#yes it is acknowledged that men have privilege in society and have caused a lot of women pain

[inkedmyths]

Thanks Tumblr for recommending the most braindead hateful terf post to me. I now have 100 more people blocked

[saetoru]

I'm white and I agree with you. I'm tired of how my people act too.

Same goes for hating men, men have done atrocious things to women and other men for that matter and me saying I hate men won't change anything, won't hurt the men. Moreover I get attacked by men and misogynistic women cause "it's not all men "

Whatever, your suffering is valid and I say complain more, be more hateful just to spite them

yes this is a good example. i think the men example is the easiest one to use for white women specifically bc it’s something they can relate to so it helps them understand the view better but—think of it as saying “i hate men.” most women say that, and it’s a pretty normal thing to say. you’re not sexist for saying i hate men bc u might be attracted to them, and if ur attracted to men u obviously don’t hate hate them. but u hate the way they’ve framed society and left u at a disadvantage. u hate the way they’ve continuously made ur life difficult thru a system that can’t be broken over night. u hate that u feel unsafe in a lot of situations where u should not feel unsafe for simply existing as who u are. that is the essence of being a poc too an extent but obviously there’s more to it. when poc ppl say that “we hate white ppl” or “white ppl suck” they’re not actually saying that white ppl are trash beings that are undeserving of anything good. we obviously don’t think u don’t deserve to be treated as a human bc we know what that’s like. it’s simply something that ppl say from frustration after centuries of being oppressed and fighting a system that keeps white people at an advantage. if you cannot empathize with poc and their struggles enough to acknowledge that okay, maybe they can say white ppl suck here and there, then i’m sorry but ur very out of touch with the realities we face and the privilege you have. obviously not all men are awful and some of them treat women very well. and likewise, not all white people are racist and some genuinely care about poc and their issues. the generalized statements about men and white ppl are targeted more towards the impact they’ve had on the respective groups they’ve harmed rather than you as a person, so you rly don’t have to be so hurt and jump at poc when they say things like that bc i guarantee u that being called a mayo packet is wayyyy better than the nasty slurs poc have been hearing for ages. it just rly shows how educated and empathetic u are to poc and their struggles by ur reaction alone to “white ppl suck” and i implore you to rly look more into the difference between your life as a white person and that of a poc

[eulangelo]

Aight, I’ve got a few points I wanna make and give to you (and other people who hate transandrophobia bs):

1. People have forgotten the very useful term ‘conditional privilege’, which would clear up so much of the black and white thinking when it comes to talking about different forms of systemic oppression. Damn near ALL of us have some sort of conditional privilege, whether we want to admit it or not. This is specifically helpful when talking about social issues between different minority groups because it acknowledges both, the oppression and the privileges we have, while giving room for there to be nuance.

2. Men who are also minorities in other ways (being trans or non-white or not straight for example), will still have access to certain privileges that the women who they share these communities with will not have access to because of misogyny. The ‘conditional’ part only comes into play when it comes to those men challenging white cisheteronormative ways of thinking which will make them targets of bigotry. Since so many transmascs like to bring race into this conversation, here’s an example: while black men are definitely targets of rampant anti-black racism, they still hold privilege over black women and often are the first ones to spread misogyny within their own community, which in turn causes even more harm to black women (especially black trans women) since they already didn’t have access to same privileges given to white people and men.

3. That kid who responded to you claiming that you need to ‘listen to trans men of color’ while linking literally only 5 other transandrophobia truthers of color while I’ve seen hundreds of trans men/transmascs of color talk about how much they HATE the term gives me the same vibes when white kids try to tokenize their friends of color to prove a silly ass point 😂 And yes, they’re black but going back to my previous point: just because someone is a part of a certain community does not make them the spokesperson of that community. Being black and transmasc simply means you’re a person who has the lived experiences of being in both of those communities, not that you get to call the shots on what’s acceptable or not in either of them. Especially, if you’re only trying to use your identity to ‘prove someone wrong’ and not actually have legitimate sources or reasons behind the existence of this term.

