be teaching children, whom has been forced to teach children. While also playing the role of double agent against the hate group militia, the one that will literally torture you for mistakes or backtalk or just for fun. The one that will torture and kill him if he makes one wrong move.

Is the math clicking yet? From all of this, it’s not difficult to see how everything shitty about Snape was cultivated for him by his environment. Snape was not given great options. Snape made amazingly awful choices, and also some amazingly difficult, courageous ones. Snape was ultimately a human who had an extremely bad life, in which his options were incredibly grim and limited.

In fact, pretty much every point people make about how shitty Snape is as a person makes 100% logical sense as something that would emerge from how he was treated. Some if it he’s kind of right about, some of it is the inevitable reality of suffering, and some of it is part of the cycle of abuse and harm.

Even Snape’s emotional obsession with Lily makes logical sense when you have the perspective that he literally has no substantial positive experiences with other human beings that we know of, and he has an extreme, soul destroying guilt complex over her death. Calling him an Incel mysoginist nice guy projects a real-world political ideology and behavior that does not really apply to the context of what happened to him and her.

Even Snape’s specific little acts of cruelty to certain students is a reflection of his own life experiences. He identifies with Neville; more specifically, he identifies his own percieved emotional weaknesses in his childhood in Neville. There’s a very sad reason there why he feels the urge to be so harsh.

Snape very clearly hates himself, in a world where everyone else hates him, too. Imagine that, for a second. Imagine total internal and external hatred, an yearning for just a little bit of true connection. For years. Imagine then also trying to save that world, even if it’s motivated by guilt. Even if nobody ever knows you did it and you expect to die a miserable death alone.

There are more elements here to consider, including the way Rowling described his looks (there may be something in there re: ugliness and swarthy stereotyping). These are just the things that stand out the most prominently to me.

J.K. Rowling is clearly also not reliable as an imparter of moral or sociopolitical philosophies. I don’t feel that her grasp of minority experiences is a solid one, considering how she picks and chooses who is acceptable and who is a threat.

All of that said, this is a logically consistent character arc. Within the context of his narrative, Snape is a marginalized person with severe PTSD and emotional instability issues who has absolutely no room available to him for self-improvement or healing, and never really has. And yes, he’s also mean, and caustic, and verbally abusive to the students. He’s also a completey miserable, lonely person.

There are elements in his character arc that mirror real world experiences quite well. If nothing else, Rowling is enough of an emotional adult to recognise these kinds of things and portray something that feels authentic.

In my opinion, it’s not appropriate to whittle all this down by comparing him directly to the real world experiences of marginalized groups - at least if you are not a part of the group you are comparing him to. There have been many individuals who have compared his arc to their own personal experiences of marginalization, and that is valid. But generally speaking, comparing a white straight dude to people who are not that can often be pretty offensive. This is not a valuable way to discuss either subject.

Also, I believe that while it’s perfectly okay to not like Snape as a character, many of the people who act like Person B are carrying Harry’s childhood POV about Snape in their hearts well into their own adulthood. And if nothing else, Rowling was attempting to say something here about how our perspectives (should) grow and change as we emotionally mature.  She doesn’t have to be a good person herself to have expressed something true about the world in this instance, and since this story is a part of our popular culture, people have a right to feel whatever way they do about this story and it’s characters.

The complexity of this particular snapshot of fictionalized marginalization, and what it reveals about the human experience, cannot be reduced down to “he’s an abuser so he’s not worth anyone’s time/you are bad for liking him.”

And to be honest, I think that it reveals a lot about many of us in progressive spaces, particularly those of us who less marginalized but very loud about our values, that we refuse to engage with these complexities in leu of totally condemning him. Particularly because a lot of the elements I listed above are indeed reflected in real world examples of people who have experienced marginalization and thus had to deal with the resulting emotional damage, an mental illness, and behavior troubles, and bad decisions. Our inability to address the full scope of this may be a good reflection of how we are handling the complexity of real world examples.

Real people are not perfect angels in their victimhood. They are just humans who are victims, and we all have the capacity to be cruel and abusive in a world where we have been given cruelty and abuse. This is just a part of existing. If you cannot sympathise with that, or at least grasp it and aknowledge it and respect the people who are emotionally drawn to a character who refects that, then you may be telling on yourself to be honest.

To be honest, this is especially true if you hate Snape but just really, really love the Mauraduers. You have a right to those feelings, but if you are moralizing this and judging others for liking Snape, you’ve confessed to something about how you’ve mentally constructed your personal values in a way I don’t think you’ve fully grasped yet.

I have a hard time imagining a mindset where a story like Snape’s does not move one to empathy and vicarious grief, if I’m honest. I feel like some people really just cannot be bothered to imagine themselves in other people’s shoes, feeling what they feel and living like they live. I struggle to trust the social politics of people who show these kinds of colors, tbh.

But maybe that’s just me.

[lady-divine-writes]

The Hitchhiker - Chapter 1/4

Picking up a hitchhiker isn't exactly the dumbest thing Kurt has ever done, but it's not exactly the smartest either. When he comes across Blaine Anderson caught in a sudden downpour, he can't just leave him on the corner to drown... can he? (1756 words)

Read on AO3.

“Excuse me? Sir? Do you need a ride?”

Kurt flashes as confident and honest a smile as he can to the man standing on the side of the road. But the second those words leave his mouth, he hears his father’s voice in his head yelling: “Kurt Hummel! What the hell are you doing? Picking up a hitchhiker? Are you out of your mind!?”

And Kurt has to admit, the voice is right. 

There is a fifty-fifty chance that this man, standing alone in the dark by the side of the road, is a violent serial killer. His outfit alone perpetuates the stereotype - indigo jeans, white t-shirt, leather jacket. He has an olive-green duffel slung over one shoulder and he's carrying a guitar case, for God’s sake! What are the odds that there’s actually a guitar in there!? If Kurt picks this man up, he has a greater chance of becoming a statistic than of that man being a musician! Kurt should drive away now without an inch of guilt, floor it without looking back.

And he probably would have deferred to his better judgment and stepped on the gas had it not been for a few things. 

It's pitch dark out for a start. Only a handful of street lights line the curb, installed twenty or so feet apart, which creates long expanses of shadow in between. The road they're on is in the middle of nowhere, with trees towering on both sides of them. This doesn’t help Kurt’s argument any since it seems like just the place a killer would lie in wait for a potential victim. But, in that same vein, someone or something could be stalking him, waiting for Kurt to drive away so they can pounce on him from the trees. Then it would be up to the reach of this man's legs and his athletic ability to save him.

This leads directly to reason two: the man is a klutz. In the five minutes Kurt has been stuck at this red light, he’s seen him smack himself in the face with his own bag, drop his sunglasses (pink rimmed Wayfarers, no less), catch them, then fumble them again, and step in the same puddle twice. If this man is a serial killer, he may not be the most competent one on the planet. 

Three, just as Kurt’s light turned green, it started raining. And not the light drizzle he has come to expect during his infrequent forays to San Diego, but an honest-to-God downpour. Kurt saw the man turn his face up to the sky, his shoulders slumped, wholly defeated by this new development. He put the butt of his guitar case on the toes of his shoes to keep it out of the mud, then attempted to wrap his jacket around it.

And Kurt’s heart melted. 

Kurt is a musician himself. Singer more than musician but he has friends who play the guitar. His stepbrother Finn owns a Fender that he sold plasma to afford. Puck's Gibson is the only thing he has never hawked when he needed money. And Sam, in this man's position, would take off every stitch of clothing to protect his Blueridge if it came down to it. Kurt can imagine this man’s whole life wrapped up in that case, which he is now convinced does hold a guitar.

Kurt isn't a gun enthusiast by any means, but he thinks a semi-automatic should be able to withstand some weather. He may want to Google that one later on… provided he’s still alive.

And about that guitar case: it isn’t a plain, generic, black guitar case. The thing is covered in travel stickers and bling. It has a personality all its own. An easily identifiable personality. If this man is a killer, Kurt is pretty certain every human on the West Coast would know about it. He’d be nicknamed the Kitsch Case Killer or something along those lines. That case sticks out like a sore thumb. There’s no way a man carrying a guitar case decorated like an old-school Lisa Frank binder is getting away with swiping a pack of gum, not to mention murder.

To a lesser degree (Kurt tells himself so he doesn't have to admit how idiotic this idea is), this is the most a-dork-able man Kurt has ever seen. He looks more like a puppy than a predator (weak reasoning, he knows). But Kurt has instincts about people that are usually on the money. He has to give himself credit for making it this far in life. Kurt is tougher than he looks. He has taken his fair share of licks, and he’s still ticking. 

Plus, he has bear repellent in the pocket of his jacket the size of a can of Aquanet. He feels he has his bases covered.

The man walks slowly towards Kurt's car, the curls piled atop his head hanging heavily down his cheeks the wetter he gets.

No, Kurt can’t leave him out here.

“Um. Thanks. Thanks a lot,” the man says, cautiously eyeing Kurt up and down as if he may be asking himself Kurt’s same string of questions in his head. “But I… ” The fact that he isn’t jumping at Kurt’s offer, that he’s glancing anxiously down the road, mulling his options even as rain pours down his back, puts Kurt at ease. The man looks like he’s trying to gauge if Kurt might have a weapon hiding somewhere on his person, contemplating if he’ll come out of this alive if he accepts this ride. 

Ironic, but that proves that there are two sides to every situation.

The man looks about to step away and decline until a fork of lightning turns night into day for five seconds, a boom so loud following it shakes Kurt’s rental car. 

“Sure. Okay. Why not?” He pulls open the rear door in a rush but still wary as he puts his belongings into the backseat and joins Kurt in the front. “Thank you so much. I didn’t expect it to rain this hard, or I might have stayed in my hotel room one more night.” He runs a hand through his hair, cringing at the water that sprays the headrest.

“Not a problem.” Kurt reaches behind the seat and grabs the towel he’d fished out of his luggage earlier when he’d done the same thing. But the rain was only a sprinkle then – angel spittle, his mom would have called it. “I couldn’t just drive by and leave you out here to drown.”

The man chuckles. It, much like the rest of him, is too cute for words. “My name’s Blaine.”

“Kurt.” Kurt extends a hand for Blaine to shake. Blaine looks at it, hesitates a second before taking it, still questioning Kurt and his intentions, Kurt assumes. Despite being stuck in the rain, Blaine’s hand is warm, comforting in a way Kurt speculates a serial killer’s hands would not. “Well, Blaine, where you headed?”

“Oh, uh… I’m trying to make my way to L.A. But you can drop me off anywhere between here and there.”

