#who had her life ruined due to the misogyny of their society | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fannish-karmiya · 2 years

Text

Onto another fandom gripe of mine...I have for so long seen Jiang Yanli get hate, and in particular people often say that she failed to help WWX while he was in trouble in the Burial Mounds and should have done more for him. I’ve even seen posts which are very reasonable and not hateful of her at all say things like this, and I think one issue at play (beyond the misogyny inherent in some of the more hateful takes about her) is that a lot of fandom doesn’t seem very familiar with what life was like for women in Chinese history. Or history in general, actually; a lot of the broad outlines are really similar across many time periods and cultures.

This isn’t going to be a full essay with sources and quotes, I’m just doing a sort of rough talk about it, so please bear with me. A full essay with some actual academic sources on the lives of women in Chinese history, comparing it to what we see in MDZS, could be really interesting, though, and I may earmark that as something to do in the future. I have the sources on my pc and bookshelf anyway!

So. One thing JYL gets criticised for a lot is not helping WWX when he settles down with the Wens in the Burial Mounds. People say that she shouldn’t have just brought him some soup and showed off her wedding dress, he was starving and poor and needed money!

But I think people don’t quite understand the social structure at play here. Money in Chinese families was (and sometimes still is today) communal, and the head of the family had the final say in what was spent and on what. We see,, near the end of the novel during the extras, LWJ give WWX a jade token and say that can be used to draw sect money. WWX, meanwhile, as a kid used to be able to just pick stuff up at Lotus Pier and it would be put on a tab which JFM paid off at the end of the month. The head of the family can see what money is being drawn from the sect coffers and by whom, and if it’s being spent on something they disapprove of how do you think that would go?

JC would absolutely not allow JYL to draw sect money in order to send it to WWX, and she could hardly give WWX anything during the wedding dress visit, which JC monopolised the whole time. What could she do, hide some money or jewellery in the soup bowl?? And after JYL marries, any money she has access to is her husband’s money, ultimately controlled by her father-in-law who is one of WWX’s greatest enemies.

Now, you can say that JYL could have sent him money secretly, but this would wind up causing far more problems than it would actually help. JYL and WWX are not related by blood, and we see time and again in canon that cultivation society does not respect her claim that they are siblings (look at that scene at Phoenix Mountain where she defends him; everyone refrains from directly disparaging her due to her social rank, but no one wants to give in, either, because they disagree with her). Immediately after this scene Jin-furen doesn’t want to let JYL go back down the mountain with WWX, because they don’t have a chaperone, to which JYL reiterates again that WWX is her brother (which Jin-furen ignores).

JYL trying to send letters or gifts or money to WWX, a man she is not related to who is not her husband, would have, if discovered, led to accusations of adultery. It could have ruined her reputation and marriage and caused a lot of trouble for WWX, to boot. WWX would surely not have accepted such attempts on JYL’s part if she did make them, knowing the consequences if they were discovered.

JYL did what she could for WWX; she spoke in his favour frequently (the gossipers during pt1 of Nightfall note that she speaks fondly of her shidi a lot) and encourages her husband to invite WWX to their son’s one-month celebration. Had it not been for the ambush (a plan which JZXuan was kept out of the loop from specifically because he might disapprove or tell his wife), then the meeting could have served as a means to re-invite WWX back into ‘polite’ society. It could have served to show everyone that WWX really is just living peacefully in the Burial Mounds and isn’t a threat.

The idea that JYL betrayed WWX or was selfish in marrying JZXuan and marrying into LLJ ignores two major issues. One is that who JYL marries, or if she marries at all, is really not up to her. It’s the decision of the head of her family, her brother at that point. And as I’ve written about before, I think there’s some subtext that JC was quite happy to marry JYL into LLJ and make a stronger alliance with them, regardless of whether she still cared for JZXuan or not. Women were essentially viewed as the property of male family members for much of human history; even up until a few decades ago (and still in many countries!) women couldn’t do things like open a bank account or rent or buy a house without a male relative or husband to co-sign for her!

This would leave JYL with only one option if she didn’t want to marry into LLJ: to flee. She could either try to marry someone else (who? especially who would be willing to defy both YMJ and LLJ in the process), probably using a ‘Romance of the Western Chamber’ tactic in the process, or she could...run away? What would fans have her do? Run away to Yiling and live with WWX and the Wens in the Burial Mounds?

The exact same problem, only more extreme, would come up then. JYL is, remember, a woman in (fantasy) ancient China, not a full citizen with the right to make her own life decisions. JC could just refuse to accept her decision and instead claim that WWX kidnapped her, which may well have given the Jins the excuse they needed early in order to rally the sects against WWX and mount a siege. Even if people accepted that JYL went there of her own free will, this would surely have led to the sects believing that JYL was seduced by WWX and they were having an affair. JC already stabbed WWX in the guts during their duel (not that I believe JYL ever knew about that). What would he have done if he believed that WWX had ‘stolen’ JYL away from him?

I think fandom often judges JYL as if she’s a man and has all the freedom of movement and self-determination which that implies, but she’s not. She’s a woman under the thumb of first her brother then her husband and father-in-law, and she doesn’t even have strong cultivation, not that that would change the way society views her.

#mdzs #jiang yanli #meta

113 notes · View notes

radkindoffeminist · 2 years

Note

i sometimes make the mistake of wasting my time and energy trying to reason with ignorant males™ in dumb comment sections because eventually they might open their eyes, right? No. All i get is those men telling me misogyny barely exists anymore and that the world is in favor of women. That misandry is a bigger problem. Im as respectful as possible but all i get back is this deafening ignorance. "Cat calling is just words" "Nothing is stopping women from doing what they want" "women are loved unconditionally and men arent" theres no helping those people.

previous anon about ignorant men online here i just wanted to share one occasion that deeply scared me. Someone had written a comment about their brother who found an unconscious girl in the bathroom at a party. He left and didnt even tell anyone about her because he was "worried he might be accused" of doing something to her if he even tried to help. The hundreds of men agreeing with his actions sickened me. Replies varied from "im not responsible for some drunk chick" to "they want equality, they get it" as if women also leave potentially hurt men to rot all the time. The hatred those men must have for women they dont even know was overwhelming. They said not trying to help would be "safer" for them as men, they wouldnt risk ruining their life just because some chick got too high or drunk. Treating women like some kind of other species, as if it isnt your duty as a civilian to provide first aid to someone who potentially needs it. It scares me to think some of those men have women in their lives who trust them. Sometimes i dont know how to deal with these things anymore, but i know im not alone. Sorry for ranting, ignore this if you want and be safe <3

Yeah, just don’t bother with men. Best you’ll get is men admitting that maybe misogyny is a problem but not recognising how deeply it affects women or how systematic it is or say that everyone struggled with gender-based bullshit.

The ‘men aren’t love unconditionally’ bullshit always fucking gets me. Men are loved unconditionally! Women stay with men despite them not helping them and instead dragging them down. Women stay with men through ill-health. Women love men basically unconditionally. But men don’t love women. Men love that women labour for them and that’s why they stay. It’s also why they’re much more likely to leave when women get sick -they’ve lost the person who’s laboured for them and so why would they stay married? If anything, it’s men who are loved and empathised with unconditionally while women are loved so long as they can provide the things men want (ie: sex and household labour). But they act like it’s the men who aren’t loved unconditionally because they ‘have’ to financially provide for the family and that’s the condition on their love.

It’s just a misrepresentation much like every issue which MRAs bring up is: argue something with just enough truth behind it that people believe it, while then completely ignoring the shit that women are going through to make it seem like a ‘men’s issue’ rather than either a societal issue or a complete non-issue because they’ve actually twisted the truth. Other good examples are men’s mental health which ignores that male suicide is higher due to the methods used, that women are more likely to have mental health problems, and that mental health is ignored society wide so it’s not just a men’s problem and men getting child custody which is lower because most couples agree to women getting the children out of court because, you know, women spend more time looking after children and men are actually more likely to win a child custody case if they fought for their kids but they don’t.

Men are disgusting when they do shit like this. And also, they’ll do this saying that they’re trying to get out of the possibility of being falsely accused and hence they’re protecting themselves, but then mock the shit out of women who do things to prevent them from getting raped! They’ve convinced themselves that false accusations are everywhere and made by everyone when they’re literally fucking not. No one is going to accuse you of anything because you found a girl passed out and it’s disgusting that he put the possibility that he’ll get falsely accused for trying to help the girl who passed out/telling someone else that he found her over the possibility that someone takes advantage of her state and rapes her. And you’re right: if the roles were reversed, women would go and get help because we actually care about people’s welfare! So it’s not a case of ‘equality’ but rather men justifying why they do shitty-ass things.

Men are awful people with zero empathy for others. They only care about themselves and the issues that they personally face. Don’t even try explaining how shitty the world is for women to them because they’re write it off as individual bullshit and never systematic oppression.

5 notes · View notes

athenawasamerf · 4 years

Text

Feminism in Egypt, Part 2

FGM

FGM has a long, bloody history with African and Arab women. Some people say it originated in Ancient Egypt; others lean more towards it being a Bedouin Arab tradition. I’m not here to discuss the origin story of one of the most horrific human rights infarctions on earth. I’m here to talk about the current feminist struggle against it.

FGM was outlawed in Egypt in June of 2008, and a 2014 survey showed that a whopping 92% of married women and girls between 15 and 49 years old have been subjected to FGM (I will talk more about the inclusion of 15 year olds in official surveys of married women in a post about child brides), and that 72% of these crimes were carried out by doctors. In 2008, a DHS survey of women and girls in the same age range showed that 63% of them were in support of FGM as a practice. Of those 63%, 60% cited husband preference for ‘cleaned’ girls, and 39% cited religious reasons. All of these are easily googleable facts, but these things always sound so clinical when they’re presented like this. Cold, sterile, detached. So, let’s get a little deeper into it, shall we?

Girls in Egypt are mutilated anywhere between birth and marriage, but mostly before the age of 15. These are children. Every single year, we have cases of babies, toddlers, children, young women dying from botched mutilations and infections, especially after the 2016 criminalisation of FGM practitioners. Parents will take their daughters to backwater clinics, or have ‘doula’s who have no medical experience of any kind visit them at home, and cut into the flesh of their young daughters with non-sterile equipment, often without anaesthesia.

I’ve heard and read first-hand accounts of girls who got topical anaesthesia that wore out halfway through. I’ve heard and read first-hand accounts of girls who were dragged, kicking and screaming, and held down by family and neighbours forcefully as their bodies were torn into. Of girls who bled for days, of girls who had to have their legs bound to each other for weeks, of girls who couldn’t stop screaming in pain every time they went to the bathroom, to complete apathy and even disgust and anger from their families, of girls who were snarled at for making noise while their bodies were being torn away on their own beds, of girls who still have constant pain over a decade later, of girls who hate themselves and hate their vulvas, and hate their lives. Of girls who are suicidal, of girls who are terrified of marriage, who have trust issues, who can’t handle the thought of anyone touching them there again, after the first time being so traumatic and painful and horrifying. All of this is done while the family, and even friends and neighbours, celebrate in joy. It’s even tradition in some rural areas to take all the female children of the family to get ‘fixed’ together, dressed in pretty dresses and fancy shoes.

I’ve also heard of women who are asexual due to trauma, whose husbands rape them continuously, who are abused for refusing sex, whose families disown them for being such a disgrace, whose husbands divorce them and leave them for dead, whose husbands marry multiple women besides them, and they are left to fend for themselves, unable to get a divorce and move on, and completely abandoned by the people they trusted the most. They’re told the angels will curse them all night for refusing sex, but what about their trauma? What about their feelings? What about them, as people? Nobody cares.

So, how did we get here? There are 3 main reasons.

The ’’religious’’ folk will cite a (weak) hadith as their proof that FGM is a good, healthy practice. It goes that the prophet saw a woman going to get her daughter cut, and he told her to ‘not cut severely, as that is better for the woman and more preferable to the husband’. Apart from any implications of misogyny in this hadith, it has been disputed multiple times, along with a couple others in support of FGM. You can read more about that here.

Regardless of the truth of FGM having Islamic support, the reality of the matter is that a huge amount of actual, real life Muslim people cite these hadiths as their reasoning to mutilate their daughters, and everyone sees that as completely justified. The truth of the matter is this: Someone put these hadiths into the public conscience knowing full well they will be used to abuse, maim, hurt, kill women for centuries. Whether that someone was prophet Muhammed himself or later scholars, no one can actually ever know.