4. My last point (I promise 😉): transandrophobia truthers want the privileges of being men while still being able to claim the victimhood of being women and it very much has it’s roots in the white victimhood mentality that they often can’t shed, even after they’ve come out and/or started to transition. This may sound mean or harsh but honestly, a lot of the white/white passing trans men and transmascs who push this term so hard still have white womanhood to fall back on. They’re still used to their voice being the one that’s taken seriously, even by cis men. That is a specific kind of privilege afforded only to white women (or those perceived as such 👀). They want the treatment that they see cis men get for being men, yet still want access into women’s spaces (particularly those where trans women are uplifted) so they can speak over women without being called out on their blatant misogyny.

Like, this is something I can attest to personally: whenever I hung out with white trans men irl, I could not feel safe around them because of the egregious amount of racism and misogyny they carried with them. They would always find a way to blame women either for not accepting their aggressive performances of cishet masculinity or for the way feminine men are treated by cishet society when they still got called out on their misogyny while they did the ‘uwu soft boy’ aesthetic.

I genuinely think the only reason so many transandrophobia truthers exist is because they want to gain a ‘monopoly’ on oppression while never taking any accountability for their own bigotry, specifically towards trans women/transfems. And to be even more honest: I don’t think trans men/transmascs have such hyper specific issues that really call for a term all their own. This is just my opinion but every single issue they have tried to bring up as ‘unique’ to trans men/transmascs…is literally something we share with other trans people or TME people. Reproductive rights and proper prenatal care (literally sharing it with cis women and nonbinary folks who aren’t transmasc). Assault based on our genitalia (literally can happen to anyone, even trans women). 😐😐😐 like…c’mon now…

yeah i p much agree with everything, and ive seen the op of that post saying that transandrophobia is the intersection of the transphobia+misogyny that trans men face (quoting word for word). to me that whole movement is literally just rebranded radical feminism with trans men being the focus instead of cis women. they will gladly play the victim whenever called out and absolutely refuse to own up to their wrongoings in a way that's typical of white cis feminism, where they believe they can do no wrong and that whoever calls them out is a predator/aggressor that wants their death or physical harm. similarly to them they revolve their activism on genitals and biological sex, saying "transandrophobia is the oppression against trans people who menstruate" or bringing up the reproductive health issue to back up why we need a term to talk about these transmasc-only issues (despite completely ignoring afab nonbinaries who arent men or masc-aligned). they will also pretend to be progressive and supportive of any and all identities yet they have no issues when misgendering a trans person they disagree with (not only has this happened to me, there's witches-of-color and visibility-of-color who were the victims of an actual harassment campaign perpetrated by transandrophobia truthers and they were repeatedly misgendered and had their gender identity invalidated multiple times by them) because deep down i think they know they don't really give a shit about making activism for transmascs, they just want to center any and all discussion of trans issue over them to discredit transfems and to not be held accountable for their tme privilege at all. it is a highly dangerous mindset and it should only be publicly condemned.

[tg-headcanons]

Touka Was Done So Dirty So I Must Analyze It

I have a lot to say about how poorly Tokyo Ghoul turned out. There was so much wasted potential, so much meaningless angst, so many straight relationships crammed where they didn’t need to be, and so many sudden, anticlimactic plot points. But of all of the mishandling and poor choices, I think that Touka’s treatment is the worst.

Touka was a complex and interesting character. She was raised by loving parents, one of whom died early, the other lived a little longer while doing everything he could to impart lessons to keep her and her brother alive. When he died she was suddenly forced to become her brother’s guardian and rush out into a world that is so much less forgiving than her father was. They got taken in by her uncle and his friends, housed and fed, and she even got the opportunity to pursue an education which is a monumental luxury to ghouls. Despite resenting humans for the way her family was massacred and she is forced to live, she became close to a human, looking past her trauma for a friendship she cherishes. Her brother reacted badly to the idea of her being around such a dangerous person who could have them killed like their parents were, and ran off to join Aogiri, leaving her and her uncle as the last remnants of their family.