“Ooo. Actor? Producer?”

“Unemployed schlub, unfortunately. Currently riding my brother’s couch. He’s the actor. I’m the… the failure.”

Kurt pulls onto the road again and heads for the highway. “That’s a really unkind thing to say about yourself.”

“It’s what… well, it’s what my father would say.” He wrings his hands uncomfortably. “He’d also say I’m a disappointment, a waste of a Harvard education, a bum… ” He shivers. Kurt raises the temperature of the heater. Blaine glances at Kurt in embarrassment, and Kurt gets the hint that it’s not the cold that has him trembling.

“I know it’s not my place to say, but I’d stop listening to your father if I were you. It doesn’t seem like he has anything worthwhile to say.”

“How can you say that? You don’t even know me,” Blaine says under his breath, with an edge like a growl, the kind wild animals give when you stumble into their territory unaware. It sets the hairs on the back of Kurt’s neck on end, and he starts second-guessing this decision. 

Relax, Kurt. The man’s just beat down. Exhausted. You understand what that’s like.

Blaine sighs, sinking into the passenger seat and leaning his head against the window. "I'm sorry. I know you're trying to be nice. It's been a long day." 

“I understand. And I may not know you, but I know fathers," Kurt continues. "A father’s job is to be supportive of their children, no matter what they do in life. Succeed or fail, win or lose, they should always be in your corner. And if he’s not, screw him! Surround yourself with people who want to lift you up, not tear you down.”

Blaine winds his arms around his torso, hugging himself tight. “I---is that the way your father treats you?”

“Yup,” Kurt answers with a subconscious smile at the mention of his dad. “He supports me in everything, even the stuff he doesn’t entirely agree with. And when things don’t work out, he’s the first person there, helping me to my feet and encouraging me to try again.”

“Sounds like a great guy. You’re lucky.”

“He is," Kurt says proudly. "And I am.”

Blaine fixes his gaze to the road ahead as Kurt merges onto the highway. He chews the inside of his cheek, stares too hard at the rain-slick asphalt, not shifting focus. It's as if he can't bring himself to look at Kurt when he asks, “So, you think you’re a good judge of character?”

Kurt nods. “Yes, I do."

"How do you know?"

"Experience. I have a decent track record.”

"Surround yourself with a lot of questionable people, do you?"

"I guess you can say that," Kurt agrees with a laugh, thinking of the people who have come into his life that he has adopted as his own: Rachel, Dave, Santana, Puck, all of them rivals or bullies. Or both. But now, a cherished part of his found family.

People he hopes will miss him if SDPD finds him by the side of the road tomorrow with his throat cut.

Stop it, Kurt! Relax! You're in no danger! Everything is going to be fine!

Blaine shrugs, examining his wet hands as if he’s reading something etched on his skin. “Someday you’ll be wrong.”

“Probably." Kurt meets Blaine's eyes in the reflection of the windshield, flashes his confident smile again. "But I don’t think that day is today.”

[hawkinsschoolcounselor]

Hi hi! I'm glad you're well, except for the commute (oof). If you haven't done this already, I'd love to hear thoughts from you about Brenner. First of all, how does someone like him live with doing the sort of things he's done? Also, with him being "papa" to El in her early life, how well would you say stories of why abusive parents abuse, and how they understand what they're doing, fit to understanding Brenner's behavior and mind? (I hope that all makes sense?) Thanks! and have a good one! ^_^

Ok, you’ve been waiting for this one for quite some time. I apologize. It’s been hard to stay motivated between all the stress of the past year and the lack of fresh Stranger Things content. You’ve put forth a very thought-provoking question, as it really demands that I get into the question of human behavior and why anyone does anything, let alone something that many would see as horrible.

Too often, people like to write certain people off as “just plain evil.” This is a problematic argument, however, as it avoids any exploration as to why something might have happened. If we don’t understand the root of a given behavior, we leave ourselves open to it happening again. Brenner isn’t evil, but only because “evil” is a social construct that isn’t naturally occurring. Brenner himself would certainly give all sorts of justifications for his actions, and that is the real issue here. A stereotypically “evil” person would know he is doing wrong, and either not care or enjoy it.

Brenner doesn’t see anything wrong with what he’s done. He may know it’s illegal, even unethical, but he sees himself as doing something great. Those who are hurt along the way are simply the cost of doing business, for lack of a better term. He has little, if any, remorse for his actions. Everything is justifiable to him if it works towards his goals. What are his goals? First, to achieve greatness. Second, to have his greatness known. The closest he gets to caring for something other than himself is his desire to defeat the Russians, but that may well be driven by his desire for greatness rather than a desire to help his country. He’s not out to hurt anyone, but he cares little if that’s what it takes.

What this shows is a disregard for the rights of others, along with the previously mentioned lack of remorse. This is where an evil argument can be made, since it creates a situation where he quite simply seeing others as lesser than himself. This is what leads to people treating others as subhuman and expendable. Most people, even when put into a situation that requires decisions that can result in others being seriously hurt or killed, will struggle with it. It’s the sort of thing that would haunt the average person, even if they tried to rationalize it away, at least until they became desensitized to it.

We get no sense that Brenner himself was simply broken down until this emotionally detached person was all that was left. There’s no indication that he came into his research as someone with ethical standards, but got disillusioned over time. Everything we see in Stranger Things, as well as the supplemental materials, tells us that this is basically Brenner’s modus operandi. Any display of emotion from him is simply part of a greater strategy of manipulation. He tricks his subjects into thinking he cares for them, and, especially with the children, grooms them to see him as a father figure whom they will wish to please.

Using Brenner as an exploration of abusive parents is a bit dicey, as his parental status is essentially fake. God willing, he has no actual children. Still, it can work as a sort of metaphor, I suppose. An abusive parent would behave similarly, unrealistic elements of the series aside, in that I’d wager that abusive parents rarely see themselves as abusive. I don’t have any research handy for this, but, anecdotally, people take on traits of their parents (and other significant people in their lives growing up). The cycle of abuse is not a conscious choice that people make, and this is what makes it difficult to break. Billy was abusive because Neil was abusive. Billy started to see Neil’s methods as the only way to 1) be safe and 2) get what you want. Neil’s abuse of Billy likely decreased in frequency and severity as Billy took on traits that Neil appreciated. This reinforced the behavior in Billy, turning him into a carbon copy of the man he hated. Billy also likely harbored a great hatred of himself, assuming he had moments where he was able to clearly see the person had become. Abusive parents, particularly those who had been abused, would likely have a similar sense of shame once the defense mechanisms stop protecting them from their own behavior.

I’m not sure Brenner would feel ashamed of himself, though. Even if someone, somehow stripped away his delusions of grandeur, arrogance, and claims of the ends justifying the means, there’s no reason to believe that Brenner would have a Heel Realization. He’s not a Well-Intentioned Extremist or He Who Fights Monsters who simply needs to be put down. The man is a sociopath. He doesn’t value others enough to have any genuine emotional attachment with them. If you watch his scenes with El, you can actually see that any reactions he has are due to the results of his experiments with her. His emotional attachments are centered on his work. These people are subjects to him, merely nameless numbers. Their names only exist to allow him to put up a paternal front, so they feel compelled to obey and desire to please him.

I think a better look at abusive parents in Stranger Things would be with Neil or Lonnie. They’re both horrible people, but at least tried to be parents in their own twisted way. If we use the story of Lonnie taking Jonathan hunting to illustrate parenting, we can sort of see the differences. A good dad would see his son is upset and end the hunting trip. An abusive dad, like Lonnie, would make his kid do it anyway because he thought it’d toughen his son up and because he cared more about what other people thought than how his son felt. Brenner tried to make El kill a rabbit just to see if she could, so she can be a weapon.

Lonnie was a selfish abusive asshole, but Brenner was only ever in it for himself. El would have been killed or locked away in an asylum if her powers never developed. It takes a lot to come across as worse than Lonnie, but, hey, there’s always a bigger fish.

[scripttorture]

I'd like to ask about solitary confinement and whether someone who is a voluntary hermit and literally living in a cave (albeit coastal - they'd see ships in the distance) will have any issues with it?

Yes but it can get sort of… interesting in terms of individual variation and self-selection factors.

 Essentially the kind of person who wants to live in a cave away from everyone else is likely to be less tolerant of having a lot of people around them and more tolerant of isolation.

 There are rare individuals who are much more tolerant of the effects of isolation then the rest of us. And any occupation that requires long periods of isolation sort of… self selects for them. Because without that ridiculously high tolerance for isolation the job itself becomes unbearable and the people leave.

 If there’s a position open for ‘hermit in the seaside cave’ then the locals are more likely to remember the guy who lived there for twenty years then the fifteen people before him who tried and couldn’t hack it for more then a week or two.

 However, high tolerance doesn’t mean ‘no effects’. I’ve seen less interviews with people who voluntarily isolate themselves then I have with solitary survivors (this makes sense because the former is rarer). The interviews I have seen don’t go into as much depth as I would like about mental health.

 But when people are describing regular hallucinations and weird mood swings (which we know are possible effects in solitary confinement) then I think it’s safe to assume the effects still manifest. Even in more resistant individuals.

 Interestingly the- let’s call them ‘modern hermits’- that I read about often tried to put a positive view on their symptoms. I particularly remember reading an interview with a religious individual who linked her hallucinations to her faith. (Nothing against anyone’s faith here but if you start seeing and hearing things that is still a hallucination.)

 Writing wise I think the way to approach this scenario is to consider the character and what the story gains by them being in this situation.

 For instance- Is this character going to need to interact positively with other human beings? Has this character been coerced or persuaded to live like this? Do you have space in the story to include long term symptoms of isolation? Is it actually important that the character has no human contact or do they just need to be slightly apart from ‘normal’ society in their world? Is the character really, realistically having less then 1-2 hours of human contact a day? (If so where is their food and water coming from?)

 Do symptoms from isolation create interesting moments and obstacles in the story you want to tell? What is it that draws you to the idea of the character being alone?

 Humans are a social species and that means that interacting with other people is a biological need just like the need for food, water and air. Variations in tolerance are not the same as an absence of that biological need.

 A lot of books I’ve read and shows/movies I’ve watched just… do not treat it like that. And they often go on to make moral judgements about people who have less tolerance of isolation versus those who have a higher tolerance for it.

 People with low tolerance are ‘weak’, ‘dependant’ and ‘cowardly’. However at the same time these narratives characterise people with higher tolerances for isolation as being incredibly social and charismatic and able to juggle huge social circles.

 Neither of these things are true to life and I think they’re both full of unfortunate implications.