The second, more indirectly religious and directly misogynistic reason, is to ensure ‘purity’. You see, as I’ve talked about before and as many of you already know, women in Islam and in MENA in general are seen and treated as property. The family’s honour lies between a woman’s thighs. A young girl who speaks to boys her age in the most innocent context possible can be subjected to house arrest, beatings, forced stopping of her education, even death, for daring to put the family’s honour in jeopardy. A girl who has a boyfriend, well...

In a society that places so much value not only on women’s virginity, but also on their complete removal and separation from the male sex at any cost, it’s not very surprising that tips and tricks like using FGM to ‘cull a woman’s sexual desire’ spread like wildfire. Girls are mutilated to make sure they don’t become wh**es. This is said frankly, openly, it’s common knowledge. If you refuse to hurt your child in this way, you will be met with disdain and disgust, and even wails of despair, with shock, with animosity. “Do you want her to become like a prostitute and ruin your family name? Do you want her to walk around uncontrolled? Don’t you know what shame she will bring on you?” These statements are directed at girls as young as... in the womb, if you show your dissent early enough.

And the final reason is the least of them to hide under religious pretences, and the most misogynistic: Because this is how men prefer their wives to be.

You might think when I say preference here, I mean it in the way I mean, “Oh, I personally prefer brunette hair,” but you would be sorely mistaken. By prefer here, I mean demand. I mean a man could force his grown wife, through physical force or through abuse, to mutilate her body for his satisfaction. I mean that men will sneer at un-mutilated women. I mean that men will beat their wives on their wedding night to within an inch of her life for ‘cheating’ them if the wives are not mutilated. I mean men will suspect their wives of adultery and murder them, which carries a reduced sentence of ‘time served during investigation’, just for the simple act of having intact genitals. I mean men will divorce their wives on their wedding night for being unharmed, for being whole. I mean men will act so entitled to women’s bodies that they will always have the assumption that the ‘product’ they are ‘buying’ is cut to taste, and they will become violent and aggressive and murderous if they find out this is not the case.

I personally don’t know whether or not I’ve been mutilated. With such high numbers in Egypt, the likely answer is yes, but I genuinely have no clue. I am not allowed to ask about these things, or I’ll be seen as a loose wh**re. My parents would beat me up and they still wouldn’t allow me the dignity of knowing whether my own body has been altered against my will. I don’t know if I’ll ever find out.

The feminists fighting constantly for tighter regulations, for harsher punishments, for longer sentences; these women are seen as the spawn of the devil. Accusations of loose morals are thrown their way day in and day out. Death threats and rape threats (’that’s what you want anyway isn’t it?’) are hurled at them from every direction. They are silenced. They are ridiculed. But they are prevailing. This year, the Egyptian president has decided to alter the FGM laws to cover loopholes, and possibly to increase enforcement. He has also altered the charge set to doctors who perform FGM which results in death from manslaughter to first or second degree murder.

The problem, however, remains in lack of reporting. Ever since the criminalisation of performing FGM in 2008, and the setting of punishments in 2016 as a minimum of three months’ jail time, to a maximum of 2 years, or a minimum of 1000EGP to a maximum of 5000EGP fines (63.71 to 318.53 USD), and until 2018, and possibly until today, not a single mutilator had been convicted.

Imagine being fined as little as 60 dollars for the permanent mutilation of a little girl’s body. And even that is not happening.

People refuse to report the monsters who do perform this, despite a 2012 gynaecology convention condemning the practice, and calling it an inhumane act, and stating quite forcefully that it is not a medical procedure, and that it is an infringement on the human rights of women and girls, which medicine and medical ethics do not condone. And yet, the public opinion remains the same: this is their business, it is not our place to intervene. It is not our place to get this fine young man thrown in jail, or fined, for performing a ‘cleaning’ procedure, and besides, wouldn’t you rather they had a medical professional perform it, rather than an uneducated woman, or a barber, or a butcher? It is not our place to report this family and tear them apart - what did they ever do to us that we may hurt them like this?

No one ever asks what little girls have ever done for us to fail them like this.

#egyptian feminism #radical feminism #RadFem #fgm #female genital mutilation #tw: violence #tw: rape #tw: abuse #tw: mentions of death #tw: misogynistic slurs #tw: fgm #feminism #anti-fgm #islam critical

584 notes · View notes

scattered-irises · 4 years

Note

What do you think the arclight brothers mom looked like, her personality and how her and Byron met?

(I dance onto the stage wearing a top hat, a cane and some of Byron’s clothes I stole from a dream. *True story, I had a dream I snuck into Byron’s bedroom and stole a bunch of his clothes, climbed out the window and ran through the countryside with a gentleman’s wardrobe in my tiny little arms.)

Long time followers remember Marie-Luise and Chloe, yes?

They’re from my Zexal soap opera series, “Scattered Roses in the Palm of Your Hand,” available on AO3. There, their full backstory is told in a series of diary entries and flashbacks.

(Tap dancing noises.)

Soap opera verse, Byron and the Arclight mother are part of a reenactment cult called The Victorian Resurrection (aka The Resurrection). They were married due to an arranged marriage. Marie-Luise was a lesbian. She got along well with Byron, treating him as a good friend. Due to pressure (Living in an ultra conservative cult), the two had children. No, that place is definitely NOT a pleasant place to live nor grow up in, especially if you didn’t conform to societal norms. Get. The. Hell. Out.

Now, I knew that one person definitely couldn’t carry all the genes to make all 3 brothers look different so I gave Marie-Luise a sister, named Chloe. I shan’t say anymore, for you will have to read the soap opera if you want to know their fates. HOWEVER!

There is an alternate theory and mother I use for the rest of my fics, where the Arclights did not grow up in a cult. Do you see the bonus “Alternate Modern Timeline” for Chloe? Yes, in other retellings, she is their mother.

Most notably in Of Lace and Porcelain.

Resurrection timeline!Chloe has been corrupted by the society she lived in. She was once a pure girl, untainted by the violent misogyny of the cult, but as she grew older, she began to realize her limitations. How she will never be able to go to college. How her centipede collection will never yield to any scientific breakthroughs. How she’s merely expected to inherit the family name, marry well and bear children. She sets up twisted plots and other unsavory details whilst appearing to be the very picture of the ideal Resurrection woman.

Modern!Chloe did not have such obstacles in her way and grew up very sweet and passionate about her work. She has a tendency to overshare on her passions, especially her centipedes. She’s caused more than one screaming fit, that’s for sure.

Oh, and Marie-Luise in this universe is living with her partner, Lianna. She teaches Eastern African history, with a focus on her father’s homeland, Kenya and her partner is a thriller/mystery writer.

Chloe and Byron met whilst he was on one of his expeditions with Dr. Faker. As the two men were sitting by, discussing interdimensional thingymabobs, the bushes behind them rustled. Faker went to find a sharp stick while Byron froze. A dirt covered woman popped out and began to breathe heavily, asking if he had seen any scolopendra astra in the vicinity. Thus their story began. Byron calmly interrogated Chloe and began to relax, realizing that this woman was just on the hunt for some funky lil centipedes. She accompanies the two scientists to the ruins and finds the glowing blue centipedes.

It turns out the centipedes are from Astral world.

After a few years of writing, adventuring and getting to know each other, the two settle down. Byron reveals his whole Neo-Victorian wardrobe collection and his fashion blog with thousands of followers. Chloe shrugs. They’re both weirdos, she with her centipede collection and him with his fashion wardrobe. Chloe’s papers on myriapodology are featured in entomology journals and the like. She spends most of her time capturing and breeding centipedes, trying to make one killer centipede that can kill a human in one bite. Why? Because centipedes are cool, that’s why. Since the earth is warming, she’s also worried about their numbers. (True story, centipedes and other bug populations are going down in areas such as the Amazon.)

She eventually succeeds but then gets bitten by her life’s labor and perishes in the best way possible (In her opinion). Many people tended to say that she had “mad blood” and the brothers vehemently protest that. However, who knows?

Good question! Send in some more if you’d like!

#zexal ocs #oc #Marie-Luise Rosanna Arclight #Chloe Rosalba Radcliffe #Long text post

2 notes · View notes

tellywoodtrash · 6 years

Note

Wow Anika's been trying to help Shivaay for so many days, and it all it took was one yelling from Gauri to resurrect Billu. What mashallah research was HS doing where she came to the conclusion that one can yell mental illness out of a person? Uff these ppl make a mockery out of real, important issues, upar se they pat themselves on their backs for it.

This. This is exactly the fucking thing. I’m making jokes about it and all, and I once said to just fix the character overnight because I can’t watch him suffering like this, but THIS is not what I meant. Not even by a long shot.

This is why I hate Gulneet’s BS “oh look, but we’re raising awareness for the issues” argument to defend bad tracks. No. You’re not raising awareness. All you’re doing is perpetuating lazy stereotypes and dangerous falsehoods about trauma and mental illness/toxic, abusive relationships/[insert topic of choice]. You’re being extremely irresponsible as content creators. I’ve seen the argument that TV is just TV, it’s not meant to teach. I don’t agree. Like it or not, accept it or not, a medium like TV has an incredible impact on society. Especially in non-urban sectors. You as a content creator have to be aware of what message you are sending out in the name of “entertainment”. If you are raising these societal issues in your show (and claiming that you’re doing it to raise awareness) then you have the moral responsibility to disseminate the correct information. Yeah, it might not be the most “fun” or “entertaining” thing to do, or get you the ratings. Then don’t raise the topic at all na? Just write the run-of-the-mill dramatic tellywood stuff. Yeh kya baat hui ki hot topic chhedna bhi hai AWARENESS ke naam pe, and then you don’t even show the correct information? It’s just total fucking bullshit. People are already aware of the problems in society; no matter how “developed” or not the audience is. You think people in Tier 3 cities/villages don’t know mental illness exists? That misogyny/patriarchy/rape/intimate partner abuse/dowry/colorism/whatever exists? That they live in some kinda utopia where all these topics are unheard of? No. They know these issues, and have these problems, but have been dealing with them wrongly for all these years. The key part of the “raising awareness” bit of the tracks is the RESOLUTION. Showing how the characters solved the unpleasant issue in a healthy manner. That’s the educational bit, that actually creates change in society. Harneet herself gave the example of Diya Aur Baati Hum inspiring lots of real life women to enroll themselves in the police force. Now I haven’t watched that show, but I believe it’s because that show actually showed a supportive husband, who went against his family and enables his wife to complete her education and do her job. That was the major narrative of the show, repeatedly showing a healthy relationship dynamic (as opposed to just ainvayi ka “support” they show in this show, with characters going back to their unhealthy relationship patterns once a particular track ends.) Change happens when you show a positive resolution. When you build it into the fabric of the show and reiterate it over and over, despite the circumstances the characters are in. It requires thought and foresight and tight writing, to keep the material both educational and entertaining. If that “knowing English is not required to be smart” Shivika track went viral, it’s because they depicted the issue being addressed in a compelling manner, that made people think and revise their long-held POVs, and educated them to change their mindset. If that ‘don’t have kids till you’re ready’ track made any impact, it’s because they wrote it with good sense and balance; having other characters offer the conventionally-held view, and Shivaay countering it and explaining his POV in an entertaining manner. Those tracks were actually done kinda well, balancing education and entertainment. This utter garbage they’re doing of “raising an issue”, and then immediately solving it in their usual tellywood manner with dramatics and crap is DANGEROUS. That fucking #MeToo track, I hate it. They made it soooooooo dramatic, with the retro party and Anika’s sting operation and lord knows what not, that it just came across as a random bullshit plot, not any different from like the time-and-again Nafratbaaz track, or the Mohit one. They completely diluted the actual topic at hand with all the glitz and glamour surrounding it and made it seem like ‘haan things like this happen in the lives of these big-big people; here’s how they dealt with it in their usual dramatic rich ppl fashion.’ It was so shrouded in “rich people shenanigans” that I doubt it made any impact whatsoever on the larger public about how a victim should be believed and supported and empowered following an incident like this. And now the same with this track. They’ve shown Shivaay suffer for 2, 2.5 weeks now, and all it took for him to heal was “the power of his own mind”. (But not really, because we can see him really struggling in the moments he’s alone.) All they’ve done is taken away the support of Anika; he’s isolated himself due to guilt and feeling unworthy of the only person in his corner, and now he’s going to be spiraling, hurting Anika (and himself) even more in the process.