Touka is angry, and id say rightfully so. Her parents murder, being forced to grow up far too fast, being forced to live in this war she was drafted into at birth, any one thing would be enough to fuck someone up. She has all that going on, so understandable, she’s going to be pissed at the world. If it ended there it would be perfect, a great starting point for a character to delve deep into the concepts of society shaping identity, but then the worst happened

Touka is an archetype I like to call ”Angry Teen Girl”

Before we talk about the archetype, let’s talk about teen girls in real life, specifically how they’re treated by society. The teen girl in the public eye is simultaneously the epitome of beauty who is seductive and manipulative and lustful, as well as airheaded and shallow and naive and pure. The way that changes has to do with the convenience of the adult male onlooker. She’s A tactical mastermind when she doesn’t want to fuck you and she’s an airhead when she has opinions. She’s a prude when she doesn’t respond to advances and a whore when she wears a t-shirt. Most importantly, she’s a silly stupid baby when she demands independence and respect, and a grown woman who should know better when she acts her age

Teen girls don’t have the same understanding that boys their age do. When a teen boy messes up its “oh he’s 15 he’s still learning.” When a teen girl messes up its “shes 15 shes practically an adult she should know better by now.” Because adult men have decided the teen girl is desirable, she’s forced to grow up faster to save them the shame of acknowledging that she is a literal child. And after being treated like stupid children and sexy mature adults, teen girls are rightfully angry. This is so universal, so all encompassing, that almost every teen girl has this undercurrent of anger and grief at how they’d been socialized. Because of that, it too is brushed off as “stupid teen girls and their silly little feelings.”

This is where the Angry Teen Girl trope comes in. There is so much history behind women’s treatment, so many valid reasons for a teenage girl to be pissed, but this character is almost always played off as a joke. Either a joke or something to fix.

Back to Touka, let’s run through this again, this time through her eyes. Her family was perfect until it was taken violently away, she had to become violent against her dead fathers wishes to protect her little brother, that little brother who she was forced to sacrifice her bloodless life for left her for having a single friend, she lived her whole life knowing that no matter who she is or what she does the world hates her and she’s going to be murdered by the state. She has to deal with all of this, and then she meets Kaneki, who tells her to her face that he’s better than her because he was human, not realizing that not eating people is a privilege from birth that she never had. Touka is angry, and Touka is a child. A traumatized child who isn’t in the right for her violent reaction, but isn’t an adult with a peaceful world who knows better

Now if people just hated her for that then fine, but there is a huge overlap of the people who hate Touka for her aggressive personality, and people who love ayato. For every “she’s a bitch who’s so mean and super violent and shouldn’t be killing investigators when she doesn’t need to and deserves getting hurt” there’s a “he’s a sweet boy who’s trying his best and he killed all those people because he’s traumatized.” More and more, it’s clear that the same sympathy given to ayato, the much more violent and aggressive sibling, is not given to his sister. Right off the bat, she’s easy for many to dismiss because the misogynistic tropes that made her are fully reinforced

She is established as a complex person who simultaneously resents humanity for how ghouls are treated and doesn’t want them dead. She’s aggressive to her loved ones as a way to protect them and kills investigators so they don’t have the chance to threaten them. She’s angry because of how she spent her whole life just barely avoiding death at the hands of a genocidal government, she’s angry that she has to live this way, she’s even angry that she had to become violent at all and couldn’t live the peaceful life she could have had

But because she is an Angry Teen Girl, nothing matters except “But She’s such a bitch”

Now Touka at this point is still a great character, but things go south fast. The focus shifts from the world and complex relationships to Kaneki. Out of nowhere, Touka is pining after him. Out of nowhere, she has feelings for him. It was more convenient to just Insert Romance instead of developing them. Even if it stopped here Touka would still be a great character, but it didn’t.

After she fled anteiku, her character died. Not only was she completely cast aside during Ken’s Plot Convenience And Honestly Lazy Amnesia arc, but everything behind her character was stripped to its bare bones

You see, the Angry Teen Girl is only a teen for so long, and she can become one of two things: Hysterical sad evil woman or Calm Momwife. It’s a problem a lot of male authors have of only seeing a woman’s anger as a character flaw. In order to keep her as a hero, her anger needs to be “fixed,” and even that isn’t done well.

Suddenly, her drive is gone. Her love of Yoriko is completely abandoned, as is her reason to care for average humans. Her ambitions of collage and success are cast aside. Her complicated feeling towards her brother become “oh I get it it’s all cool I love him and just want him safe no hard feelings haha.” By the time we see her in Re:, she is no longer Touka. She is just the Momwife personality she got crammed into because Ishida just couldn’t think of a use for this previously complex character than “Wife And Mom.”