 The first set of assumptions assumes that people are somehow lesser for being… normal. The second set of assumptions implies that the experiences of real people with high tolerances for isolation are completely invalid. Because they tend to withdraw and not want to interact as much while these stories imply they ‘should’ be as hyper-social as everyone else.

 And both of these sets of unrealistic stereotypes imply that the experiences of people forced into solitary confinement are somehow less damaging then they actually are. Because they imply that our in/ability to deal with isolation is primarily an issue of morality, strength and willpower rather then… a goddamn biological need programmed into us by several million years of having to depend on each other for survival.

 I am not saying that it’s wrong to write profoundly isolated characters, or characters that are isolated by choice. But if you want to do that I think you need to consider what that’s like and what kind of character you’re creating.

 Based on the interviews of seen the people who tolerate prolonged periods of isolation (weeks or months, very rarely a year or more) aren’t very sociable and don’t have a whole lot of friends. They don’t like crowds. They find socialising more stressful then most people even when it’s rewarding. They’re often not as profoundly isolated as people in solitary confinement.

 And they still experience negative effects from isolation, even when they choose it.

 A positive view on symptoms does not make symptoms less serious or make them go away.

 So consider what you want the character in this story to do. Would they be going off on an adventure? Would they be taken from the cave and into a context with more people and a pressure to more interaction?

 Because (and this is my personal opinion) I don’t think that someone who’d volunteered to be that profoundly alone would want to do any of that. They might even be significantly pissy about someone invading their private space to ask for help.

 And there’s nothing wrong with having a character like that or a story that forces a character outside of their comfort zone. But if it isn’t the kind of story you want to tell or the kind of character you want to write I’d suggest changing the scenario.

 There’s a really easy way to do that: most hermits and anchoresses historically were not isolated to the level that people in solitary confinement are. The definition for solitary is less then 1-2 hours a day of human contact.

 Historically these people received a lot more visitors then you’d expect. Some of them hoped to learn from a person they saw as closer to God. Some of them helped deliver supplies and keep the hermits or anchoresses fed and in clean accommodation. Some of them were other hermits or anchoresses because these people often lived in small communities and would work and eat together (even if it was in silence).

 There were people who did go out into the wilderness alone, in the remotest areas they could find. A lot of those people were also in small communities rather then completely isolated. They also generally… died. Really really young. Like the grave finds tell some very clear stories and they’re tragedies.

 If you want to tell a story about isolation I’d suggest looking at the sources in my masterpost on solitary confinement. If you’d rather tell a story about hermits you might want to look up anchoresses and people like St Cuthbert (who, as a member of St Cuthbert’s Society I can say was a complete berk.)

 If you want to keep an element of apartness from society but you don’t want to write solitary or something too close to the historical reality just… have the character go into the nearest town regularly. Have them get the occasional visitor. Show the readers that they’re not completely alone.

 I hope that helps :)

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[rumandtimes]

Does Cultural Appropriation Apply to Natalie Portman?

Sean Ezersky

Assoc. Fantasy Contributor

Does appropriation apply to the worst parts of European cultures?

Today, I want to discuss cultural appropriation. Yes, the issue of the times. But what exactly is cultural appropriation? Well, nobody knows. Starting at the first word, it claims to be some kind of appropriation. And it has something to do with culture.

Firstly, it should be said that this article has nothing to actually do with cultural appropriation. That is because cultural appropriation is essentially defined by racism. The term first appears, so it goes, as a description of how racist citizens of England marginalised and exploited the peoples of the Caribbean, and attacked sections of the working class schtick, for fun. Sounds evil enough.

The term cultural appropriation cannot be used as a mild term or played around with much, because it is by definition a form of misconduct. The term cultural appropriation is defined by the words “inappropriate,” “racist,” and “commercialist.” There is no redeeming quality to cultural appropriation because cultural appropriation is used to describe exclusively irredeemable activity, markedly opposite to cultural exchange or respect.

Consider the worst perpetrator in the United Kingdom and the United States: hip-hop / rap music, curly hair, or a summer tan. Racists always attack these music genres and human characteristics un-European, placing them into the same box on the fringes of their minds, but at the same time view themselves as ‘cultured’ for dipping into the same music, view themselves as ‘interesting’ for factory curling their hair, or view themselves as ‘unique’ for getting a spray-on tan. There is a murderous and delirious sense of bad irony, that racists altogether marginalise, demonise, and lust after perfectly normal traits and human practices, which the racist calls exotic, for fear of being labelled as freaks themselves. That is cultural appropriation.

Another bad actor is the billion-dollar yoga industry in Western nations as well, which attempts at every corner to steal Indian culture then mutilate the original concept, taking the yoga gurus off the cover and planting in some body-bleaching whores, or some wavy Italian guy, to appeal to the racist American, à la youth female target audience. All the while, Hinduism, inextricable from yoga’s origins while not necessarily the same as yoga in any way, is viewed as a false and inexpiable religion by most people in the West. Yoga was not learned from the Hindu, it was looted, and replaced with a shallow, cruel, commercial, and disgraceful attempt to Europeanise and trivialise the hobby while selling it the crude sex markets. That is a form of cultural genocide and religion-sacking. That is cultural appropriation.

But this article is not about cultural appropriation, in a way. The distinction was only added to please those offended by the comparison. This article is about movies, as part of a series of Star Wars critiques, and it’s about Natalie Portman.

Long have I harboured a question about Natalie Portman’s career, as it is so vapid yet so prolific, so vain yet so ubiquitous. This is just the opportunity. Natalie Portman got her start in acting as a 16-year-old leading actress on Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. She returned three years later as a 19-year-old lead on Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, where her character dies. After moving on from the Star Wars prequels, she used that resume to enrol at Harvard University to study psychology.

She has actually commented on this, as all Harvard associates eventually do, saying she and her peers felt she was only enrolled because she was in Star Wars, and this insecurity led her to push harder than her friends in her classes and challenge herself by picking ‘harder-than-necessary’ classes. Still, psychology is the most common undergraduate degree major among women, so hardly original. Whether or not Natalie invites the assessment or feels it is correct, this is undoubtedly true; She, as most people, never would have been looked at by Harvard if she did not have some kind of bank of riches or wealth of limelight that could be mined by the admissions board. Natalie might want to be viewed as a genius of “Hebrew literature” who stood out among the crowd, but that is just impossible parlour speak. Not that she deserves to go to Harvard any less than anyone else, no one deserves to go to Harvard, as Harvard in the 20th Century existed for the sole purpose of excluding people who were not rich, famous, or connected: not academics, so Natalie’s lie to herself merely parrots Harvard’s lie to the world.

But I want to go back just a second. Yes, Natalie Portman said she studied Hebrew at Harvard, even if not intensely enough to double-major in it. That is because her name is not actually Natalie Portman. Her name is Neta-Li Herschlag, and she is Jewish. So, studying Hebrew isn’t impressive knowing she speaks fluent Hebrew at home. That is not to undermine literature, as English-speakers still study English literature, but it’s hardly extraordinary. Hershlag, as I will now be exclusively referring to her, is using her association to Harvard, Judaism, and other, lesser, things to seem smart, yet all of those were gifted to her by either birth or Star Wars.

Now comes the question of cultural appropriation. Neta-Li started her acting footprint as an understudy for the part of Elle Woods in Broadway plays. Yes, that Elle Woods, aside Britney Spears no less. It hardly seems like the right role for a good Jewish girl. But lo, there are some who might point out that Hershlag is an Ashkenazi, and therefore not actually Jewish, that is, not a Semitic person. This is a touchy subject for the Jewish community, particularly since the establishment of Israel: Who actually is Jewish, by means of ethnicity or heritage, and not just language and religion? Is there a meaningful distinction between the Semitic Jewish culture that remained in the Levant, the Sephardic Jewish culture that emigrated to Africa and Iberia, the Mizrahi Jewish culture in Iran and Arabia, the Yiddish Jewish culture that stuck around in Germany, and the Ashkenazi Jewish culture that settled Eastern Europe? Really, who knows, and that is a deeper question; a question, perhaps, for a student of Hebrew literature, wherever we should find one.

Nonetheless, Hershlag is most certainly not British. That Israeli-American nuance is fine for the world of “Naboo” in Star Wars, which ideally would defy every concept of the term “ethnicity,” but works less congruously for Elle Woods. In Star Wars, Hershlag was a doppelganger of Keira Knightly, a dyad which has persisted the entirety of Netali’s 30-year-long career. Here too, we find questions.

Netali gave an interview, which I discuss almost on a daily basis among my social circle, where she firmly wanted to establish herself as a kind of British legacy. She said, of herself, “I iron out my Jew curls” and bleaches/dyes her hair, for no particular reason other than she wants to, and thinks it will make her fit in. Netali also went on to say that no one has naturally yellow hair — which is true, they don’t — implying that a non-Jewish, European actress would not face the same questions about her hair she did. Because the concept of hair straightening and hair bleaching are Nazi holdovers in British and American culture, and as someone who personally hates Nazis, this endlessly infuriates me. All the more so because Hershlag identifies as Jewish!

If Hershlag thinks modifying her hair to make it look ‘more European,’ or, more correctly (since almost all young Europeans have brown hair), to make it look more Hitlerite, more ‘Arianised,’ is acceptable, then she must either view herself as European first and Jewish second, or just care very little about the legacy of antisemitic racism. Why else would a person who calls herself Jewish want to alter her appearance so drastically, in order to look like a posterchild for one of the Hitler Youth?

Many Jewish-Americans feel pressures of Nazi antisemitism and colonial racism in the United States, and many Ashkenazim respond to that by changing their names, Nazifying their looks, and abandoning the Jewish religion. Netali retains a veneer of her Jewishness on the inside, within her own self-perception, while turning into the Arianised version of the Elle Woods archetype on the outside, for the world to see. Is she just playing a part? Is there a real difference in the personality and values of Netali Hershlag vs. Natalie Portman?

People don’t treat her as such. Keira Knightly, for instance, is an Englishwoman. Knightly claims she is ‘British,’ not English, but she is definitely English. Intriguingly, Knightly never went to school, reportedly a dyslexic, while Hershlag, in the Jewish stereotype, went straight to Harvard College. I wouldn’t say Hershlag seems like a nice person, she seems like an ordinary person. Remember that she is part of the Star Wars pantheon of small-time actors who were lifted by George Lucas to notoriety, like Mark Hamill (despite him being my favourite Star Wars actor, I can never remember his name), Harrison Ford, and of course, Sir Alec Guinness CBE.