I won’t blame Gauri for yelling at him. It’s what anyone in this kinda situation would have done. What I do fault is the way they wrote how Shivaay perceived the admonition. Clearly what Gauri was saying at that moment (though not articulately, because of her panic) was that “My sister is being severely affected by your condition. You cannot be irresponsible like this and ruin both your lives. She deserves to be happy and safe with you, her husband.” She was telling him, that as Anika’s life partner, he had to BE BETTER at taking care of her (which can only happen when he handles his mental illness in a responsible manner); instead, they wrote him perceiving it as he doesn’t deserve Anika, is ruining her life, and thus should drive her away by hurting her over and over. Just…. FUCK NO. That was not the fucking message to take away here. I am so angry that this was the way they made him perceive it, making Gauri into some kinda unwitting villain in this situation, when she is not. Perhaps she was unkind in that moment of hysteria, but her intention was never to imply that he isn’t worthy of Anika. She was only showing him the mirror, how this situation affects more people than just himself. Which is an integral component of mental illness.

What they could/should have shown is this: Gauri yells at Shivaay, making him realize how it’s not just his own life is being affected by his illness, but a lot of other people too, just by virtue of being related/attached to him. Anika obviously is the one most affected. Gauri is watching her sister’s suffering every day, but also that of a brother figure that she obviously cares a lot for. OmRu and Prinku are utterly lost without their father figure and need him to have some sort of stability and guidance in life. The company he created, that hires thousands and thousands, lies at risk, affecting all those people and their livelihoods. All of these people need him to heal and be at his best and lead them, like he used to. And so when Anika wakes up, he tells her wants to get better, if not for himself, for everyone else. She assures him that she will be by his side as he recovers. He sees a professional, who assures him that with medication and therapy, the mental illness can be managed and he can be just as functional as he was before, he just needs to be aware of his new limitations and learn to work around them. Show Anika and Gauri and Bhavya being supportive as fuck as he navigates this. It just requires an episode or two to show this in a responsible manner. But nooooooooooo. Symptoms ke naam pe toh WebMD page ko ratta maar ke padha aur dikha diya, Grey’s Anatomy se topic ka scene straight chaapa, par TREATMENT (the most important part of the issue) ke naam pe yeh kuch bhi hagg diya. Literally fuck them.

Yes, ok, it’s not wildly exciting to see Shivaay in a doctor’s office. But neither is it ultra glam to see him sitting and drinking tea with Khanna. But those kinda scenes have a purpose. It’s to depict how this character has changed over the years and is living his “new normal”. They could have still had the flashy exciting makeover and his SSO avatar coming back, but to counter OmRu in the office, as he takes over and fixes everything in that domain. Him dealing with the chutiya media/business rivals/etc. etc. They really didn’t need to have it HERE in this context, that he just “fixed himself” through sheer will-power, but is also hurting Anika repeatedly in this misguided process.

#ishqbaaz #ishqbaaaz #responsibility of media creators #tt answers

10 notes · View notes

theramblingonesie · 5 years

Text

Facing Our Making Part 4: Makeup and Performance

Misty Copeland as “Firebird”

Welcome to the grand finale of the makeup blog series! It’s been a great experience writing about all of this because it’s given me an incredible opportunity to really dig into myself to discover my own biases, blind spots, preferences, and ways I can learn and grow. I dunno about you, but I rather enjoy that shit. I hope that maybe you learned something, too, or at least had a chance to tease out and reflect on how the subject has affected you in your own life.

Getting into social customs and how we each feel about them is an interesting sport. For me, I liken it to when you get your blood pressure measured at the doctor’s office.

You put the arm cuff on,

“Okay, here’s this social topic”

and they put the stethoscope on you to hear your pulse,

“Hello, world. Here’s what I think…”

and then they start pumping and tightening the cuff.

“This is wrong! Here are some arbitrary rules! Less of those people! Restrict! Cancel! Humiliate! Isolate! Deprive! No! Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!”

They go until they can’t tighten anymore, and pause.

“Yes, I’ve arrived. This is the TRUTH.”

And then release.

“Actually, fuck it, let people live their lives”

Whooooooosh!

Leaving you with the sound and feel of your own beating heart, the pulsing of the blood as it rushes back in.

“Hello, life.”

(Sorry, I think the sexy blood pressure pout is goddamn hilarious. )

We can do a review of previous blogs in this series, but ultimately what I hope you’ll walk away with is this:

Let’s stop arbitrarily restricting people, whether directly or through complicity, and let them live their best lives.

Yes, we need to examine social and structural cancers. But no, a boy with a purse and an 80 year old woman in sequins snake-print pants are most certainly not that.

I want to write about makeup and ageism. I want to write about makeup and classism. I want to write about makeup and racism. I want to talk about makeup lineage in families and cultures. I want to write about intimacy and faces, and a million other topics that makeup touches, holds and carries. But I am not a makeup artist or enthusiast, nor any kind of image specialist (fun fact: I’ve never been to Sephora), and I must move on to other things. At most, I am a shapeshifter who delights in the moods and adventures that dabbling in makeup and fashion can provide to the human experience. Who knows, maybe I’ll tackle another piece randomly in the future. But regardless, I strongly encourage anyone who feels called to pick this up and run with it. Nothing I’m writing is original-- it’s just a collection of thoughts and opinions gained from experience and conversations had over the course of my life. I want these conversations to be had. They’re already being had, and we need to add voices to it. So please-- let’s hear yours <3

Here’s an oversimplified review of the rest of the blog series:

Beauty standards are impossibly harsh and cause a lot of unnecessary pain. Let womxn decide what they want to do with their own damn bodies and stay out of it. Unless they hire you for a consultation. Wearing makeup is awesome, and so is not wearing makeup. Your gender presentation and basically any presentation of your body and behavior do not determine who you are and aren’t attracted to sexually. And fuck gatekeeper behavior. If someone tells you that you aren’t the gender or sexual orientation you know yourself to be, then that’s a reflection of some internal shit they’re fighting with, boo-boo. Not you. But I know that doesn’t make it hurt less, and I love you. How toxic masculinity ruins the day in relationship to makeup or not makeup needs to die, and YES women and cis-women** also support and host this behavior (internalized misogyny).

How you choose to adorn yourself does not make your human experience any more or less “real”. Qualification for living a real life in a real body: having a pulse. Just because it is not your experience does not make someone else’s experience a myth. Womxn who wear makeup are not whores unless they are, in fact, professional whores. Professional whores keep the world turning, and bless em for it. The problem isn’t sex work. It’s violence against sex workers. Consider your complicity.

If you want sexual attention because you enjoy sex, then that’s your business and FUCK YEAH GIT IT!!!

Christianity was largely instrumental in informing men that they are not allowed to wear makeup, lest they lose their “manhood”. I have so much to say about that, but I’ll leave it to a recent quote I heard from poet Regie Gibson: “We must learn to fear churches that fear drums.” That will resonate deeply with some and confuse others. Think about it.

The art of drag is centuries old. Makeup has been used by all genders and sexes for decades as a form of protest, revolution, equality, and visibility.

Whatever body you are in, whatever gender you are, you deserve to wear makeup if that is part of your desired expression. It is up to the rest of us around you to do the work to create a world that accepts and allows you to safely do so. Your level of perceived attractiveness does not determine the size and capability of your brain. What does need to be examined is how we sexually and emotionally abuse “attractive” girls and women, both in person and through media, in a way that forces them to believe that they cannot achieve a full life without using sex as currency, or that none of their accomplishments or thoughts matter because their only purpose is being a sexual accessory. As we’ve seen time and again, sexually “attractive” women are punished for straying beyond the purpose of being unintelligent sex objects. Or, there’s a lot of “woke” folks out there who are all “yay! Hot women are also smart, give them opportunities!” and will ONLY respect and listen to women they deem worthy of sleeping with. I will also challenge society by saying that it is sexual abuse to strip a person of their sexuality simply because they don’t fit what you’ve been conditioned to believe are your “standards”. No, one is not required to be sexually active with anybody. But denying another human’s right to love and affection due to superficial beliefs IS abuse, in my opinion. Forcing a person who does not fall into conventional beauty standards to intellectually perform beyond their abilities is abuse, and based in the illness of consumer culture.

What is your purpose?

WHAT is YOUR purpose?

What is your PURPOSE…

THING?

Are you picking up what I’m putting down?

A person’s decision to wear makeup, not wear makeup, or augment their body is their business, because those are decisions they make for their own personal survival. Do not blame them for wanting to survive. Consider the bombardment of messages we hear daily about “worth”. What our bodies look like determine too much to be listed here, but for many, it’s the difference between life and death, even if that’s not an immediately conscious motivation.

Marinate in that.

So let’s get down to the series conclusion. This is an exciting, though brief, one for me:

Performance and Makeup

When my friend Aepril (from blog #1) messaged me about her dilemma of being asked to show her “real” face, we both connected over the uniqueness of the application of makeup as performers. For a performer, makeup goes beyond wearing a nice face out in the world while we conduct our business. Makeup becomes a ritual act, and a space of channeling energy required to suspend disbelief and transport an audience to other times, realms and worlds.

Makeup for performers is also practical: don’t get drowned out by bright stage lights, and accentuate features so that the audience can follow your expressions while you’re telling a story.

One of my favorite parts of performing is, honestly, the pre-show ritual. I love the act of transformation. I go from my blank little pasty potato face and limp baby hair to creatures and characters from my dreams. I can be:

Super femme

Super butch

Superhero

Child

Old man/woman

Dragon

Cat

Spy

Femme fatale

Ballerina

Goddess

Bird

Elemental

Victorian socialite

Bum

Cartoon character

Someone’s dad

Heartthrob

Potted plant

And the list goes on…

Important note: I recognize that my age, whiteness, and stature grant me certain privileges of transformation that not all are afforded. I think this is important to acknowledge, as well as participate in conversations around greater equity in the entertainment industry. Except in cases such as blackface or cultural appropriation, it’s important to challenge type casting and beliefs around the limitations of who can play certain roles.

Makeup allows me to embody the energy I want to convey. If I can look like it, I can believe it. Sit backstage and watch performers after they’ve put on their makeup and costumes. Often, it’s as if their “normal” personality has left the building, and they begin taking on traits and mannerisms of the character they’re playing. It’s a wild experimentation in the realm of the human psyche- peering into our layers and depths of possibilities and dormant desires and aspects of ourselves. Some performers will reference a character they play and say, “yeah, that’s not who I am. But understanding that character gave me greater compassion for people like that”, while others will tell you that their character is a portrayal of their truest selves.

Because of the perceived separation from reality (though art imitates life), the stage is often the safest place for artists to fully show themselves. There is always the option to retreat afterwards and say “oh no, that wasn’t me. It was all pretend.” Or conversely, moments on stage can empower the artist to be supported in their moment of authenticity, because the audience understands that their role is to respectfully hold space and witness. I find that audiences are far better at allowing for differences when the context of being confronted by them is in an environment separate from their daily lives.

Plainly said-- everyone loves a loose cannon or bold personna on stage or in the movies. They feel far more threatened by it in the workplace or in their beds.

I’m neither advocating for, nor dismissing acceptance of all personality types. But I also sometimes find myself in a producer/manager stress space of saying, “yes, I get that this is wicked cute on stage or in the movies, BUT THIS IS REAL LIFE AND COULD YOU PLEASE ANSWER YOUR EMAILS AND NOT STORE THE KNIVES WITH THE HAIR BRUSHES, THANKS.”

The stage is a place where your desire to give everyone the finger and store the knives with the hair brushes is totally okay. And I think it’s great to have that outlet.

Pro tip: it’s smart to carry bandaids on a film set or backstage at a show.

Makeup gives us the courage to let those pieces out. Sam, looking like Sam, won’t do a lot of stuff. Sam looking like a person, animal or entity she admires (or loathes), will do almost anything. Yes, you can have a field day digging into that psychology, but the fact remains nonetheless.

A couple weeks back, beloved Boston burlesque Monster Queen and icon, Devilicia, recommended that I watch “Susanne Bartsch: On Top”, a documentary on Netflix. If you don’t know who this is (I didn’t), here’s an excerpt from her biography on her site:

Susanne Bartsch is New York City’s patron saint of transformation and inclusion. The parties she’s thrown for three decades—from Paris to Tokyo—have provided a venue for countless creative souls and “creatures” to express themselves, come together and forget the hum-drum of the everyday. As Michael Schulman wrote in his 2013 New York Times profile, Susanne’s “empire” continues to flourish “particularly among scene seekers too green to know her history. Wherever Ms. Bartsch goes, the demimonde seems to follow, as if summoned by the bat of her curlicued fake eyelashes.” Fashion mogul John Badum once referred to Susanne as “Mother Teresa in a glitter G-string.”