I’m not saying that she should have stayed angry and aggressive, but she should have stayed consistent, she should have changed over time and for coherent reasons. Such pivotal parts of her character are unceremoniously thrown out, we don’t even get a good explanation for why she turned out that way. Yes, she could rebuild her family with her brother, but it should have been built up to. Yes, she could leave Yoriko behind, but it should have any reason for it at all. Hell, I’m a die hard Hidekane fan, but I’d say she could have had a great romance with Kaneki if it didn’t come out of nowhere

She was “calmed” by having her dreams stripped from her after losing anteiku. She was given her “happy ending” by getting knocked up from desperate and uncomfortable pity sex. She was a girl who wanted to go to collage and protect her loved ones, she had queer undertones of being in love with her human fried, she had reasonable aggression as a self defense mechanism. Any one of these things could spring into an arc of their own.

But all that was thrown out in favor of being the most convenient straight love interest for Kaneki, though her personality was so incompatible with him that it had to be stripped bare to even pretend it works

If she had been given the same treatment as her brother and had her anger treated as a byproduct of the way she’s forced to survive rather than a self caused character flaw, she could have been perfect. If she’d been kept in the focus and not shoved aside for so much of Re:, she would have been good. If any part of her character at all stayed in tact, she would have been fine. But instead she’s reduced to either a Bitchy Child or Momwife. She was so interesting, and I wish her character didn’t get gutted for the sake of her male family and rushed love interest

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

Pro-variation vs. pro-selection culture

Evolution requires three things: some form of information that’s inheritable, some way to create variation from that information, and some way to select what information will be passed on to future generations. In biological evolution, of, course, we all know what these three things are: genes (information) can mutate (variation) -- well, it’s more complicated than just mutation, but this isn’t a biology lesson -- and those that are worse at surviving and reproducing themselves are of course naturally weeded out through cause and effect (selection). But other things -- art, culture, language, science, technology -- evolve as well, and they all need the same three things.

When it comes to variation and selection in things like culture and politics, there’s a sliding scale of which one people think is most important -- whether they’re more pro-variation, or pro-selection.

People on the pro-variation end of the spectrum tend to view diversity as a positive thing and selection as something that will take care of itself, or even something to be actively suspicious of because of its tendency to cause harm -- a rainbow queer community, an education system available to people of all cultures and economic backgrounds, country borders that are as open as practical, and embracing a diverse array of art make a community stronger, and things like gatekeeping, means testing and heirarchies on ‘what counts as art’ should be abandoned unless there’s a really good reason for the selective process to exist, in which case it’s grudgingly tolerated. To pro-variation people, exclusion and oppression within a community are threatening. Pro-variation people recognise that yes, you’re going to get some freeloading drains on resources and obvious money laundering schemes masquerading as terrible art and a few people pretending to be gay for a few years to look more interesting to their straight friends, and this is largely a non-issue, a perfectly acceptable price to pay for a diverse and fair world.

People on the pro-selection end of the scale tend to view selection as the main means of advancing or healing a society, and see diversity as something that will take care of itself and as something to be deeply suspicious of. Gatekeeping, unequal opportunities and financial heirarchies are needed to sort the what from the chaff and make sure everyone does their best (”capitalism breeds innovation”); initiatives to redress inequality and give minorities or poor people an ‘unfair’ advantage or make it easier for outsiders to enter the country should be abandoned unless there’s a really good reason for their existence, as they’re dragging down the ‘deserving’ and polluting the culture. To pro-selection people, contamination or invasion from outsiders is threatening. Pro-selection people recognise that yes, you’re going to lose some talented geniuses in sweatshops and stop some deserving people from achieving success and bully some LGBT people out of the community to face abuse and oppression alone, but this is largely a non-issue, a perfectly acceptable price to pay for an advanced and fair world.

“Oh, Derin, you’re just talking about left-wing vs. right-wing philosophies.” Sort of, but not really. It fits the stereotypes and common arguments to a T, but one can’t assume that all righties are pro-selection or all lefties are pro-variation. I have met pro-variation righties, although I’m not really sure how. And there are leftie TERFs out there, despite TERFism being an undeniably pro-selection philosophy. I find determining where people sit on the variation-to-selection scale to be a lot more useful for communication than left-to-right.