Jokes aside, with all the classically-trained, upper-class, heavy-hitters from Britain — Peter Cushing OBE, Sir Christopher Lee CBE, and Sir Alec — not to mention the affable nobodies from Hamill to Ford, most Star Wars people are considered likable, especially by fans of nerdom.

That is not to say anyone was struggling, as every lead character in Star Wars was already documented as rich and famous by the time they were cast, but they were “nobodies” in the sense they were not household names until after the film became one of the first Hollywood summer “blockbusters” in history.

Most of all, it is undeniable that, other than Lucas, no one defined the Star Wars films as much as Carrie Fisher, if not for a want of contrast. Fisher was the only female character in all three of the movies, and both the predecessor and counterpart to Hershlag’s character in the Star Wars prequels. Does Hershlag meet the comparison?

The two are very different, both personally and on-screen. Fisher at the age of 19 had sex with numerous middle-aged members of the cast, often the only female and only teenager in a room of dozens of men, forbidden to wear a bra or choose her own hairstyle but allowed to partake in the rumoured plethora of drugs on the set. Hershlag, part of Star Wars from 16 to 19, was entirely unremarkable, both in life and profession, not a very impressive actor or much of a hoot. Again, the good Jewish girl. Some blame Netali’s poorly role on the weakness of the prequels compared to the originals, just as some blame Carrie’s bipolar diagnosis for her eccentricity. Both of these are half-truths, as personality and talent can never be substituted for anything other than what they are. Nonetheless, Fisher and Hershlag were both made rich and famous. While Hershlag is the lesser in terms of her performance, she probably got in the end a much better long-term deal.

A boring role meant Netali would not be immediately typecast, though she went on to play exclusively the girl-next-door leading female interest for a male protagonist, much the same as in Star Wars: Episode II. Coming into acting younger meant she could largely leave acting after childhood, then return to it later as an adult experience. Moreover, we never got to see teenage Netali chained to a bed in a gold bikini.

Our good, Jewish girl.

So, if Hershlag is playing roles given mostly to British, or Hitlerite, actresses, is she not taking away from the British actor? There are too many actors in the world. They are overexposed and over paid, seen too much and given too much, as they are in the same camp as clowns, entertainers, and comedians. But, people like to be entertained, and in the world of capitalism where only money is worship in lapse of dignity, anything people like sells, and anything that sells can make people rich, and riches are a substitute for class, if only a thin one. Just as the weak-minded can be fooled by the Force, so are they easily bought and sold. The British or American actor suffers for nothing, and there are too many of them as it is.

But, does Hershlag have a place in displacing them, or moulding in to become one of them? And would it be cultural appropriation? Undeniably, Netali is conforming to something objectionable when she plays simple roles as sex objects and Hitlerite women, embracing if not embodying the racism and problematic nature of Hollywood casting. But then again, it is with her very body that she represents this trend. One could defend Hershlag, saying she is made to do these things, that she is not so much appropriating Western culture for her ends, but more so that Western culture is stifling her true self, at least if she wants to continue to have a role in acting.

An interesting counter-point, but undermined by Hershlag’s particular brand of coy self-promotion, and eagerness in taking on such roles. And are the Jewish people entirely exploited by Hollywood? In many respects, so-called Europeans are exploited by powerful Jewish moguls in media more often than the other way around, even if they are Jewish Europeans themselves. Harvey Weinstein, a Jewish millionaire who sexually assaulted non-Jewish Western women in order to get them roles, his Jewishness hardly made a ripple.

The biggest names in Hollywood: Steven Spielberg, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jerry Seinfeld, Paul Rudd, Marta Kauffman, J.J. Abrams, Scarlett Johansson, Harrison Ford, John Stewart, Louis Szekely, Mila Kunis, Daniel Radcliffe, Rachel Weisz, Gal Gadot, Roseanne Barr, Judd Apatow, Marcus Loew, Lauren Bacall, Adam Sandler, Amy Schumer, Larry David, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cassidy Freeman, Stanley Kubrick, Jennifer Connelly, Richard Dreyfuss, Samuel Goldwyn, Julia Garner, Elijah Allan-Blitz, Kirk Douglas, Ellen Barkin, Ingrid Pitt, Darren Aronofsky, Eva Green, David Geffen, Lesley Ann Warren, Paul Newman, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ben Stiller, Louis B. Mayer, Alison Brie, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Chuck Lorre.

As Conan O’Brien jokingly stated: “The Cash-ews run Hollywood.” Almost every major production in Hollywood has a massive Jewish section of development. The United States, for whatever reason, is a majority “Christian-identifying” country, but Judaism plays a much more massive role in the culture than Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism combined. Even most of the agnosticism in ‘progressive’ Hollywood values comes largely from material secularism, or Jewish incredulity of Christianity, not an ideological pull towards atheism. Is this cultural reproachment why Jewish people are pulled towards media and entertainment, theatre being a known haven for outcasts and oddballs? The Judeo-Protestant alliance of the Hollywood ilk would seem to disqualify the established Jewish community — rich, interconnected, secular Jewish communities of New York, Los Angeles, and DC — from being an oppressed mass.

An important editor’s note is that the actors listed are: Jewish people who adopt non-Jewish appearances or non-Jewish values to a borderline-racist degree (i.e. Eva Green: Jewish actress who plays roles bookmarked for non-Jewish Europeans), thoroughly Jewish people who refuse to identify as Jewish (i.e. Julia Louis-Dreyfus: Jewish billionaire heiress who plays Jewish characters on TV), or regular observers of Judaism who are really, really famous (i.e. J.J. Abrams: co-director of the controversial Star Wars reboot).

More often behind the scenes than on-screen, but usually leading the show when taking a starring role, the Jewish imprint is inseparable from American movies, media production, television, the comedy scene, finance, and screenwriting. Is Jewish not the ruling order of Hollywood? And then would Europeans be the group on the margins? But why, if Jewish people write, pay for, and put on the shows, are there so few Jewish actors, and of those who are, why do they not look Jewish, or a better question would be, why do they try to avoid looking Jewish, and actively attempt to look Western European? That gives the impression that Jewish people are still marginalised in media, even if they are overrepresented in media, and generally more affluent, interconnected, and educated than those non-Jewish counterparts. Why do Jewish people go out of their way to appeal to racist audiences, and in the process erase their own Jewishness.

Maybe it is because the Hollywood Jewry isn’t actually Jewish. Nothing about their jobs or their behaviours embodies the Jewish religion. Most people in Hollywood in general consider themselves as nonreligious, yet that too, might be an influence of a markedly Jewish trait. Non-Christians in the United States are much more likely to turn to atheism and agnosticism on the one hand or fanatical extremism, likely due to being outcast by the mainstream Protestant dialogue, with liberal Jewish people often going agnostic and conservative Catholics often going supercharged while Muslims live on somewhere off in the shadows of public perception.

Yet nonreligious Jewish people still identify as Jewish, separating the religion of Judaism from the ethnic mark. Faith has nothing to do with appearance, and appearance is the base of antisemitism. Enter non-Jewish-looking Jewish people, usually women with heat-flattened hair, like Netali Hershlag and Gal Greenstein Godot. That is not to say they don’t look Jewish, as in an equal measure they all do and at the same time no one does, since what a Jewish person “looks like” is a narrow heuristic based on problematic cultural expectation. That is not to say they are or aren’t Jewish. But are Jewish people like Natalie Portman being forced to conform to racist society, or are they jumping on the bandwagon of racist society and using it to their advantage? Is there actually a difference between the two?

There is a deeper question lying beneath the surface here: The questions of “Jewish complicity in racism?,” “Jewish participation in neo-Nazism?,” and “If ‘Jew’ is a ‘race’ and ‘White’ is a ‘race’ then why are there ‘White’ and ‘non-White’ Jews?,” which other people have asked before. This article is not to address those questions, but they are acknowledged.

Certainly, there are some Jewish people who attach themselves to racist tendencies and Hitlerite habits out of personal advantage in the racist countries in which they might live. In this narrative, the notional collaborator Jewish community would blame the Europeans for racism and cast themselves as convenient survivors. That is not a uniquely Jewish trait, it is a flawed human trait, bystanderism, which defies religious teachings. Why there is such a prevalence among rich, secular Jewish people, of racism mixed with liberalism, is a concern. It could be as simple that, at a certain point, the trait “rich” might start to cancel out the trait “religious.” Old guard antisemites would be unforgiving regarding hatred towards ‘ethnic Judaism,’ and contemporary racist sentiments would reject Jewish people from the points of heritage and beliefs, but it is not immediately clear if Western neo-Nazis would target non-religious Jewish people who, quote, “pass” as Euro-Christians.

If Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim join Western cultures, ideals, and appearances while abandoning the Jewish religion, are they functionally Jewish at all? In the absence of different brands of generational antisemitism, what is holding back an atheist Ashkenazi from becoming a Nazi themself? The Jewish community and Israel critics have been ablaze with debate about the Eurocentric, Ashkenazim-focused account of Judaism in the West, drawing attention to the issue of inter-Jewish racism and inequality among the diaspora of the Jewish faithful. This question is debated separately for Jewish communities because unity is their faith. Followers of Christianity have always cut one another down over heresies and infidelities, but discourse and diversity have defined the post-Rabbinic tradition. The notion of one Jewish diaspora being more powerful than another, based not even on secularism such as in Christianity, but based solely on racism and adjacency to Christian empires, causes non-Ashkenazi Jewish communities to question that proximity in values and appearance Western Ashkenazi populations have with the goyish counterparts. Even the terms Ashkenazi and Mizrahi have taken fundamentally racist connotations, particularly in the advent of Zionism, to separate the ‘European Jewish’ from the ‘Arabian Jewish,’ in a kind of wartime apartheid of academia; a conflict emblematic of larger paradoxes in modern Israel.

This is not the focus of this article. Obviously, Jewish people living in Western Europe and urban America are more “Western” than people who live somewhere else. And obviously, Western nations have a serious and prolonged issue with racism. However, welding those two facts together, then conflating them with Judaism in some sense, would be a mistake.

There are some racist people in Hollywood who identify as, or are identified as, Jewish. That is not the question. The question is: How does the concept of cultural appropriation contribute to that complex dynamic, of conformity and exploitation in Hollywood, even amongst the big names?

This all comes back to the perceptual balance of power. Just as the term cultural appropriation is defined as a group being in a oppressive position and exploiting something that that group itself has made derogatory.