I can’t recommend this film highly enough. One of the most important parts was when Susanne tells the interviewers that she never had any artistic talent for painting or any other such creative mediums. She instead decided to use her body as her canvas for expression, exploring what makeup, color, texture, and so on could create, and that relation to the world around her. She refers back to the restriction of her upbringing, and how that influences her openness and dedication to personal expression. Susanne influenced countless careers and communities, especially for LGBTQA+ folx and those who consider themselves to be “outsiders”. When people who attend Susanne’s legendary parties were interviewed, many of them speak of these communities as life saving. It was a place where they could just be themselves, and finally be around others who either understood them, or allowed them to be exactly who they are. All of this through the power and creativity of makeup and fashion.

Makeup serves infinite purposes-- safety, transformation, personal exploration, etc. But one thing I love about this craft is its ability to amplify visibility as a sort of flag for finding your people. Often when I’m in a new city, I find myself dressing in a way that will signal to others who might share similar lifestyles that I’m out and available for connection. When I’m at my incognito cafe job and a womxn with black stiletto nails comes up to the register, I’ll give her a certain acknowledging smile and say “I love your nails”, which really means “I see you, friend.” The same way a lonely gay man will show up to one of Susanne’s events with mirror glitter on his eyelids and a tutu made of eyeballs thinking, “hello, do you see me? I’d love to be a part of this family”, so many of us will walk around the world looking for signs of matching lipstick, hairstyle, eyeliner, and tattoos in hopes that we will find other aliens who might accept and understand us.

Photo by Cheryl Gorski

Some people find community through the act of not wearing makeup. Yes, I use the word “act” intentionally, because in today’s society, I believe it is a conscious decision to not wear makeup, just as much as it’s a conscious decision to apply makeup. But from personal experience, the people I most often attract when I’m not wearing makeup are not usually “my people”. I give off a very different impression when I wear muted tones, a floppy messy pixie cut, and display my thin, pale, generically-European facial features. When I outwardly express myself through makeup and fashion, it’s like throwing a direct line to the crowds and conversations I want to be having. It’s not a flawless system, of course. Sometimes the same people who love and adore me while I’m dolled up have absolutely no use for me in muggle form, not always realizing that I’m the same person. Sometimes that makes me laugh, sometimes it makes me cry. Depends on the day.

I stand by the belief that your decision to wear or not wear makeup is revolutionary. It is a decision made that acts as agency in how you want your life to be played out. That’s powerful, whether for better or for worse. So many people say “ehhh wearing makeup is conforming” or vice versa. But I’d like to present the challenge that what we do to our own bodies is not the conformity, but rather the conformity lies in the pressure we put on others to think, feel, and present as we do, or in a way that’s convenient and pleasurable to us.

If you did the exercise from the first blog in this series and kept your list of all the reasons why you do and don’t wear makeup, go ahead and look at it now. Reflect on each of those responses, and remember that it’s your fucking life. Our bodies dictate almost all of the experiences we will have in the world. It is your right to try and have as much say in that as possible.

Thank you so much for reading, and best of luck on your journeys of exploration, expression, and finding a home with your people, whoever they may be.

** “women and cis-women” is a term my friend Alexis recently said to me, and I’m playing around with it.

#makeup #bodypolitics

0 notes

tessetc · 7 years

Photo

Consent and Virginity in Romance Novels

This is kind of a combination essay and review, but as I will be discussing consent issues, I suggest if this topic is an issue for you, you may want to pass on this post as well as the books I am discussing.

This is extremely long so I am going to stick it under a cut, but there are reviews at the bottom of it for the books above and a few more as well.

I was doing a lot of thinking lately about the role that consent and virginity plays and has historically played in the genre of romance, and how our relationship to those concepts has changed over the last forty years.

I have recently read all three of the books highlighted above, and along with a few others I will mention, I want to discuss the place they hold in romance history, and how they hold up as examples.

The first book above is The Wolf and the Dove, (1974) by Kathleen E. Woodiwiss. Woodiwiss is famous as the mother of the modern romance novel, and the inventor of the “bodice ripper”. Prior to the publication of The Flame and the Flower (1972) (F&F) romances were extremely chaste, perhaps culminating in a sweet kiss at the end, at most. When F&F was published, it featured actual sex. Unfortunately, this occurred when the male lead raped the female lead.

I recently grabbed that book at a used bookstore. I haven’t read it yet, so I can’t comment in any great detail, but I am still aware of the issues with it. I remember reading it once a very long time ago, and being a bit bored by it, but otherwise I can’t say.

However, The Wolf and the Dove (W&D) is either the first or second romance I ever read, the other being The Pirate and the Pagan (1990) (P&P) by Virginia Henley. I really, really liked both books when I was younger, and I recently reread them both.

For the most part, P&P contains consensual sex, apart from one incident in the middle of the book. Unfortunately, this was not handled well, and when I recently reread this book as a more mature reader, it kind of ruined it for me. It’s acknowledged as a rape within the book, but it does not seem to have any real effect on their relationship.

In W&D, on the other hand, the male lead, Wulfgar, repeatedly “seduces” the heroine, Aislinn, by catching her and basically mauling her until “passion takes over” and she submits. This sounds very blunt. However, the book, set in Medieval England, begins with a sacking of her castle by the villain, who then basically drags her by her hair to be ravished. In contrast, Wulfgar waits several weeks before he gives in to temptation and has his way with her, and by then, her attraction is apparent and they have a relationship and are on their way to developing respect. Her opposition to his advances is not due to not wanting to be with him, but rather due to her objection to their unmarried state.

The scenes are very, very vague and undetailed. The book was published in 1974.

So why was the sex like this in these books? Most likely, the answer lies in purity culture. Women, the primary audience for romance, were meant to be chaste and nonsexual. Which means even having sex in books was revolutionary. Remember, this is roughly the time that birth control and abortion were becoming widely acceptable. Women were working in public and a rating system on movies meant that erotic and adult themes could be shown in theatre, rather than censored completely.

This was a revolutionary time for media and women’s rights, and it’s reflected in this genre as well. But culture doesn’t change overnight, and guilt and shame were still very thick on sexuality.

I’m not the first person to note that in order for a woman to “be allowed to enjoy erotica” it must be that the fictional female is overwhelmed or coerced. It sounds really awful. It IS really awful. But you have to think of the mindset. A sexually confident heroine is not only unrelatable to a repressed female reader, but it would also make her distinctly uncomfortable. There was a lot of socialization to be a certain way, and having a heroine who strolls up to the hero and cheerfully fucks him would have been really offputting and uncomfortable for the reader. They were simply not ready for it in the 70s, and a more progressive book would have gone nowhere.

***

The books from the 70’s and 80’s were available to me as a teen and young adult in the 90s and early 2000’s, but the concept of rape as necessary to the plot was still very prominent in books published at that time. However, it was becoming more of an issue, as more authors were taking note of it. I believe it was in a book called Remembrance, (1997) by Jude Devereaux, where the female lead was a romance author who refused to allow her heroes to rape the heroine, and the protag’s publisher took issue with it as they felt the readers would not believe he was virile enough.

So clearly, authors were conscious of this as a troubling issue by this point. You can see this as well in the works of Johanna Lindsay. She has been writing bestselling romance for decades. Her early books nearly all featured ravishment of the heroine by the hero; her novels are the very definition of bodice ripper, featuring burly vikings and knights and captured brides.

But when you look at her body of work as a whole, you see a gradual change over time. By the time Man of my Dreams came out, in 1992, the blatant rape was gone, and many of her books featured very innocent, virginal heroines.

Very innocent.

In Man of my Dreams, the heroine, Megan, goes to the hero, Devlin, to learn how to kiss. He takes it a bit far and ends up nailing her in the hay.

She is pretty much down with it the whole time. She doesn’t attempt to stop him, so it’s not rape, right? Has the author dodged the bullet?

No. No, I don’t think so. Instead of rape, heroines who know what’s going on but object as in the older books, this is much more subtle, and in a lot of ways, more disturbing. Devlin ABSOLUTELY knows what he’s doing. Megan ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT. She has no idea she’s losing her virginity until it’s too late. Devlin lies to her and says it’s “part of kissing” but he is knowingly taking advantage of her inexperience. So it seems clear to me that the author was already aware of the consent issues in the genre, but attempted to skirt it by framing it as a seduction rather than a ravishment.

As a reader in the 90s and a young woman, I didn’t see this problem. I just thought it was hot. Purity culture was still very much a part of my psychological makeup, as well as that of other readers.

When I say above that a sexually confident heroine made readers uncomfortable, I speak from my own past perspective. A forward or experienced heroine made for uncomfortable reading when it occurred. It’s hard to pinpoint how, exactly, but while I wanted to read about sex, I couldn’t identify with someone who knew what they wanted and went after it, sexually speaking.

Was I repressed? I didn’t think so. After all, I was reading all these smutty books, right?

Wrong. Looking back, I was very much repressed. Not only was there shame in thinking about sex and reading about it, but even having sex before marriage was very shameful to me.

TMI here but the first time I ever even masturbated, I was 25. Despite the smut. 25.

So yes, in order to even be able to wrap my head around the idea of liking sex, it had to be very much noncon or seductive.

***

Times change, technology changes, and people change.

I spent my intervening years on the internet, tried selling sex toys at home parties (thereby learning to talk about it), and have plowed through the majority of my 30s, learning along the way how to give zero fucks what people think of me.

Society - and culture - have matured along with me. A big factor in the change, in my opinion, is the ability we have as humans to share ideas easily around the world. Subtle issues with racism, homophobia, and misogyny that were unnoticed by me and others in the 90s are more clear now as we have the ability to step out of our small, local social groups and gain understanding from people of all walks of life.

This is an ongoing process, of course, and we are not all as enlightened as we think we are or want to be, but it is a process, and I definitely see the effects as filtered through the lens of a romance reader.

Romance is about relationships, and so is culture, and our culture is reflected thusly.

In the past couple of decades, romance has undergone a significant overhaul. Not only within the strictly defined confines of the genre, but also in some influential books that have come out since. Particularly the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon, the first of which was published in the 1991 and which is still ongoing.

Outlander is, strictly speaking, not romance. But it is heavily influenced by, and influential on the genre. A lot of romance tropes are taken and flipped. Most particularly the experienced female and virginal male leads, very, very explicit sex, (much more so than the much tamer books I have already discussed), and the rape which doesn’t occur between the leads, but which is inflicted on Jamie rather than Claire, by the villain. Clearly, the author was examining these issues in a fresh way.

As a reader, the enjoyment of the novel no longer hinged on the “taking” of the female. The fact that it was well received indicates that there was quite a cultural shift, as she was very forward. Also, the rape was not titillating or in any way exciting. Rather it was portrayed as a tragedy and a crime, and affects Jamie for decades throughout the following books. He suffers poorly-treated PTSD from the event that he struggles with in the background of several more books.

But the problem isn’t entirely gone from society. Outlander gets away with a lot because it isn’t, strictly speaking, a romance.

What is a romance, however, is the extremely popular and influential Fifty Shades series, the first of which came out in 2011.

Now in full disclosure, I only skimmed these, and it was before the movies came out. But it’s clear that the need we have as women to be overpowered sexually is still there. But it’s undergone yet another shift.

Setting aside the issues with the accuracy of BDSM, at its core, this series once again has a virginal female overtaken by an experienced male. The author has clearly tried to bury the consent thing once and for all by having the characters spell out consent on paper. But the need for the male to overpower the female has shifted to kink rather than rape or coercion.

There are a thousand essays on whether or not this was consensual, stalking, abuse, or whatever. I can’t really weigh in on that. But clearly the fact that it could be interpreted that way indicates there are still issues within the genre.

Most of the books I have read recently, mostly published within the last 2-3 years, feature clear consent and confident females. In a lot of ways, we seem to have gotten over this hump. But none of these books have had as wide an audience as 50 Shades. So it seems the need for a coerced female has clearly not gone away entirely.

Looking at my own relationship with consent in romance, I know I am less comfortable and more aware of non-con in books, and more able to point it out when it’s subtle than I was before. My relationship with virginity has changed as well. I am no longer particularly comfortable with an ignorant female.

I do, however, still like to see a strong, aggressive male overpowering a female. Maybe not to the extent in 50 Shades, but I certainly still like to see roughness, size differences, women being picked up and carried (although while laughing rather than screaming) and men who have an economic advantage over the woman.