Is Netali Hershlag appropriating Western culture? In a way, yes. As a rich, powerful Jewish actress, she could hardly be said to be put at a disadvantage to Keira Knightly (Harvard versus dropout, remember), or the millions of aspiring brown-haired actresses who are shunned from Hollywood castings. And yet, she decides to look more like them. Obviously, as an ordinary woman herself, she has been victim to the usual sexism and obsessive demands of producers and directors concerning appearances, but that is hardly so say she is a victim. At any moment, she could deign to take a different part or produce her own movies (I would balk to call them films), rather than be typecast as the sexy and innocent girl-next-door. She lives the life of the good Jewish, girl, but never takes on those types of roles, opting instead for Princess Amidala, ballerina Nina Sayers, valley girl Elle Woods, comic book Jane Foster, or Englishwoman Anne Boleyn. Hershlag could at any moment leave acting to climb the ladder a Harvard A.B. clears the way for. How could Harvard Law School, or subsequently the California Democratic caucus, say no? Who wouldn’t pay for a doctor’s visit with the woman from V For Vendetta?

This is not to say that Jewish people are appropriating or imposing themselves upon Westerners, but it is to say that there is a distinct group of Jewish people who draw from Western or Hitlerite practices while entirely avoiding ‘Juden-haus’ or ‘Euro-trash’ rhetoric that hampers people on both sides of the racist conflict. Portman is Netali’s grandmother’s name, so she does have some kind of loose claim to it, if her cousins are still go by that name and she is close with them, while Natalie is a form of the name Neta-Li, and plenty if not most actors use stage names. Many people do racist or questionable things because they are in fashion. But altogether, one must ask the question why the self ascribed curly-haired Netali Hershlag is appearing is French wig and makeup commercials. Is it raw, unidealistic money? Is it Maybelline? Or it is fake hair, fake lashes, and a fake identity?

Natalie Portman is hardly an inspiring figure for women, playing roles subservient to men, often murdered by her lovers or terribly afflicted herself. This is true in Star Wars, Black Swan, Thor, V For Vendetta, and when she played the wife of wife-killer Henry VIII. Where is the liberty in being bedded by an uxoricidal maniac, be it a tired British period piece, or the obsessive Anakin Skywalker? Body modification of any type is not the product or respect or exchange, and can only be looked down upon as unnecessary and insecure. Acting is lying, but that does not mean the actress must change their looks or change their self to read some lines to a camera.

[hypexion]

Human Nature is a well acclaimed episode of Doctor Who. That doesn’t mean I have to like it.

The problem with Human Nature is Martha Jones. Martha, through her compassion, dedication, self-sacrifice and competence makes every other character in this episode lacking. Martha is one of the few sympathetic characters in this episode. Mostly because she’s not a racist, but don’t worry, antiquated views about race aren’t the only characters flaws around.

Now, we can always pretend that we can’t judge the poor, ignorant peope of 1913 for being terrible. But we don’t need to. We only need to judge the Doctor. In spite of the fact that Martha is a black woman, the Doctor decides that 1913 England is a great place to hide out. Not merely a time where racism and sexism were considered okay, but vital pillars of civilization. Human Nature effectively portrays the Doctor as a callous idiot, which is not exactly consistent with the character. There’s a big thing made about him falling in love, but it would be just as much a problem if he simply made friends with someone. Martha Jones deserves better than being stuck in a time period where is treated as being inherently lesser due to the colour of her skin. She deserves better than having to look after champion jerk John Smith at great risk to herself. As always, Martha Jones deserves better.

John Smith is, of course, a character the narrative wants us to like. And he has likeable traits, sure. Yet he’s still... not good. He’s okay with beating children, is a racist, and is also generally useless and ineffectual. While it’s expected that he isn’t a super problem solver like the Doctor, he still fails at basic tasks like “not falling down stairs“. Apparently the Chameleon Arch can turn the Master into a perfectly nice man, but John Smith comes out as a perfect fit for 1913. Which, unfortunately, makes him someone I don’t care for. The fact that it takes until the villains show up for Martha to snap is rather commendable on her end.

The only other characters that qualify as characters are Joan Redfern and Tim Latimer. Joan is probably meant to be sympathetic, but again suffers from the fact that it was decided that almost everyone in 1913 absolutely had to be a jerk. We can’t have anyone show a single iota of respect towards Martha, now can we? That might imply the way she’s being treated is wrong, and that would reflected badly on the Doctor. Seriously though - Joan is a victim of the Doctor being a callous idiot, yet it’s hard to feel bad for her when she’s dressing down Martha for being too concerned that someone fell down the stairs.

Tim, on the other hand, is actually sympathetic. Rejoice! Human Nature has finally managed to achieve it. The worst thing he does is steal the watch that cotains the Doctor, and the watch practically tells him to do it. Otherwise, he’s a victim not only of bullying, but of his own mysterious mind powers. Tim knows World War One is coming, and he knows he’ll be right in the middle of it. That’s actually horiffic. He’s also the only person to object to the idea of using machine guns on people armed with spears, which suggests actual moral character. He’s probably even not racist.

With this litany of bad people, it’s easy to forget that Human Nature does actually have villains. They are not impressive. Sure, they kill people and wear their bodies as puppets. But the problem is that the people they kill have such paper-thin characterisation that it doesn’t really make an impact. Baines is a stereotypical arrogant public schoolboy. Mr. Clarke is a stereotypical farmer. Girl with a Ballon is literally just that. The only person we might actually care about Getting Got is Jenny, on account of the fact she’s friendly to Martha.

The Family’s motivation is also pretty thin. They want to get to the Doctor to live forever. It’s passable, but not anything special. There’s also a lack of menace to them, at least in Human Nature. Big sniffs are not the makings of a terrifying villain.

Really, Human Nature‘s biggest problem is that it fails by making most of the cast bad people. With the villains simply blending in, the true antagonist becomes the attitude of the time. Martha’s problems come not from The Family, but from having to convince people that the danger is real. People who are, at best, unlikeable. It’s honestly surprising how hard The Family of Blood is going to turn all of this around.

[meta-squash]

Your ADHD procrastination post has really stroke a nerve with me. I've had the same issue for years, but thought it's normal for everyone. Since about a year or so, I've been wondering if I may have an undiagnosed ADHD along diagnosed conditions. If it's not too personal, how else ADHD manifests in you? I hope it's okay to ask. I love hearing women's stories about ADHD because they are much different than the stereotypical image of it...

It’s not too personal! (FYI I go by they/them pronouns, but I am afab; it’s all good though!) Also, this got VERY long, I’m sorry! I’m verbose and have a lot to say, apparently.

So I personally have a weird relationship with ADHD. I was diagnosed with it (or some sort of attention deficit thing) when I was in like 3rd or 4th grade. I was briefly medicated but I think I was on Ritalin (I forget) and my child body couldn’t handle it; I was a zombie during the day and then when it wore off at night I was Evil and freaked out and wanted to fight everything. So I went off it pretty quick and didn’t get medicated after, presumably because my parents thought my ADHD wasn’t bad enough.

The reason they probably thought that is because my brother has Really Bad ADHD. Like, all the classic stereotypical symptoms and characteristics to the extreme: never shuts the fuck up, really damn loud all the time, extremely high energy, can learn pretty much anything in about 5 seconds but can’t actually hang on to an interest really (now that he’s an adult he can, but not as a kid), can’t sit still or pay attention in class, doesn’t finish homework, etc etc. I was able to mask mine and function enough to get through school just riding pretty much on my humanities grades alone. It sucked a lot but I somehow did it. I had an IEP (Individual Education Plan, which is a US school thing for kids with learning disabilities and such that allows for accommodations and assistance in school) but it didn’t do much except I think give me extra time on math tests because of my dyscalculia (I was in Special Ed Math my whole grade school career). My mother is an OT but I also think that (as you said) ADHD in afab people often manifests differently than in amab people, so I guess my parents just didn’t know what to look for and that’s why I never really got the same help as my brother.

I like to jokingly categorize ADHD into two distinct but overlapping types: Fast ADHD and Mush Brain ADHD. Fast ADHD (in my opinion; this may vary from person to person) is the classic stereotype symptoms. Fast ADHD’s focus problem is too much happening all at once. Lots of thoughts and ideas flying by and you get distracted mid-thought with another thought, or your train of thought gets really crazy but is super fast so your reply to someone’s comment might not make much sense to anyone else because they weren’t privy to your brain’s journey, or you go down a focus worm-hole and sit and do One Thing all day and forget to surface for things like food/water/bathroom. Fast ADHD has more energy (though when paired with depression that usually manifests as restlessness or anxiety) and is quicker to pick up new things. Mush Brain ADHD is kind of the opposite. Thoughts take longer, or you think of something and then it almost immediately disappears (for example, scrolling a website, seeing something that you want to google, you scroll for like 5 more seconds and think “wait, I completely forget what I was going to look up”). With Mush Brain ADHD it’s harder to have conversations because thought-to-mouth time is slower, rather than (with Fast Brain) lots of stuff is going on up there. Mush Brain often feels like, well, mush and like you can’t really form thoughts very well if you want to do stuff. It’s like you’re trying to focus on thinking a thought but it just slides away. Another way I’d describe it is having thoughts but it’s like they’re on a blackboard and they’re being erased as you think them, so they end up mostly smears. Obviously, this is just based on my own experiences as a Mush Brain ADHD person while my brother has Fast Brain ADHD, so this might be different for other people.

Both have lots of overlaps: executive dysfunction (that’s the big one), insomnia, auditory processing problems, hyperfixation (which is not a bad thing! I love my hyperfixations! They’re fun!), absolutely crap organizational skills, constantly losing things, really bad perception of time, detachment from the world (like you drift off into your own daydream, or things feel distant, but not quite the same as depersonalization/dissociating),  difficulty making choices, sensory processing disorder, crap abilities with money, rejection sensitive dysphoria, and often comorbid mental illnesses like depression, OCD, anxiety, dyscalculia/dyslexia, etc.

 Oh, and a lot of ADHD characteristics also overlap with depression characteristics (and a lot of people with ADHD have comorbid depression, so it really doesn’t help).

But I can tell you about my own experiences with some of these.

The Big One which is basically what that schrodingers motivation post is about, is executive dysfunction. People also call it procrastination (it only kind of is) or inertia. Basically, executive dysfunction is where the difficulty lies in starting the task. You want to do something, but you just can’t get going to do it. You get sort of paralyzed. It even happens with things you like. For example, when I made that post, there was a short (just over 100 pgs) book I wanted to read before the end of the day. It’s a good book! It’s on my reading list! I want to read it! But I just sat on my computer and watched dumb youtube videos because that’s what I was already doing and executive dysfunction makes starting tasks really hard. This happens to me a lot. It can happen with reading a book, or getting up to go to the store and buy groceries, or making a meal, or watching a movie. The movie-watching one happens to me a lot. Basically it’s the brain struggling to switch tasks; you’re scrolling tumblr, and that’s what your brain is focused on, and it doesn’t know how to switch from doing that to doing your bio homework or folding the laundry or whatever the task may be. This happens with “bigger” or more complex tasks too, like starting an art project or starting a new book, because your brain has to figure out all the components of that task (I need these items for my project and this amount of time and I need to use them in this order) which is overwhelming, or it needs to comprehend how “big” the task is (how much time/concentration should I try and commit to in order to read this book) which is sometimes hard to gauge. Oh, also this can happen if you’re interrupted in the middle of a task, whether it’s to do another thing or just to answer a question or something; it’s hard to get back to it because it’s another kind of switching tasks. Aside from the blackboard-being-wiped-thoughts, this is my biggest ADHD problem. I can go more into how I dealt with executive dysfunction in college and now if you want!

Auditory processing issues is another thing that I deal with, although to a lesser extent than some people. It just means it’s harder for your brain to process sounds/talking. Part of this, for me, is because if someone is talking to me but there’s other noises (music, other conversations, general loudish ambiance) going on around us, my brain treats them all as equally important and I can’t focus in on the person talking. Another part for me is in my experience I seem to process conversation different from explanation. If I’m talking back and forth with someone about something and it’s not terribly important, I’m fine. If they’re trying to explain something to me, give me instructions, or read a passage of text to me, it just does not stick in my brain. If I’m helping my best friend with her grad school applications, I have to read the sentence she’s asking me check, I can’t have her read it to me. If she does read it to me, I’ve realized that I try to imagine the words as text in my head so I comprehend it better (it doesn’t always work). Auditory processing issues means that a lot of my conversations in public with people who are not my close friends (and therefore easier to pick out from the noise because familiar and/or easier to predict because familiar) are filled with a lot of me going “what?” Retail conversations with customers are slightly easier because there’s at least a mild “script” that they’ll stick to, usually.

Another one I experience is organizational problems. This one was bad enough that I actually went to a tutor-like thing to help me with it for most of grade school. Basically, I had no ability to organize tasks like doing homework or other activities, so things would get forgotten/lost/never even written in the calendar/etc. I couldn’t do projects because I couldn’t (and still kinda can’t) organize far enough into the future. I didn’t know how to break the project down across multiple days or weeks and make it manageable without totally forgetting pieces of it. I’d forget to write down homework when the teacher wrote it on the board, or I’d write it down but forget to do it. Or I’d do it but misplace it or leave it at home. My perception of time was also really crap; I couldn’t read an analogue clock until I was in maybe 6th grade? Even now I sometimes have trouble. It was hard to know how much time I had to allot to certain projects because I didn’t really have good perception of how hours fit in the day and how much time until homework is due and stuff. (Which meant lots of finishing things in class minutes before I had to turn it in and stuff. Once in uni I completely forgot to do an Entire Essay; luckily it wasn’t a class I needed to graduate.)

Along with this is losing EVERYTHING. I misplace things CONSTANTLY. I’ll put something that’s in my hand down to get a cup of tea or something, or even just to like, move a blanket, and I’ll forget where I put it. I’ve solved this problem with Important Things (wallet, phone, and keys always go next to my bed, for example, and rarely move from there if they’re not in my pocket. All important papers go in my Important Papers Folder as soon as soon as possible) but I lose regular stuff all the time. I’ll be working on an art project, I’ll put my glue stick down to reach for a piece of paper, and lose the glue stick in the time it takes to pull the paper towards me. The other day I was brushing my teeth and I put the toothbrush cover down to say hello to the cat and forgot where I had put it down once I had followed her to the next room. When things have a Place it’s easier, but I’ve learned to live with going “Where the FUCK did I put this thing? I had it a second ago!” at least once a day.

The “Mush” in “Mush Brain” is another big one for me. I don’t know if this has, like, a name? Or anything? It’s just what I call it. The best description for it would either be that blackboard description from above, or like you’re struggling to get to a thought through a lot of mud. Oftentimes I’ll have a sort of concept of a thought but not something full, and I know it’s there, but I can’t get to it. This is really apparent when I’m trying to remember a synonym for something, or trying to elaborate on certain concepts or pull ideas from texts. It doesn’t happen all the time. I was an English lit major in uni, so this affected me a lot back then. It’s sort of a similar feeling to reading the same sentence over and over and not registering the words, except it’s in your own brain instead. This kind of goes away for me when I’m writing/typing. Writing this out is easy (minus me forgetting the word executive dysfunction for like 5 minutes) but if you were asking me to explain this aloud I would struggle, probably. This is probably because I can stare at what I’ve written to see what’s missing or edit my thoughts, which I can’t do while I’m speaking, and also can’t do to other people’s interactions with me.

Just a general inability to focus is also one I struggle with. It goes with the “mush brain” to an extent but I think it’s different. It’s more like my brain doesn’t want to, well, focus on anything. If I’m just messing around on my laptop, that means I end up clicking back and forth between tabs endlessly because nothing is holding my interest. If I’m trying to read or do anything “intellectual” or “academic” it means I just can’t get myself to read or I can’t keep my thoughts on what I’m trying to write no matter how hard I try. Nothing holds my interest for long enough, it’s like brain restlessness. I try and concentrate on doing something, watching something, reading something, and my brain just slides away from it.

Rejection sensitive dysphoria is something I experience on a more minor level. It’s something that also overlaps with anxiety and depression. Basically, it’s a really intense emotional reaction to (perceived) rejection. For example, if my best friend says something to me with a certain tone or gets mad at me for doing something minor, my brain just goes “She hates you! She doesn’t want to be friends with you! You should isolate in your room and never speak to anyone again because you’re so annoying and terrible!” I know that’s mostly incorrect (although I also know I’m quite annoying and that’s another ADHD characteristic; knowing you’re annoying someone in some way and having no idea how to stop) so I can fight it but sometimes I do end up holing up in my room for a little bit. Things like criticism (whether towards you or towards, like, an essay or something) can also trigger this reaction. So can things like having an expectation that you’ll be good at something, and then failing at it or just not being as good as you’d hoped. (I developed a sort of defense mechanism for this one of never expecting to be good at things and never expect higher than a C in a class.) It also can come with a sense of feeling inferior around people doing similar things. It happens to me a lot here on tumblr, actually, because I’ll write a meta about something, and then read someone else’s good meta on the same thing, and feel like I’m an idiot and they’re really smart and nothing that I wrote was insightful or good. It happened to me in uni a lot too. It also happens to me kind of...secondhand, now. What I mean is, my best friend/roommate is extremely smart. Like genuinely one of the smartest people I know and an incredible thinker, straight A’s at uni in a degree she created, etc. She still gets imposter syndrome herself and feels like she’s not smart, and when she says she’s not smart, I feel bad for her but I also feel really terrible about myself, because if she thinks she’s stupid, then what am I? But again, it’s an overreaction to perceived rejection. It still sucks though.

There’s some evidence that ADHD comes with a whacked out sleep schedule. And not just insomnia (although that too, I know this because it’s 7am and I haven’t slept yet lol), but also Delayed Sleep Phase Disorder. Which basically means that most people’s circadian rhythms start slowing down so they’ll go to sleep around like 11pm-1am-ish, give or take. ADHD circadian rhythms are shifted so often we start getting tired around 3am or even 4 or 5am. (This is different from insomnia, btw, with DSPD you can fall asleep fairly easily, you just get tired later in the night; with insomnia it’s an inability to or difficulty in falling asleep quickly.) I always thought I’d just gotten my dad’s night owl genes, but it’s more likely that it’s the ADHD. I also have at least mild insomnia and it takes me a million years to fall asleep a lot of the time.

Hyperfixations are the Fun part of having ADHD (in my opinion). They can get in the way sometimes but they’re also really comforting and nice. Hyperfixations happen when you find an interest and it’s basically all you want to think or talk about, and you relate to the world through it, and you want to learn everything about it. It’s also a characteristic of autism. I’m not autistic, so I don’t know if there are major differences between ADHD hyperfixation experiences and autism ones. Anyway, often hyperfixations stick with you for a good amount of time, depending on the strength, and then you might find something else to focus on. Some of my hyperfixations have lasted a few months, some up to 4 years. A lot of ADHD people rotate through the same or similar ones. For example, a hyperfixation I had back in 2011-2014/15ish was Les Miserables. I then found a different thing to hyperfixate on. This past year I have returned to Les Mis. Hyperfixations are usually pretty cool, because it’s usually something you really like and enjoy learning about or doing and it’s kind of like the thing your brain would rather be doing/focusing on.

Personally, I’ve lived so long without ADHD medication that I’m fairly functional without it just due to coming up with personal adaptations and stuff. The thing that I have the hardest time with/that upsets me the most is the Mush Brain part, which also gets worse when my depression gets worse. I really would love to have clear, quick thoughts whenever I want. It’s frustrating to hold a conversation or try to write creatively and quickly when it takes forever for thoughts to fully crystallize in my brain and then come out my mouth or fingers. Right now I don’t have very good health insurance (all blame to covid layoffs) so I can’t really do the meds thing but I often wish I could. My ADHD is definitely not as intense or severe as some people’s. I have friends, and also my brother, who struggle a lot more than I do, and with different things

Holy hell this was so long. Feel free to message me if you have any questions! Or if you want me to elaborate on some of the things I do to deal with stuff.

[astralnexus]

tell me about the demon siblings! :D

a’ight lads strap in, it’s time to meet the demon siblings!

Callisto is the eldest of the four siblings, an incubus of considerable wit and intelligence, as well as charm. He acts as the leader of the family of four, with Eóin in particular often looking to him for advice and consultation. He’s the least stereotypically “active” of the four, not often looking for someone to bed for the sake of bedding them. He prefers to spend his time working on working with Alexander, a vampire who inherited an entirely different demon’s job bargaining & making deals with souls, or even working with his own business, which he never goes into detail about.

He’s definitely one of the calmer demons of the family, often wanting to talk one-on-one in quiet conversations, instead of being a busybody and conversing with many people in a group. In his lengthy lifespan, he considers himself fairly adept at reading people, though admits that he’s never perfect at what he does. What use would perfection make if one couldn’t learn, after all?

Morgaine is the second-eldest of the four siblings, a succubus of incredible charm and cunning, as well as kindness! She doesn’t consider herself overly confident regarding her skills in being able to seduce people, preferring to get to know someone first before asking if they’d like to spend the night together. She treats people like people instead of anything lesser. Though that can easily be said for the other three siblings, too. Her time is mostly spent either in the city, trying to get to know people, or at her countryside home where she visits her younger brother’s pub.