So how much of this is kink and how much of it is lingering aftereffects of purity culture?

As much as I wish it was the former, I have to come to the conclusion that it’s probably the latter.

It makes me angry that I feel unfeminist when I want to read and write about submissive females and billionaire bad boys. That I still sometimes like to see less experienced females with playboy males. I WANT it to be kink, but looking at my own personal growth trajectory in conjunction with the romance genre, I can only conclude that it really is aftereffects of socialization and that in ten more years, I will shudder at the things I find appealing now.

We all grow, and change, and the genre does as well. Sometimes we need to step back and objectively analyze ourselves and our environment in order to facilitate this growth.

So where does this leave the final book pictured, Sinner? (2017)

Well, in this, purity culture, particularly in the evangelical subculture, is front and centre, and clearly highlighted as a factor in the heroine’s virginity.

But whereas in the past, her virginity = ignorance, in this case, she is much more aware of what is going on, and is more or less the aggressor, actively deciding that her virginity is a burden that allows men to control her, that is valued more highly than her actual self. So after developing a relationship with the male lead, she actively sets out to remove it.

The male lead, while still the stereotypical manslut, is totally mindful, to his own disgust, of how “caveman” he feels about taking her virginity, and goes to great lengths to confirm her consent, not only on that occasion, but on subsequent occasions as well.

The book becomes much less about virginity as a kink, and more about a woman’s right to make the decision for herself about when, and importantly, with whom to have sex.

Are all issues erased now, then?

Probably not. As I said, change is ongoing, and there are probably a ton of issues that I’m simply not seeing yet. But I find myself in a place where I can openly read smut, write smut, and write about reading smut, and I can find books where women are able to be free and open with their sexuality, where they take agency and control, and importantly, I ENJOY it.

I wouldn’t have enjoyed it in my younger days, and I suspect this rather run of the mill book would have probably not gone over as well with readers as a group twenty, let alone forty years ago.

***

So since I want to review these a bit too, and I was kind of meaning to anyway, here is a quickie review of all the books mentioned after the giant wall of analysis I just forced on you.

Books Mentioned:

The Flame and the Flower by Kathleen E. Woodiwiss

Haven’t read it yet, but will soon. Not expecting good things, but it was a turning point, so I’m gonna take the bullet for you, dear reader.

The Wolf and the Dove by Kathleen E. Woodiwiss

I am aware of the noncon, and can look at it objectively, and so it doesn’t bother me. I don’t recommend this book if it’s an issue for you. However, if you can ignore it, this is actually a really engaging story. Sex doesn’t actually play a huge part in it, and it’s got some notable historical inaccuracies. But Wulfgar is a likeable hero. Aislinn is like a prototype for Outlander’s Claire, and I just love, love, love the ending. I still fucking love this book, and the troublesome aspects really don’t detract from it for me.

8/10

The Pirate and the Pagan by Virginia Henley

This book and this author has been hugely influential on my own writing. Much more smutty than Lindsay and Woodiwiss, her main passion is history and storytelling rather than romance. She still falls into the rape trap, though, and in this case it bothered me a bit more than in The Wolf and the Dove.

I do like the overall plot of the book, however. Along with her other book, Seduced, which was an inspiration for my fic Only a Look and a Voice, I have jury rigged it into a fanfic. I won’t tell you which one, though.

I kind of only want to give this a 6/10. Summer, the female lead, is a bit too objectified for me to be comfortable with any longer.

Man of my Dreams by Johanna Lindsay

This had a good start, but the sex was miniscule, and as I said above, squeamishly non-consensual. I don’t recommend this book at all.

However, kudos for the ridiculous Fabio cover, which I couldn’t help but include when I took a picture for this essay.

4/10

Remembrance by Jude Devereaux

This book has both a virginal and a non-virginal female lead, and has almost no sex in it. I’ve read it a few times, and it’s a favourite, but it’s been quite a while since I last picked it up.

The basic concept is that the pair are reincarnated throughout history. A large chunk of the book is set a very long time ago, when their romance did not turn out well, and they cursed each other on death, a curse that reverberates through their future incarnations.

This book is angsty, and tragic. It’s really weird, really unique, and a really good read.

Unfortunately, the ending - although happy - is very flat and rushed, almost as though the author suddenly decided at the last moment to stop writing and wrap it up. This was a similar issue I had with the other book I reviewed by her, A Knight in Shining Armour.

That being said, it’s still really good.

8/10

Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon

Smut wise, she hit it out of the park in the first book. Seriously, so, so good. But throughout the series, it sort of becomes rote, like marriage often is, and the sex no longer is noteworthy.

Also, past the third book, romance is much less of a factor, and I feel like she’s gotten into the trap many contemporary authors fall into of endlessly writing a series that no longer tells a story but rather just keeps continuing a world that’s been built.

Luckily, I really enjoy the world she’s built.

If you have the stomach for tough scenes and a two foot high stack of words, have at it. 9/10, recommend. If you’re lazy, there’s a TV series, which was very well done by the same guy who produced the successful reboot of Battlestar Galactica, which I will slip in here as one of my other all time favourite shows.

Fifty Shades Of Grey by EL James

I had a hard time reading this and it was a long time ago, so I can’t really recommend it. If you’re into reading things because you want to see what the fuss is about or to make some kind of contextual analysis, have at it. Otherwise, I wouldn’t bother. I’m not going to assign a number to this since I don’t remember it well enough.

Sinner by Aubrey Irons

This review was why I started typing all this nonsense in the first place.

The story is about a preacher’s daughter and a bad boy dive bar owner. His dad’s a preacher too, although much more chill than her dad.

They have an immediate attraction, and over the course of the book, they gradually fall for each other.

The plot… is kind of thin. I mean it’s there, but it’s almost an excuse for the slow burn/build-up of smut that is the real heart of this novel. It’s well done smut, I fucking loved it. But this book is light on story.

That being said, 8/10 for a fun, shamelessly smutty book, that pretended to be serious.

***

If you got this far, I really appreciate any feedback or opinions you may want to share on this topic. I’m shutting off anon for the next day or so, however, as it never seems to go well when I express too much of an opinion on this site.

Thanks for reading.

#romance novels #tess reviews #tess recommends #historical romance #contemporary romance #romance discussion #i would really like to see reblogs and responses from other romance readers!

19 notes · View notes

crazy-exy-cool · 7 years

Photo

Day 4

Mel Karnofsky

Before I begin I want to say that Niles and Daphne are the greatest Rom Com romance in history. Suck a dick Ross and Rachel your borderline emotional abuses bores me to tears. Niles and Daphne are perfect. once they get together they love each other so much its truly gross and that’s what I want from my on screen romances not a constant battle. Which brings us to Mel…..Ahh Mel. If you don’t remember Mel, she is the second wife of everyone’s favorite TV brother, Niles Crane. Niles married Mel a few days before Daphne was set to marry Donnie after giving up on the love of his life. A few days later Daphne left Donnie at the alter and ran off with Niles leaving Mel devastated. Mel is best known for making the divorce a complete nightmare for Niles forcing him to pretend to have the perfect marriage with her and dragging it on and on until he snaps.

Now before I begin let me preface this with the obvious. Mel is a completely unlikable character. she’s mean, passive aggressive and snooty. You know who else was a completely unlikable character for the first few seasons?......Niles Crane! Mel is a mirror character of Niles. She possesses the same unlikable characteristics mixed with her own narcissism. Due to misogyny these traits look much worse on Mel than on Niles who we can view as almost charming. Mel is probably who Niles should have stayed with. Mel didn’t deserve to get caught up in Niles and Daphne. She may be unlikable but she didn't deserve what she got. Niles should have never married her. You should never marry anyone when you are in love with someone else, even if they are about to get married to Donnie.

The show creators weren't completer misogynist assholes when they made the post Daphne/ Niles hook up story line, Both Donnie and Mel participate in a great deal of crazy ex behavior. But where Donnie comes off as humorous, Mel comes off as evil. I personally think attempting to finically ruin someone with a lawsuit is far worse than keeping up a facade of a happy marriage for a few months, but hey, women are terrible, especially when they make men do things they don’t want to do, like spend time with them.

Mel’s post break up requests actually show how much alike she and Niles are. She is obsessed with her social status and how Seattle’s elite see her. She is upset that her husband left her so quickly. But she is more upset that this will cause a scandal for her socially, especially since she was left for, wait for it, the help. It's gross that Mel sees Daphne as below her. But really her ego is so wounded at this point I will give her a pass. And who wouldn't be nasty if yesterday you were married and today your new husband has united with the true love of his life.

Mel may not be able to save her marriage, but she can save her reputation. And so she makes Niles agree to pretend to be the perfect new husband she thought she had, until they can divorce quietly and without scandal. At first this seems perfectly fair and so Niles agrees to it. After all he feels bad about how he treated Mel. But then Mel starts to demand that Niles damage his own reputation during the course of their fake relationship in front of Seattle’s elite. This is cruel of Mel, but in context it’s not so bad. If the truth were to come out, Mel would be more embarrassed than Niles. Despite the fact that she has no control of her husband and did not know of his love for Daphne at the time of their marriage, Niles bad choice to marry her and then subsequently leave her once his true love became available would only damage Mel’s reputation. A patriarchal society would see her as lacking something. Why else would her husband leave with the help? They would not blame Niles for the betrayal. So maybe Mel just wanted to see Niles be embarrassed.

Untimely she gets her wish as she drags Niles on and on through her charade until he snaps and embarrasses himself by yelling at her in public. This leave Mel’s reputation unharmed as it looks that Niles has been treating her horribly throughout their marriage. In reality, he had, he was seeing another woman the entire time, true love or not.

Mel is not a good person. But I appreciate her. I appreciate her commitment to herself. She is cruel in many ways, but she was treated equally cruelly and I know that sometimes when we hurt, we are not the kindest people. Sometimes when we hurt we go out of our way to hurt others. Mel may have been one of Frasier’s most notorious villains, but I think we should forgive her and ultimately forgive a part of ourselves

#nia frazier #frazier #frasier #mel #crazy ex #mel crane #frasier crane #women history #break up #ex #crazy

3 notes · View notes

therealdragonnerdagain · 7 years

Text

I hate these ignorant white kids in my class.

One white kid accused Langston Hughes poetry of being "self-pitying." Yeah. Because being sad about economic and social oppression is "self-pitying" and we black folks should just get the fuck over it, right????

Another white classmate ranted about how American culture is "superior" to Chinese culture because Americans actually value female babies.

Just . . . lol.

White Americans have so much pride in their racist, sexist regime of white superiority. Sitting in class, I felt any minute, someone was going to don a KKK hood and just go on a killing spree against us inferior brown people.

American culture is not "superior" to Chinese culture just because we don't frown on a baby girl when she's born. Once that baby girl hits puberty (and even before then), every man she encounters will pose a threat to her.

Men will publicly grope her, cat call, and follow her home.

Maybe she'll get molested, either through an "innocent" hug from her horny pastor or a fondling from her camp counselor.

Society will tell her she's ugly, and rather than embrace her own natural beauty, she will spend the rest of her life being pitted against other women and stabbing them in the back in petty, bitchy games due to the mass of insecurities she has accumulated from a culture that treats women like sex dolls.

If she gets raped by a man, somehow, it'll be her own fault, because men are horny monsters who can't help themselves, right? She shouldn't have had that beer! And how dare she dance with him!

If she wants to have an abortion, she will be shamed on all accounts with zero empathy or compassion from anyone. She will be shamed for "murder" because a fetus is more important than her own fucking life. She will be shamed for letting herself get raped. She will be shamed for not having used protection. She will be shamed for having sex in the first place.

If a woman wants an abortion, gets pregnant, has sex, she will be shamed. Shamed for bearing the burden of a body that makes babies and not allowed to have any fucking control over it. Because the military needs more poor women to keep popping out kids. Where did you think all those soldiers came from?

If she's beautiful, men will treat her like she only exists for sex.

If she's beautiful, other women will hate and resent her.

If she's VERY beautiful, she will be alone and never have friends. And people will always be too intimidated to approach her for anything more than sex.

Contraceptives won't be made readily available to her if she is poor and of color. Neither will sex education.

Again, if she is poor and of color, she will constantly be sexualized BEFORE she even hits puberty. Everywhere she goes, she will be viewed as sexual, sexually active, fast, horny, and a "slut."

Again, if she is a woman of color, going to any sort of award ceremony will mean being publicly humiliated by a white man, often in a sexual way.

If the woman is overweight, she is shamed and deemed ugly. She might become an asshole and be mean to thin women. Or she might self-harm to cope.

Women with periods will be mocked for their monthly pain and their suffering will be written off because it's not a problem that directly affects men. Women with periods will never have access to tampons in public restrooms or any of the things they need to be clean and comfortable at a moment's notice. Women with periods will have to listening to sexist jokes about pms and men who compare their suffering and discomfort to having a runny nose. Women with periods will miss school. Women with periods will miss life. Women with periods will be ridiculed and shamed for a normal bodily function.

Black women have to self-harm with painful chemicals and combs (yes, combs HURT nappy hair) to straighten their hair and assimilate into white culture just to get a job and survive. But it's okay for white people to wear the hairstyles women of color have been denied!!!! It looks better on white women anyway, right?????

Women will never be taken seriously in their professional lives, especially if the profession is dominated by men (see game developer misogyny).

By the time a woman is thirty, she is jaded by the dating scene, and men will go look for twenty-somethings to ruin, while bitching about jaded older women -- women that THEY made jaded with their headgames that all revolved around the goal to lie, pretended, and scheme to get sex.

Women in America will get on the internet every single day to a plethora of badly spelled death and rape threats.

No one cares when a woman is brutalized, raped, or murdered -- unless, of course, they're a white woman. Only white women can be innocent. Only white women's' lives matter.

Yeah. American culture is so "superior" and treats women so much better than the Chinese!!! //sarcasm

And what's absolutely crazy? It was a WHITE WOMAN in my class who said this. Maybe she's just a fucking idiot.

It is very dangerous to continue under the delusion that you and your people are somehow "superior" to others.

No. No, American culture is not superior to ANY other culture. No. Not even the fucking middle east. Every culture on earth is messed up in some way -- except those peaceful egalitarian brown people that white people came along and destroyed. They were cool.

#black lives matter #tel'abelas #kiss my ass #leave me alone

7 notes · View notes

bitchyfeminist · 7 years

Text

50 Questions For Feminists Answered

youtube

1. I actually provide sources often. It's usually when I am referring to statistics, as I've shown in previous posts I've made.

2. I do not protest men's issues conferences. I fight for equality between men and women, and men are oppressed in different ways than women, but they ARE oppressed.

3. I don't complain about "manspreading" and scientists wearing shirts (what kind of shirts are they wearing??). I do fight for the rights of women in other countries that are far more oppressed than in my own country.

4. I complain about men spreading their legs too far apart on public transportation only when it is far too much. I live with men, I know how big penises are, and I know how much they need to spread. When it's completely unecessary, I then complain. I've never seen a woman take up multiple seats with their purses or shopping bags, but if I needed that seat, I would politely ask them to move their bags to have the seat.

5. I do have respect for the presumption of innocence. BUT, I'm assuming that you're speaking of this about rape. As a survivor of rape, this is actually a personal subject for me, so I could be emotionally compromised about this question, so I don't think I can go further on this question without being biased. But I do try to respect the presumption of innocence as much as I can.

6. I don't think my feelings should take precedent over facts. I think evidence in a rape case (since the article behind this question is about sexual assault) is the most important thing. But, again, as a survivor of rape, I think I am potentially emotionally compromised by this question.

7. I have never heard of the term "neckbeards".

8. Okay, so I'm someone who has recovered from anorexia too, so this is gonna be a fun question to answer. This is a common misconception. You can be medically overweight and still healthy. There's a difference between being medically overweight and being morbidly obese.

9. Again, I've never heard of the term "neckbeard", but I can say that I've had to complain about having to shave. My father and brothers shave their face and complain, and always get annoyed when I complain. BUT. I shave everything. I am expected to be hairless everywhere. I shave my armpits, my legs, my vagina, and my big toe. Yep, my big toe. And a female friend of mine shaves her face. And another female friend of mine shaves her arms.

10. I don't approve of slut-shaming of any kind with any genders.

11. I don't approve with calling a woman a slut or calling a man a "fuckboy".

12. Actually, I'm known as the funny one in my family. Well, my whole family is pretty funny, actually. When having a debate, though, I try and keep it as professional as possible (I don't want people to think I'm condesending or sarcastic in any way).

13. I don't think I'm the only person who is offended by anything. People who send me hate are much more offended by things than me.

14. My feelings are not more important than the feelings of others.

15. With so many people being insecure about their bodies due to pressure from the media to be a specific body type, people need validation. Or they could just be the type of person that feels that they need it to get through the day without being pressured to be a certain body type. Personally, I don't think this is a question for a feminist.

16. I don't misinterpret compliments as insults. When someone compliments me, I say "thanks" and usually return a compliment.

17. I don't assume everything a man does has to do with a woman.

18. I don't assume that everything is is a gendered issue. Men get interrupted and told not to use profanity. But I have been told not to use profanity because it isn't "lady-like" and my ideas in student council back in high school have been repeated by a man and were taken better when the man said it as opposed to when I said it.

19. I don't revel in "male tears". I think that society oppresses men by teaching them not to show their emotions, and I would love for men to feel comfortable with showing their emotions.

20. I do not assume that everything a man does has some kind of sexual motivation behind it.

21. I did not know that, actually. Honestly, I'll probably fact-check it because all those percentages add up to 104% (which 100% is complete), but it makes sense.

22. I'm not a victim. I'm a survivor. I'm strong in the sense that I've survived rape, sexual assault, abuse, and mental illness. I'm independent because I refuse to rely on anyone else besides myself (a lesson my mother taught me).

23. I welcome debates. (But I hate when people misuse the word 'triggered').

24. I actually am afraid to walk to my car at night. And I was raped by a friend of mine. But my mother was raped walking alone at night twice by strangers as a teenager. I will do what I can to prevent it.

25. I have never heard of these statistics. It actually brings me back to my post of men and women being treated equally. Also, we teach men to rape. We teach them that it is okay with the "punishments" we give.

26. My hair is naturally red. I was born that way.

27. I've actually reevaluated my position on feminism a hundred times over since joining tumblr with this blog. But I'm standing strong with what I believe in because if I give up, what would stop anyone else from giving up?

28. I've honestly never complained about realistic depictions of women in movies and video games. I mostly complain about the photoshopped images in magazines.

29. When I fail, it is because of my own failures. There may be obstacles in my way, but if I want to succeed, I will overcome them.

30. I get interrupted by women all the time. I have a mother and a sister and we love to talk to each other. We talk all day and we’re bound to interrupt each other. I’m even interrupted by men and I know it’s not just because I’m a woman. But there have been times where I know I’ve been interrupted because I’m a woman. Because I know the men who do it and I know who they are as people.

31. Violence against men is not a joke. Women can be abusive.

32. Little girls are discouraged from taking jobs like that. I wanted to be a race car driver when I was little, and I was told by a teacher that I couldn’t do that and had to pick a different job. I wished she had encouraged me. Aside from that, hiring discrimination does exist (I know someone who hires and said that he would not hire a woman if a man with the same qualifications was up for the job and my father agreed) and takes its part to weed out the few women to apply. And I’m a proud sister of a female forensic scientist.

33. I don’t demand fire departments and military to lower their standards for women. While it is biologically impossible for women at their full physical potential to reach a man at their full physical potential, I think women should still be able to reach to a certain potential. I don’t know the standards for fire departments or the military, but I assume women are capable of reaching those standards because there are women in the military and fire departments.

34. I’ve heard of one instance where a rape accusation ruined a man’s life. He was also black, and I think that contributed to it. But when the POTUS admits to sexually assaulting women and they just say it’s “locker room talk”, which normalizes rape and sexual assault, and is rape culture.

35. They did not say that rape culture doesn’t exist. They said that “[r]ape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions (…) to commit a violent crime.” And it is a conscious decision. Our culture just says that they won’t be punished severely for it.

36. I believe when a woman claims to have been raped because “Only about 2% of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false“ (source). Often, women don’t go to the hospital to get a rape kit done, instead waiting out of fear of their attacker targeting them. It took me years to be open about my own rape because I was terrified that no one would believe me. I do take evidence into account when deciding to believe women, but I’ve only known one woman to lie about their rape.

37. I’ve never heard that definition of rape being used before. I’ve only ever heard of the standard definition of rape.

38. No, because I’ve never made sexist comments about men. Because I’m a feminist. Equality between two genders.

39. Domestic violence can be committed by women. I was in an abusive relationship with a woman for 10 years, and both my mother and father have been arrested for domestic violence. ��It is not one-sided and women can be perpetrators.

40. I’ve never heard the idea of porn normalizing rape and making men more likely to rape. So…I don’t agree with the statement.

41. I didn’t major in gender studies. My sister is a forensic scientist and I’m a teacher.

42. The one thing I’ve learned from being open on tumblr as a feminist is that you don’t have to identify as a feminist to believe in feminism.

43. I don’t dismiss all women who criticize modern feminists as having “internalized misogyny”. Now, I do have a cousin who actually thinks that men are better than women and believes that women are servants to men. That’s misogyny.

44. As stated before, I don’t believe that female critics of the feminist movement have “internalized misogyny”.

45. I don’t think feminism is a dirty word.

46. I don’t assume that when a man doesn’t like me it’s because he’s “intimidated by me”. I’m very sensitive in real life and I’m not tough at all (except for the fact that I lift weights). When a guy doesn’t like me, I figure I did something to piss him off. Not that it’s a huge concern of mine.

47. I’ve never actually wanted to ban men from anywhere. I didn’t even think that women wanted to take away things like that and now I’m beginning to understand why men are afraid of their privileges being taken away.

48. Sexism against men does exist.

49. There’s a difference between women being sexist and being empowered.

50. I wouldn’t say that women have institutional advances. In child custody, yes, in selective service, yes, when it comes to healthcare, my gender has been classified as a pre-existing condition (before the ACA). Before the ACA, I would have been charged more for health insurance because I’m a woman. When it comes to social safety nets, I have been threatened to be raped, murdered, and someone once told me they were going to “fuck [my] face”. Sentencing for crimes, yes. Being a victim of domestic abuse, yes. When a woman rapes a man, it isn’t taken as seriously. But when a man rapes a woman and gets her pregnant – if she chooses to have that baby – he can sue her for visitation rights.

There are some privileges that women have.

There are more privileges that men have.

Cut out the privilege and make all equal.

Okay, so I was sent this by @shadowgamingytbe and I was going to message them back and answer it, but I figured I’d post it on here in case anyone had any questions for me about it or even wanted to have a debate (no hate, just debate). I’ve been told by my brother that I am the “1% feminist” in that most of my views aren’t the same as what he calls “99% feminists” i.e. modern feminists.

#feminist #feminism #bitchyfeminist #50 questions for feminists #50 questions for feminists answered #feminist questions #feminist answers

0 notes

gyrlversion · 5 years

Text

Journalist reveals chilling account of meeting honour killing family

Lene Wold watched in silent horror as the woman in front of her removed her niqab, the scarf covering her face.

Underneath, the features were destroyed by deep, livid scars, stretching over her nose and cheek and slicing through her eye.

The skin was red and mottled, and parts of her chin were gone.

Her name was Amina.

‘Who did this to you?’ asked Lene, an author and journalist.

‘Baba,’ came the reply. ‘My father.’

Amina, who was 16 when she was attacked, was lucky to survive. Her elder sister, tied up beside her, had already been shot dead when their father turned to his younger daughter, pointed a pistol directly in her face and pulled the trigger. He was obsessed with family pride.

In the middle of the Jordanian desert, Lene Wold met Amina, a 40-year-old woman who had years before survived an attempted honour killing by her father that had killed her sister

Every year, more than 5,000 women and girls around the world are murdered in so-called honour killings and thousands more are mutilated. Most common in South Asia and in the Middle East, there are an estimated 12 to 15 honour killings every year in Britain, too – and around the world the number has grown as increasing numbers of women take a stand against repression.

The supposedly immoral behaviour of the victims consists of anything from adultery and homosexuality, to dating someone from another culture, or merely daring to wear Western clothing. And the punishments meted out are savage: stoning, burning, drowning, being forced to drink poison or, as in Amina’s case, shooting.

To most Western audiences, however, honour killings remain shrouded in mystery. What really drives the perpetrators – who are mostly close relatives – to murder their own flesh and blood?

How could anyone place their family’s reputation above the lives of the mothers, wives and daughters they purport to love?

Today, a compelling new book provides some of the answers by uncovering, step by step, the explosive details of the crime that destroyed Amina’s family – an insight into the medieval codes of shame and repression that still govern the lives of millions of women.