Morgaine’s an ambivert by nature, and will either stop or encourage chaos so long as it isn’t putting people in danger. If one wants to get to know her better, it’s best to do so over a glass of wine in a quiet bar or lounge.

Eóin might look like the youngest of the bunch, but he’s actually the third-eldest! This incubus humbly prides himself on his nearly-overwhelming kindness, relaxed and overall chilled nature, willing to help others whenever he can. Callisto has said that if he were human instead, he’d call his nature naive, but Eóin knows exactly what he’s doing. He’d never willingly attempt to make a situation worse, and he’d never willingly harm a person. He’s the one of the four that owns a pub somewhere in the UK, in the same small town that Morgaine lives in. Folks never question how this young-faced man came to own a pub - as long as they can get a decent drink, he’ll never be questioned.

Eóin is perhaps the most outgoing out of all four, full of life, zest and energy just raring to go, ready for whatever life throws at him. Doesn’t mean he can’t be a charming bugger, however. He’s more likely to start conversations than let them be started by someone else.

Arcadia is the youngest of the four siblings, though not by much. A succubus with an entertainer’s background, Arcadia mostly prides herself on her ability to use illusions to keep people entertained. Using a mixture of her own demonic magic, plus some more... Mortal tricks, she’s often seen on the street or in buildings showing off to those whose eyes catch her tricks. She never asks for money, only people’s time, and can’t help but smile so purely when a child looks upon her tricks with wonder.

Much like her sister, Morgaine, Arcadia is a bit of an ambivert. There are days where she doesn’t have energy to keep up her act all day, but she knows that’s okay. Just a few smiles are more than enough to know that she’s at least bringing joy and wonder to some people out there.

[questionablygourmet]

I Like This Show A Normal Amount: Will Graham As Autistic Representation

In a previous meta post about Will, I briefly alluded to my appreciation for Will as good autistic representation, and for Free-For-All Friday, @tin-can-paladin prompted me to do as I’d said I might and write a Thing about that.  (Hopefully today is the day I actually get this post finished and up!)  So here we go.

First of all, this post will be starting from the premise that Will is an autistic character.  I don’t particularly care if Hugh’s said he’s not; whether or not he meant to, he and Bryan gave us an autistic-coded character and I reserve the right to be delighted about it!  (Actually, that’s not quite true - I do care, in the sense that I wish he hadn’t said that, because acknowledging portrayals of characters on the spectrum that aren’t a walking fucking stereotype played for lulz *cough BBT COUGH* or as a tragedy inflicted upon their neurotypical family members as being on the spectrum is Important.  But whatever.)

This post will address aspects of Will as a character, but also to an extent how he’s handled in the wider context of the show, and why that matters.

Agency

This was my primary focus on that previous Will meta post, but in context of autistic representation, I think it’s an important thing to highlight in this post as well: Will Graham is a whole-ass adult in control of his actions even when other characters don’t think so (see: Alana, Jack, et al in late season 1) or are actively trying to subvert that (see: Hannibal, You Asshole).

Autistic characters in various media are all-too-frequently infantilized and handled as though their environment/circumstances completely dictate their behavior.  Will both implicitly and explicitly (“You can’t reduce me to a set of influences” - ironically for a later part of this post, the next thing he says mentions behaviorism), resoundingly rejects this, and I love that as part of his narrative in general but also as an autistic character in particular.  

Empathy

This one’s gonna be a doozy.  There’s a lot to talk about here that all generally falls under the heading of “autism and empathy,” so I’ll do my best to stay organized.

First, the simplest: He cares!  So!  Deeply!  And complexly!  And we know that throughout the show!

Frankly, this in particular massively exacerbates my irritated wish that the creators would explicitly acknowledge him as autistic because holy shit the stereotypes he combats with this.  Autistic people in the real world have widely varied, diverse relationships with empathy and compassion (which are different things, and I have some beefs with the way the show uses the word “empathy,” but that’s a digression and this is already going to be a long post), but media largely erases this, conflating difficulties with normative, neurotypical-passing social behavior with inability to empathize, and/or display compassion, and/or even feel emotions (FFS).  

There’s a related point about “normative-passing social behavior” that I want to expand on a bit, here: we see a lot of profound differences in demeanor for Will over the course of the show, and that’s something I’ve seen interpreted as manipulation sometimes when it really isn’t.  (Not to say Will is not manipulative/capable of being manipulative, because he is, very!  But not everything calculated is necessarily manipulative, and I see the two conflated a lot and that annoys me.)  Will has, to my eyes, four basic social “modes.”  

I’m Dealing With Most People With Whom I Have No Particular Antipathy Or Affection - Aloof, and either standoffish or polite depending on how his boundaries are being treated.  He’s not particularly interested in making people comfortable when they’re making him uncomfortable (and being a white dude generally enables him to take this attitude without big repercussions), and people frequently make him uncomfortable.

I’m Dealing With Someone I Perceive As Vulnerable - Exaggeratedly calm, kind, careful.  He’s trying to connect and provide comfort and support.  He’s minding his every move and word because he doesn’t want to cause harm incidentally.  (Abigail, Peter, Walter, etc. and to some extent, Margot, though with her it’s mixed with other attitudes.)

I’m Dealing With An Enemy - This is where the manipulativeness (and even, particularly in the cases of Bedelia and Hannibal, cruelty) comes in.  He’s minding his every move and word because he wants to elicit a specific response from the person he’s interacting with.  (This comes into play with Jack and Alana at various points even though they are rarely full enemies.)

I’m Dealing With A Trusted Friend - Has neither the deliberation of 2-3 nor quite the standoffishness of 1.  He’s neither projecting an image appropriate to a specific kind of fraught social situation, nor actively trying to deflect attention and interaction.  In my opinion we really only see this with Hannibal (in season 1 and then with flashes of it in 2 and 3) and Molly, though he gets close in a handful of moments with Alana, Beverly, and Jack.  

All these modes deal with a) to what extent he is acting, and b) why he’s acting.  And I love that we get to see this breadth of social interaction modes from him, because that is an accurate and sensitive portrayal of an autistic adult, reflecting the often-dramatic differences in “difficulty setting” of an interaction - how and to what extent are we expected to (or otherwise have a need to) mimic neurotypical mannerisms?  What are the stakes of the situation?  These are explicit considerations for a lot of autistic people, and Will demonstrates that vividly throughout the series.

Another way in which empathy and social interaction come into play in terms of autistic representation is that Will can and does form strong social bonds - not very often, because the way most other adults treat him isn’t conducive to it, but with people who display acceptance/a lack of judgment for his non-neurotypical reactions and behaviors, and importantly, who don’t treat him as Other for the way he can reconstruct crime scenes, we see that can form very strong bonds.  Hannibal is obviously the prime example of this, but also Molly, and to a much lesser extent, Alana and Margot.  (Though Jack refers to him as a friend and they have some friendly interactions, their bond is not a strong one and not at all marked by the kind of humanizing acceptance it takes to get truly close to Will.)  People who accept who he is, and who are neither threatened by his skills nor dependent on them.

Finally, in this section, let’s look at the crime scene reconstructions and “getting inside killers’ heads” bit.  

I have complex feelings about this aspect of the show, or more precisely, how other characters talk about his reconstructions and serial killer profiling - they (even Hannibal, to an extent) talk about it in mystifying terms, and I thoroughly dislike the term “empathy disorder” that gets thrown around so much in seasons 1-2 to explain what he does.  Will is apt to testily correct people that he just interprets the evidence, and that is exactly what he is doing.  His vivid imagination coupled with years of active study of criminal psychology allow him to take that interpretation a lot farther than anyone else would, and sometimes make intuitive leaps that the other characters can’t follow.  But it’s clear that this intuition is founded in concrete evidence, as we frequently see him stymied when he doesn’t quite have enough of it, much to the frustration of Jack, who is particularly shitty about treating him like an oracle.  

I like that Will gets to stick up for himself and correct people on several occasions, but I wish the ableism and the Othering was less pervasive amongst the other characters because it makes me want to slap them.  I find that I really appreciate how most of the fic I’ve read since entering the fandom thoroughly and often explicitly rejects the pseudo-magical divination and/or Crazy Person With Magic Brain angle.

Perspective

There was something I was reaching at that was eluding me in my first attempt at this draft, and then I ran into an excellent article about writing autistic characters that suddenly and thoroughly solidified it for me.  It’s really brilliant; it discusses and illustrates the strong difference between a behavioristic (see previous reference) approach to characterization and a humanizing one.  Behavioristic analyses divorce themselves from the actual mindset and experience of the subject, whereas humanizing portrayals display the subjective experience of the person who is perhaps behaving in a way other people may find confusing.  

Since Will is the main point of view character in the show, we get front-row seats to his subjective experience and can therefore more properly empathize with him.  An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behavior.  The behavior that Jack and various other characters are exasperated, impatient, and/or unnerved over all looks pretty reasonable when we know how Will is experiencing the crime scene, or are seeing his nightmares and hallucinations along with him!  And while the nightmares and hallucinations in season 1 are a matter of encephalitis and trauma rather than neurotype, it still matters that we’re led to understand something of what he goes through, from his own perspective rather than an outside one.  

It’s incredibly necessary emotional context moving forward in the show, giving us an autistic character who is flawed but deeply human and whose darkness we can understand.

[astrifica]

You said in your DNI about "narcissistic abuse" and I was wondering what that means. My father almost certainly had NPD and was abusive. I think that people who were abused by people with NPD can often relate to each other because of the patterns of abuse, meaning I think places like r/raisedbynarcissists can be really helpful. But obviously not everyone with NPD is abusive. Does that mean I believe in narcissistic abuse? Genuine question, let me know if you don't want me following you

The mention in my dni is more about the term “narcissistic abuse” and how its used. The term is generally meant to imply that someone is abusive due to having NPD, and is specifically used to demonise those with NPD. 

The mention in my dni is not to say that someone with NPD can’t ever be abusive, because anyone can be. Nor am I denying that in some instances mental health problems can add to someone’s abusive behaviour when they’re abusive to begin with. It’s just to say that their having NPD isn’t what makes them abusive, and if you feel differently that I don’t wish for you to interact.

NPD is already really heavily demonised and making these associations with terms like these really actively harms those who have NPD. The term “narcissistic abuse” is used similarly to terms like “psycho killer” to mean someone does something simply because of having X disorder, and therefore saying anyone with X disorder will inherently do that, when that’s in no way what it actually means to have the disorder. 

This type of phrasing implies that you associate someone being abusive with having NPD and regardless of whether you intend to, it still reinforces the stereotypes and demonisation towards these already badly stigmatised mental illnesses through making that association.