Inside An Honour Killing tells how Amina became a victim of her parents’ barbarity for nothing more than telling the truth.

It describes how, although innocent of any wrongdoing, the Jordanian authorities then jailed her for 13 years for her own protection, before finally releasing her to live out the ruins of her life alone.

And, remarkably, it includes testimony from her father as he attempts to justify his actions – a man who murdered his mother and eldest daughter, before turning the gun on Amina.

All in the name of ‘honour’.

Writer Lene Wold travelled to Jordan to research honour killings, which although they have been declared contrary to sharia law still occur across the same

Simply to find Amina took huge bravery from Lene Wold, a Norwegian-born writer who spent more than five years in Jordan investigating honour killings. Jordan is a deeply conservative country – and Lene is gay. It is also a dangerous place to be female.

Jordan is said to have one of the best human rights records in the Middle East, yet 20 women are murdered every year for reasons related to family honour.

To reach Amina, Lene travelled for hours into the desert accompanied by a man she’d never met before. Her mobile phone was taken from her, and she was made to wear a blindfold.

Fearful for her life, she had texted her sister back home in Norway before the journey began, asking her to raise the alarm if she hadn’t heard from her by the following morning.

Her destination was a tent in a desolate spot surrounded by mountains – and inside was Amina, a woman who had been a teenager when her parents tried to kill her. Now she was 40.

‘Sit down,’ she said to Lene. ‘Where do I begin?’

In agreeing to tell her story to a stranger, Amina herself was taking a terrible risk.

Every year, more than 5,000 women and girls around the world are murdered in so-called honour killings and thousands more are mutilated

Fearful that she will be identified, she will spend the rest of her life knowing that the violence started by her father could return with a still more terrible conclusion.

So the trust she placed in Lene was all the more remarkable.

Amina explained she had grown up with her elder sister Aisha and their younger brother Akram in a little house on the outskirts of Amman, the Jordanian capital. Life had seemed unremarkable. Although their mother Noora was traditional, insisting her girls wore hijabs, their father, Baba, made a show of embracing Western values.

But everything changed the summer Amina turned 16 and her family threw a party. Among those who attended was a family friend called Maram, a married woman. In the following months, Amina noticed that her big sister was behaving strangely, becoming secretive and spending increasing amounts of time with Maram. Aisha even invited her friend to join their family on holiday to Aqaba on the Red Sea. And it was there, as Amina lay in bed one night, that she heard her sister and Maram whispering their love for one another.

Amina was horrified, knowing instantly that her sister was putting herself in grave danger. Homosexuality is forbidden under sharia law.

Amina was tortured about what she had heard and, the following day, she told her mother, believing it would help Aisha. It was a disastrous mistake.

Rather than the concern she had expected, Amina saw hatred in her mother’s eyes. Noora screamed at Aisha, spat on her and swore that if she ever saw Maram again, no court in the country would hold her responsible for what she would do to her daughter.

Amina had found out that her sister was gay, which is forbidden under Sharia Law

Both sisters were terrified, and with good reason. Amina already knew what was possible in Jordan. Her father had told her how he had killed his own mother when he was a young boy of just 11.

Baba’s mother had left her family because her husband was violent, yet Baba’s friends turned on him and his brother for this supposed shame. They blamed the men in the family for failing to control their mother. ‘Your mother is a whore,’ they had shouted at him. ‘Your father is a pathetic man.’

So, goaded by his father and brother, Baba strangled his mother with a steel wire. As a result, after months of being shunned, the family was allowed to become part of society again.

Baba had told Amina that he couldn’t forgive himself for what he’d done, but that he’d had no choice because of the dishonour his mother had brought.

Then he left his small village in southern Jordan, telling himself he didn’t want his own children to experience the same violence.

Yet the pattern of bloodshed would soon be repeated.

Already living in fear, Aisha and Amina found their situation grew still worse when the authorities decided to intervene.

Because she was suffering terrible panic attacks, Amina went to hospital with her elder sister and there, grasping the seriousness of the danger they were in, a doctor called the police. For her own protection, Aisha was put in prison. Governors in Jordan have the legal right to hold a woman in ‘administrative custody’ if her release might lead to a criminal act taking place, such as one of her family members killing her.

The consequences would prove devastating. Aisha’s absence led to rumours that she was involved in immoral behaviour. The family was ostracised by neighbours and Baba’s memories of childhood humiliation came flooding back.

Jordan has taken steps towards ending the practice of honour killings. A fatwa was issued in December 2016 that declared, for the first time, that such murders are contrary to sharia law

Their father signed a document stating that he forgave and would protect her, and Aisha was released. In fact, both parents were planning an attack of inconceivable brutality: on Aisha for her relationship with Maram, and on Amina for ‘conspiring’ with her.

Just days after Aisha’s return, the sisters were dragged into the living room and tied to chairs while Baba wielded a kitchen knife.

The sisters held hands as Amina was hit on the head and blacked out, but she came round to see Baba approaching her with the knife. He pushed it into her chest, causing indescribable pain.

Then Baba pointed a pistol at Amina’s face and fired. He had already killed Aisha, but somehow, miraculously, Amina survived.

Police arrived and Baba was arrested. Yet because he had killed his daughter in the name of honour, under the Jordanian penal code he received a reduced sentence.

Amina, meanwhile, was locked up for 13 years in a prison in Amman – far longer than her father – for her own protection. She will spend the rest of her life in hiding.

Lene’s next move was equally courageous. Distressed yet gripped by Amina’s story, she spent the next year tracking down the man responsible – Rahman Abd Al-Nasir, Baba’s real name.

The two first met in a cafe in Amman, but it required a great deal of persuasion – and subterfuge – to get him to open up.

At this stage, it was impossible for Lene to reveal she had met Amina or that she knew what Baba had done.

Instead, she led him to believe that she wanted to interview a respected man who was well-known for his vast life experience. In due course, Baba threatened Lene, too, openly displaying both his terrible violence and misogyny.

During one of their meetings, for example, Baba said he would cut off Lene’s hands if he discovered she was in a relationship with another woman. But thankfully, she had already claimed to have a husband and children back home in Norway. When Lene asked him why he would say such a thing, he replied: ‘Because you would bring shame on the family. Because you would deserve to die, or at the very least to lose your hands.’

It took two years and countless meetings to discover the full truth. Although nothing he said could ever begin to justify his actions, Lene persuaded him to describe a traumatic incident he witnessed as a child.

At just ten years old, he had watched as a little girl, a friend of his, was stoned to death for being the victim of a rape. This disturbing experience had clearly affected every decision since.

He told her that honour is the cornerstone of Jordanian society. Honour killings are not sanctioned by Islam – they are about culture, not religion, he admitted. Women, he continued, have ‘ird’ – propriety. Men have ‘sharaf’ – honour. If a woman loses her propriety, that is gone for ever, whereas a man’s honour can always be restored.

At the end of one of their meetings, Lene finally confronted Baba with the truth – she had met Amina, the daughter he had disfigured and disgraced.

At first, he denied having any daughters. He said Lene had the wrong person and he stormed off angrily.

Then, that night, as she lay in bed, she heard him knock on the door of her hotel room.

‘He’s going to kill me, I think, feeling for the hotel phone on the nightstand with shaking hands,’ she wrote.

‘The confession I’ve been looking for all these years might be moments away, but how much am I willing to risk?’

With security by her side, she met him in the lobby and they sat down to talk.

But when Baba told her what he remembered from the day he attacked his daughters, he was without remorse.

He explained that his wife had said to him repeatedly: ‘What kind of man are you? Your son is going to grow up in disgrace. Your daughters are mocking you. You have to do something.’

He couldn’t see any alternative, he said. If he didn’t act, the community would shun the entire family. He was broken by the situation. He couldn’t fail his son as he’d been failed by his own father.

He kept repeating the same words: ‘I am a victim.’

Since Lene’s investigation, Jordan has taken steps towards ending the practice of honour killings. A fatwa was issued in December 2016 that declared, for the first time, that such murders are contrary to sharia law. Then, in July 2017, the Jordanian parliament voted to remove the mitigating excuse offered to murderers who kill in the name of family honour.

Inside An Honour Killing, by Lene Wold, is published by Greystone Books on May 2, priced £19.99. Offer price £15.99 (20 per cent discount, with free p&p) until April 21. Pre-order at mailshop.co.uk/books or call 0844 571 0640. Spend £30 on books and get FREE premium delivery.

The post Journalist reveals chilling account of meeting honour killing family appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress https://www.gyrlversion.net/journalist-reveals-chilling-account-of-meeting-honour-killing-family/

#Entertainment News

0 notes

heyitscj4-blog · 6 years

Text

Homosexuality And Black Communities.

Sexuality is very complicated in the Black community of America. Hell, you could say sexuality is complicated in every community of America. But that would be ignoring the nuances of each community, never mind the fact that this essay focuses entirely on the American Black Community. The older generations tend to push for more modesty, and are not as open with their sexuality as other generations. The younger generations are by contrast a lot more open about their exploits, are more open to casual sex, and are generally in favor of further sexual freedom. However, these educated generalizations were based on the norms of heterosexuality, rather than all forms of sexuality. Before we go into that, I’d like to go into how sex plays a part in our community.

Sex is pushed very differently between Black man and Black women. Sex for Black men is taught to be seen as three things: Something that is a man’s birthright, something to be proud of, and the only true goal of a relationship with another woman, with very few exceptions. Sex is pushed as a necessity and a way to gain power by our community, and that did not start with the most recent generations. This has been a part of of Black society since we were still enslaved, and even before then, before we ever were taken from Africa. Of course, it got worse during Slavery, as the Masters could use the hatred we had for our own women to weaken our will and spirit, along with creating a patriarchal system within the existing system for tighter control over their slaves. Nowadays, sex is still used in the exact same way, minus the enslavement; sex is not pushed as a bond between two or so partners, as it should be, but rather something like a kill count. Congratulations, you did such and such number of women, yay. But little to no thought is given upon whether the women got her fair share. Something is wrong when only one partner gets off and completely leaves the other to stew, paying no mind as to whether they got off, or even enjoyed the experience. The target is simply the prestige for the amount of things you’ve stuck your penis into. As for women, they are chastised for having an active love life, often berated for doing the same thing in which the men in our community are praised for doing. The same goes for trust and loyalty. Black women are taught by our society to be tough, mentally and emotionally strong, ride-or-die types of individuals while also being feminine in society’s eyes, meaning that they shouldn’t be assertive, physically strong, too dark, too tall, too short, too skinny, too fat, too large, etc., and most importantly, they must be willing to mother Black men. The last point is extremely important. We teach our women that not only must they give themselves up sexually, whenever the men want them to, but they must also raise grown men to be better human beings. What type of fresh hell have we given our women that we shove them into a system which treats them as sexually objects first, mothers and teachers to all ages second, and people far last? Why must they give all they have to men who only take, and expect even more? Sex is taught as something women owe to men regardless of the woman’s wants or needs. Sex is taught as something used to subjugate women, to put them in their place. Sex isn’t taught as what sex actually is, and it’s sickening. And it only gets worse when you realize that pedophilia and general abuse to children and teens in our community is backed by this system. Little Black girls are taught by their mothers and sometimes their fathers to stay away from certain family members or neighbors, for fear that they’ll touch them. If they do get that chance, that is. If the child is abused or assaulted, and dares to tell their family, the pedophile is the one protected, with phrases like “He’s just a little friendly,” or “He’s just playin’ with you.” If they dare push further, they’re the ones ostracized, not the pedophile or the child abuser. Oh, and don’t forget: sometimes that pedophile could be in your immediate family. You have no defense then. The far majority have no way to protect themselves against a pedophilic mother or father, and will often be beaten bloody if they resist in any way, especially if it’s a girl. In most cases, it’s your own father that’ll beat you blind and rape you, and then get away with it, being treated by your own family like nothing even happened. They’ll blame your bruises on your rough playing, say you got in a fight, fell down, etc. And the rapist, child abuser, or pedophile will get away, smiling, talking to you like they didn’t just violate your entire existence.

Sex isn’t taught as any true bond between partners, nor are sexual relationships taught as an intimate bond either. It’s taught as a hierarchy which weakens one side tremendously and gives the other all the power, which is a problem that easily defines the nuance of the relationship between Black men and Black women. Where would should share, men take. Where we should work together, men use women as a tool for their own success. Where we should unite, Black men attack Black women for being something more than the caricatures we’ve forced upon them. As such, when we expand our focus on the entirety of the sexual spectrum of the Black community, it only gets more complicated. It’s found to be true that queer Black people are more open and less hateful to each-other and other marginalized groups, however the hate for Black women can still be found in some Black queer men. As for the view that the Black community has on queer Black people, well… That’s a whole other beast entirely.