I also want to say that there’s a difference between people relating to each other due to the way they were abused being similar, and saying said form of abuse purely exists because of the abuser having a mental illness. Those are entirely separate things. I don’t disagree with abuse victims helping each other through talking about their similar experiences at all, but what I do disagree with is when it just becomes a form of demonising a mental illness rather than recognising the abuse as a separate thing.

These things really badly factor into the demonisation of these illnesses and affect people with said illnesses or even those in which it’s barely suspected in all aspects of their lives. Demonisation like this is the very first thing anyone sees and hears when they look up these illnesses and especially with more stigmatised ones it’s near impossible to find sources that don’t follow stereotypes or demonise those with the illness, making it the only representation people with stigmatised disorders get that anyone actually knows of. This results in horrid amounts of ableism and abuse in so many different aspects of these individuals lives, socially, academically, medically etc. It literally kills people due to the ignorance it breeds, and yes that is reinforced by as much as using terms like these. 

I’m someone who’s heavily affected by these things myself as an individual with both BPD and Schizophrenia. I’ll spare you the details but before finding out I had either of these and actually learning about them, I was absolutely certain I didn’t have either of them regardless of perfectly fitting the actual symptoms. Why? Because I never saw either of these conditions represented as something other than being a horrible, abusive individual or literal murderer through any ways I had heard of them, when that’s in no way what it actually means to have these conditions.

This isn’t just a problem socially and in media, this goes much deeper to the point where it’s even taught to people studying psychology in ways that use stereotyping and demonisation rather than what the disorders actually entail. Many professionals genuinely don’t even consider us human and treat us as lesser-than without us actually giving them any reason to, just because our conditions are demonised in these ways.

We’re only really seen as the stereotypes put out in ways like these by the majority of people, no matter how illogical and proven wrong by facts they are. Professionals and those around you deny you help and don’t believe you when it comes to parts of your life your illness doesn’t even influence in the slightest. 

You’re immediately associated with all the stereotypes heard from stories about someone with the same condition due to associations like this and get treated accordingly by people that haven’t even spoken to you. And that’s not even close to all of it, because I could continue on how unfairly and horribly we’re treated due to stigmatisation for literal hours. 

I don’t wish to say for you whether you believe in “narcissistic abuse” because I’m not in a position where I can make that assumption from an ask, nor do I know enough about the communities you mentioned to give an opinion on that, but I hope my explanation gave you a better understanding of the problem it’s about so you can decide for yourself, and that it’ll make you re-evaluate the ways you think about this if you don’t personally experience this type of demonisation. 

[ifishouldvanish]

Happy pride month to my fellow bi, pan, and poly folks!

Happy pride month if you've ever been told your identity isn't a real thing, or that it's the same thing as or a 'lesser version of' another identity. The differences might be subtle, but they matter to you, and your decision to identify as one over the other is valid!

Happy pride month if you've even been told that you're just 'looking for attention', that you're not queer enough, or that you need to or eventually will 'pick a side'! Your attraction to people of multiple genders doesn't get erased just because you've settled into a long-term relationship!

Happy pride month if you've ever been told that you're 'just confused', or that your identity doesn't count unless you've "been with someone of x gender" before! No one knows you better than yourself, and you don't have to prove it or "try it and see" to know that your feelings and attraction are real!

Happy pride month if you've ever been made to feel like an outsider or 'traitor' to the queer community for pursuing happy, healthy relationships with members of the 'opposite' gender! You'll always be bi/pan/poly, and your unique struggles and perspectives will always matter!

Happy pride month if you've ever been told that your identity makes you less trustworthy, or if you've ever had a partner use your identity as an excuse to hurt you, make you feel guilty, or pressure you into situations you weren't comfortable with! I'm sorry that happened to you, and you never deserve to be treated that way!

Happy pride month to any polyamorous or aro bi/pan/poly folks! You're not "reinforcing negative stereotypes" about your fellow bi/pan/polysexuals! You're living your own truth and I'm proud of you!

Happy pride month if you used to identify as something else! I'm glad you found your way here, even if it may have taken you a long time! Figuring out your sexuality can be hard, and you're not fickle or 'faking it' for having to try on other labels to see what feels right to you!

And shout out to anyone who used to identify as bi, pan, or poly! Regardless of how you might identify now, I'm glad you found comfort, support, and wisdom in the bi/pan/poly community during that time!

Whether you're attracted to two genders, a handful of genders, all genders, or regardless of gender-- happy pride month!

💗💛💙💗💜💙💗💚💙

(If you add so much as a single word of aspec, bi pan, poly, or nb negativity to this post, know that you will change exactly zero (0) minds and I will be laughing at you like the joke of a human being you are!)

[gray-warden]

What is the problem with white people traveling to asia without money? Like how are you going to brand calling the cops on someone without a visa as justice, then try and spin them pretending that the native language (which they speak fluently enough to at least pretend is their only language) is reminiscent of colonialism? Also you made it seem like American propaganda is effective in china with your tags which is weird. Just seems like y'all got galaxy brain with racism so hard it got harmful.

when did i say i’d call the cops? i wouldn’t do anything about it besides getting pissed internally lmao. and when did i say anything abut languages? i have genuinely no clue what you mean about american propaganda in china, like, i mean it when i say i don’t get what you’re saying there. i didn’t even mention china in my tags at all, and i only mentioned the US specifically when i mentioned the case of that american woman who wanted to “play doctor” and caused deaths. still, white privilege and racism are not an “american propaganda” thing, it’s something that affects the whole world, white people will pretty much always have an easier time with lots of stuff, including being automatically seen as more qualified and trustworthy, and with law enforcement everywhere, since colonialism affected the entire world, very few countries were never invaded by europeans.what i’m saying is: - it’s bad when people from rich countries that often got rich through colonialism, by harming other countries, complain abt immigrants coming from the countries they harmed because those countries were harmed in that way. even if those people now weren’t responsible for it, they still benefit from how their country developed while it had colonies, and the people in ex-colonies still suffer because of their past as colonies. - an american woman going to africa to make herself feel good about helping others when she ended up killing people bc she wasn’t a doctor like she claimed to be? that’s bad. i hope it’s obvious enough to understand why that’s bad. (also, i looked it up again, i had briefly read abt it at some point, but it was a while back so i didn’t remember all the details, but here: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/09/749005287/american-with-no-medical-training-ran-center-for-malnourished-ugandan-kids-105-d she clearly wanted to help, but setting up a health clinic when you have zero qualifications for that is not the way to do it at all, that’s just obvious. if she really wanted to help for the sake of helping, she could’ve donated to groups that can actually help instead. - travelling is great, but it’s not a basic human necessity like food or housing. going on a trip to a place that you /know/ has lots of inequality and then relying on the locals to keep travelling more is just stupid. would i call the cops or whatever on them? no. but i still think it’s stupid. i know that at least here in brazil, if we got begpackers, those people would get a lot more money than people who are begging for money to actually survive, because the tourists would most likely be white people from richer countries, and i know how people would be a lot more likely to give money to those people, who don’t need it to survive (bc they’re white and from “first world countries”, and just wanna travel, unlike the homeless and usually black people in poverty you see every day who get treated as lesser than human by way too many people here - i know that homelessness won’t be solved by people giving homeless people money, but it might still help them survive, get a meal, catch a bus/train so they can go somewhere they may have family or to a shelter). i’m not saying you gotta have a ton of money if you wanna travel, but travelling somewhere with the intention of relying on others when you could just, idk, not do that? it’s a stupid thing to do. what if they don’t help you? are you gonna be stuck then? then you made a bad, irresponsible decision. or do you have enough money to go back in case that happens? then you shouldn’t be begging random people on the street for money. i got nothing against people who travel with little money by hitchhiking, doing odd jobs here and there for it, who sell some stuff they might have, but deciding to travel and, since the beginning of your plans, intending on having to beg strangers for money is just a very irresponsible decision at best. people doing that shit are usually just doing it for the “enlightening experience” or whatever, which is how many western people approach asia, there’s a big stereotype of “exotic enlightenment”, especially when it comes to the southern and southeastern parts of the continent (based on what i’ve heard from both ppl who go there and people who live there - i, as mentioned in the post, am from brazil).People who do that kind of thing are usually extremely condescending and stereotyping about their trips to “exotic places” where they “seek enlightenment and truth” or whatever othre stuff they may say.No, i wouldn’t call the cops on them or anything like that, that was /one/ picture out of lots in the post, it wasn’t the point of it, and if you thought so, you really missed it. and to be honest, i was kinda tired, so i did just scroll kinda fast at some point and might not have looked that closely at a couple of pics because they were just more examples of the same phenomenon. and i didn’t really pay attention to the one with police, tbh. i’d never call the police on anyone begging for money, even if it’s a case like that. i don’t support that, but i still support the general message of the post.if you’re travelling and then get robbed or something like that, or a medical emergency happens, or anything else that might need a lot of money, and then you do end up needing more money than you had in your plans for the trip, then that kind of situation would be more understandable (but also, that’s why you should have some way to have access to money in an emergency situation, even if through a friend or family member, because those things can happen in trips). but if you don’t have an emergency plan, i’d understand actually needing the money, but that’s not the case for most begpackers. there’s a reason why many people in parts of asia, especially SE asia afaik, have been complaining about them a lot, there have been lots lately, based on what people >who actually live thereseeing certain parts of the world as “my place to explore so i can finally be enlightened” or “a place where we, the Good White People™, have to intervene so we can save the Poor Starving Kids™” or “a place where i can become one with nature in the wild, savage, mysterious jungles” or any other thing that ignores that it’s just a place with normal people who have their own lives and culture and all that (as much as where you’re from is a place with normal people who have their own lives and culture and all that) just reduces those places and their people to stereotypes that are often harmful. of course there are gonna be differences between where you’re from and where you’re going to, if there weren’t then there wouldn’t be a point in travelling, but it shouldn’t be hard to just not be stereotyping and ignorant about it all, you can enjoy travelling without being Like That.(and the post also talked about how much easier it is to get jobs or just to generally be seen as more trustworthy and qualified when you’re white and everyone else around you isn’t, and that’s def also a true and important thing to acknowledge)anyway, you sent this message to me specifically and mentioned my tags as well, so i answered, but if you wanna complain more about people who point out that begpackers are annoying and often full of entitlement and stereotypical views of certain places, then maybe ask a person who lives somewhere with lots of begpackers, someone who isn’t white. they might be able to tell you more about the whole phenomenon and the people who do it, how annoying they can be, etc, since they’ve experienced it firsthand rather than just heard a lot about it.