The community has held a truly negative view on Black queerfolk in general, though varying in intensity depending on location and culture. As with most things, Urban educated folk tend to hold a kinder view to queerfolk, while rural and less educated folk tend to be more aggressive in their hate. That’s not to say that urban folk are generally accepting in any way. If anything, the best generalization is that Black urban folk TOLERATE Black queerfolk, rather than treat them like any other Black person. In the hood and the projects, treatment of queerfolk and things thought of as gay gets to levels similar to rural areas, mostly because rural Black folk had moved into those locations generations ago, and are now known to be “Urban.” The treatment of queerfolk differs between different types of course, but we will focus on the big four for now: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. In Black society, to be Gay is to be seen as feminine, and to be seen as feminine when you are a man is a definite negative. You will be treated as a monster at best, something to be feared, or a plague at worst, something to destroy. Due to the rampant misogyny and sexism within Black communities, doing, saying, liking, or being anything that could be considered feminine puts you on the Suspect List. The Suspect List basically consists of people whom the community thinks may be queer and therefore must be put on close watch. Anything from wearing traditionally-women’s deodorant to eating a popsicle can put you on the List. Got caught shopping for women’s hygiene for a friend, family member, or girlfriend? Suspect. Walking through a lady’s department store for some gifts for your lady friends? Suspect. Walking in a way that doesn’t emphasize toughness? Suspect. Wearing a scarf? Suspect. The sensitivity of the Suspect List depends on the area, from region to region, and from city to city, but the system’s generally the same. The existence of this list stems from a hatred of anything feminine, and since being Gay is seen as feminine, Black men run through loops just to run away from being mistaken as such. It’s seen as a stain on your character, a downgrade, giving up your manhood simply because you like other men, and therefore, men who would be open to such a path form an internalized hatred towards themselves and other queer men, called Internalized Homophobia. They fear what they are because society has prohibited that life, unless they want to run the risk of losing their status, their prestige, and even ties to their family. It’s a disgusting cycle, but it is what it is. As such, hating queer men has been made popular, not recently, but by past generations, and it continues to be adopted by new ones. Since there is an incentive to hate others, prestige, status, more influence and friends, Black boys and men happily spit on, jostle, beat, insult, and abuse their fellow Black boys and men. The strongest hatred usually comes from those who know that they’d be Gay if society didn’t hate them, a symptom of Internalized Homophobia, in order to hide or somehow get rid of their “Gay Urges.” Of course, it never works, which only frustrates them more, which ruins their mental state, allowing them to cause worse harm on their own people. The plight of Black Lesbians mirrors the plight that all Black women have with the exception that it has a certain bit of flair than the Black Heterosexual would have. See, Black Lesbians are, in the best general cases, seen as sexual objects for men rather than as what they are: Human Beings. For whatever reason, Black men, and men in general, may I add, have gotten it in their minds that two women having sex is attractive to them, and therefore they seek to harass these women with demands to have sex with them or spectate, regardless of the fact that their namesake means that they do not have any sexual interest in men. And just as with other women, when Lesbians refuse their advances, the men harass them further, either with continued advances or verbal and physical insults and attacks, calling the women “Dykes,” following them, etc. The worst cases are public humiliation, assault, and murder, as always, due to the fact that they are already not seen as people, and are rather seen as a plague in the community that needs to be wiped out. Black Transfolk have it even worse, due to the fact that they virtually have no best case scenario. They are scorned across the community, just like any other Trans group, with the added dangers of Racism and whatnot. As such, you can usually get away with public assaults, both physically and verbally, on their character, ostracization of said Transgender people, and disownment and abandonment of said folks by their own families. They are probably the most threatened of all Queerfolk due to all the combined dangers of Racism, Sexism, Misogyny, Hypermasculinity, Ignorance, and Strict Christianity, along with the fact that they are often given no spotlight for their issues unless they fight for it. Black Transfolks are unique in their struggle specifically because their way of life and their lives as a whole fly against the way of thought the Black Patriarchal System has built and popularized over the centuries. Straight, Cisgendered, Black Men find the action of switching genders, specifically male to female, to be an attack against manhood and masculinity, two things that our community glorifies. Of course, they couldn’t be any more wrong; Transfolks just want to live happily and peacefully, but because they are accepting Femininity in the eyes of the men, because they are not afraid of being publicly and privately free from the chains of hypermasculinity, Black men seek to instill that fear. It’s kind of like the Crab Bucket Effect: If I’m chained by fear, I’m not gonna let you free yourself, rather than follow suit. Because of their preexisting fear, and the refusal to perhaps think about society’s perception of Transfolks as opposed to what they saw with their own eyes, Black men attack and kill Black Transfolk without remorse. What’s worse is that some of the men who kill and harass these people were emotionally and sexually connected with their victims, only switching up after they found out that they were Trans. What that tells us is that relationships mean nothing against the hate for Transfolk unless education about gender in general comes with it. It also means that relationships will not save you. Black Bisexuals have the problem that pretty much all Bisexuals do: they are lumped in with either Gays or Lesbians depending on whether they’re a woman or a man, on top of the fact that many Gay and Lesbian folks believe and proclaim that Bisexuality is more of a stop between becoming “Full Gay” or “Full Lesbian,” rather than an actual sexuality. So on top of all that, Black Bisexuals still have to deal with the harassment given to Gays and Lesbians in our community respectively, continuous misinformation, and a general lack of inclusiveness within the Black LGBT community.

Generations.

There have been LGBT+ folks since forever, before the labels were even thought of, and therefore there should’ve been push-back since the beginning, right? Wrong, we weren’t always so close-minded. It was popular to have many lovers of both sexes in many places, the most famous probably being Greece. Africa had the same openness towards homosexuality, though it would be somewhat more private, never quite as public, no flags of course. But Christianity and Islam twisted that openness and closed it tight, popularizing the hatred into violence and legal doctrine, leading to the development of hatred in our societies worldwide, and leading to the situation we have here today. Of course, the younger generations have been a lot more open to education and therefore openness towards Queerness in general has risen steadily. However, due to how we treat age, and how we build our hierarchy around age, our leaders are the older generations who refuse to be educated, and therefore we are slow to approach our brothers and sisters in harmony rather than hatred. As such, we must, as the newer generations, work to fight against the false information and years of abuse we have given our own people.

12/4/18

#politics

0 notes

gossipgirl2019-blog · 6 years

Text

You Don't Need to Stand By Your Man

New Post has been published on http://gr8gossip.xyz/you-dont-need-to-stand-by-your-man/

You Don't Need to Stand By Your Man

This month, after CBS President Les Moonves was ousted from the network following extensive reporting that revealed his history of alleged sexual harassment, abuse and misuse of power, his wife took a stand. Julie Chen, a long-time news anchor and T.V. presenter on CBS, best known for The Talk and Big Brother, closed out the latest episode of the latter series with the goodbye of, ‘I’m Julie Chen Moonves’. She had never previously referred to herself as such, and given the timing of the sudden declaration of her relationship status, it was tough not to read into the message being sent. At a time when her husband faced immensely serious accusations, Chen did not need to say more on her stance on the matter than the newly public double-barrelled version of her surname. There’s no stronger way to take a side on the issue without having to actually comment on it than by taking his name. Chen later repeated this callout on the following week’s episode, just in case there were those who questioned her loyalties. Trade publications and Big Brother gossip sites are now referring to her as ‘Julie Chen Moonves’. She will remain with the show until 2019 but has stepped down from The Talk.

What surprised me most about this moment, other than the startling callousness of it, was how so many people responded to it with positivity. Sure, they weren’t pro-Les Moonves or anything, but they sure did admire how Julie Chen was taking a stand for her man. She was doing the good wifely duty and sticking by her husband through thick and thin. Not only was she remaining by his side but she was letting the world know through her job at the network who let her husband go in the first place. Wasn’t that admirable? You had to respect how she kept a graceful demeanour throughout, not letting anyone know of her inevitable pain. Good on her, right?

I hate this mentality. I really do.

This bafflingly archaic mindset reminded me of the recent death of Mac Miller and how so much of the media and internet could only process this tragic loss of life through the lens of blaming a woman. Miller’s ex, singer Ariana Grande, had broken up with him earlier in the year and quickly found herself engaged to SNL comedian Pete Davidson. She had already dealt with criticism that she’d ‘moved on too fast’ and sent Miller to a dark place when news broke of a car crash and DUI he’d been charged with shortly after the split. Grande rightly pointed out that it wasn’t her or any woman’s job to be a minder for their spouse, much less one dealing with the scourge of addiction. Yet that didn’t stop the same cries of condemnation she faced upon news of Miller’s death from a suspected overdose. It was all her fault, the crowds said, a narrative pushed by professional woman haters TMZ, whose report on Miller’s death insinuated a direct connection between Miller’s death and Grande leaving him. She exacerbated his addiction by leaving him and moving on too quickly. If she’d stood by her man, none of this would have happened.

These are two obviously different circumstances but similar mindsets remain in place for each stance. The ideal as pushed by sexism remains in place – stand by your man – but the differences highlight how it’s an expectation that can never truly be achieved.

Patriarchy consistently moves the goalposts for what is and is not acceptable behaviour for women, particularly in relation to the misdeeds of men. Ultimately, we are still ridiculously fetishistic of that hallowed image of the obedient wife. She doesn’t have to be pregnant and barefoot anymore but ideally she is silent, an implicit accessory or shield to misogyny. It’s all okay as long as his wife sticks by him, because how can he be sexist when he’s married? Women’s own pain or struggles, especially when dealing with partners who are going through tough times or have committed terrible deeds, are always secondary in this context. Preferably, they shouldn’t complain at all. As Hannah Gadsby noted in Nanette, we prize men’s reputations over women’s lives time and time again.

In this impossible war, women are the root of all problems whether to stand by their men or not. If they leave their husbands or partners, for example, because they’ve been accused of sexual misconduct then they’re jumping the gun to respond too quickly or betraying their partner’s trust or are too selfish to ride out the storm. If they do stay, they’re complicit in his crimes and have betrayed all women everywhere. Women who leave addicts are blamed for driving them to ruin but are also the enablers of the problem at hand. Any time a famous man struggles for any reason, it won’t take you long to find people blaming his wife or girlfriend. She doesn’t need to do or say anything to be the source of the world’s ills. After all, it’s her job to suffer.

We see this narrative frequently with the spouses of famous men but the same mentality applies to everyone else: There is a deified assumption that the wives, girlfriends or partners of ‘geniuses’ must stand by him through thick and thin because that is merely the price one pays for such majesty. Geniuses, at least white male ones given that label, are expected to be ‘dark’ on some level, be it through struggles with addiction, mental illness, stress, anxiety, or just being a good old-fashioned douchebag. The ways such things are treated as beautiful side-effects of talent is its own horrid issue, but what is especially insidious is how the ‘stand by your man’ mentality forced upon women in these relationships makes them pseudo-mothers and carers. Suddenly, it’s their job to keep troubled men on the straight and narrow, but don’t do too much because then you’re just enabling the problem and driving them to their graves.

We do not talk enough about the emotional labour that primarily weighs heavily upon the shoulders of women. These expectations demand toxic versions of loyalty, security and support from those of us who cannot ever live up to these lofty fantasies, especially as they pertain to men. They want women to have nothing for themselves, nor do they want women to live for themselves: We are all seen as substitute mothers, nothing more.

I have the utmost respect for women who love, live with and support their spouses during times of mental health issues, addictions and medical stress. It is an oft-unspoken kind of work that does not get its due, and one that deserves more financial and emotional backing than it gets. However, we cannot expect this of all women, and even less so when the wives, partners and girlfriends of abusive men choose to get out. We cannot romanticise that dynamic, especially when our society offers nothing in the way of real structural support for those dealing with the grind. Besides, there’s a huge difference between supporting men with troubles and being the public cheerleader for an accused sexual predator. Julie Chen Moonves is not brave, and for the record, if your partner is accused of preying on young women for sex, you’re free to get the fuck out of there.

Kayleigh is a features writer for Pajiba. You can follow her on Twitter.

← Review: Netflix’s ‘American Vandal’ Season 2 Is Less Funny, But More Compelling

5 Shows After Dark: ‘FBI’ Premiere CBS, ‘New Amsterdam’ Premiere NBC →

Header Image Source: Getty Images.

0 notes