I say this because often I’ll see pro-selection and pro-variation people talking to each other, and notice that they’re having fundamentally different conversations. For example, let’s look at the issue of meritocracy. Most modern people would say that meritocracy is a good thing, but ’meritocracy’ means a fundamentally different thing to pro-selectionists than pro-variationists.

A pro-selectionist, when conceiving of meritocracy, tends to think in terms of, well, selection; devising a system where the strongest (those that excel in whatever the thinker thinks is important; innovation or determination or whatever) rise to the top and gain special privileges and power over others, that they can use to determine the rules and make life better for themselves and their children, elevating society as a side effect. To the pro-variationist, this is absolutely not a meritocracy. “You’ve built a system whereby those who don’t start out with more, those who are born poor or disabled or underprivileged in some way, have to work way harder and be lucky in order to get anywhere than those born lucky. People don’t get ahead on merit in this system because the playing field becomes drastically uneven after a couple of generations. This is not a meritocracy.”

A pro-variationist, on the other hand, would concentrate on making sure that everyone has a fair chance at exercising their skills and getting ahead. They’d focus on making sure that people had the space and security to exercise their skills and that, when it came to supporting the society to make that happen, those with more contributed more. To a pro-selectionist, this is absurd. “So those who have pulled ahead and succeeded are being penalised by having to give more? That’s the opposite of a meritocracy! That’s a system designed to drag the best down!”

I find this framework useful in explaining a lot of weird political quirks of certain subcultures. TERFs and tradwives, for example, are theoretically political opposites, but in practice their logic sounds almost identical to outsiders, sounding rather a lot like standard right-wing talking points and Fascism Lite. This is because they’re all using pro-selection arguments. To a pro-selectionist, the arguments of these groups look very different -- “we’re saying that X kind of people are good/virtuous/victims, and Y kind of people are bad/oppressors/sinners, which is the exact opposite of what the other group is saying!” To a pro-variationist, the fact that they are making literally the same argument makes them identical -- “you’re still putting people in your little ‘keep or cull’ boxes for exactly the same reasons, you just wrote different names on the boxes to keep or cull according to your personal taste.”

I think a lot of the things associated with right-wingers could be more accurately associated with people on the pro-selection end of the spectrum in general. It’s known, for example, that right-wingers tend to have a more sensitive disgust reflex and, as a consequence, be generally more xenophobic. You can see this in the way xenophobes talk of making room for outsiders; they talk of invasion, contamination, infection, hygeine, purity. LGBT exclusionists, lefties and righties, talk in the same sort of language. So do antis.

It’s also notable in the sorts of innocuous-seeming things that such people get really angry about. Right-wingers and authoritarians are known for their trend of an almost comical hatred of modern art. The idea that anything can be art, or that art can be measured on any level that isn’t strict complexity and realism of paint and sculpture, causes a surprising level of dislike in such groups. (See also arguments like ‘what is a video game’, ‘does this even count as a game’, althoughpeople thankfully seem to be bored of that now). Exclusionists are equally renowned for campaigns against inclusive terms like ‘queer’, and TERFs get obsessively nitpicky about people’s genitals to a really creepy degree and get very uncomfortable when you mention the ‘grey area’ in biological sex. This is normally assumed to be just dislike at people challenging their arguments, but I think it’s deeper. I think it’s like the modern art thing. Any kind of radical inclusivity is threatening to pro-selection thinkers, not because it’s a challenge to their rules and definitions -- they can have those arguments perfectly comfortably -- but because it is an attack on the very concept of meaning. “Words mean things! Groups exist! You can’t just... just get rid of groups and open up categories to include more people without putting them through a serious, rigorous proving ground first! You can’t just call anything you want to ‘art’, you can’t just call anyone outside cisheteronormative expectations part of the LGBT community, you can’t just call people men or women based on how they feel! That’s chaos! How can any progress be made if we just decide words don’t mean anything??”

(I also think this is a much-overlooked aspect of the same-sex marriage debate. Yes, most of that was garden-variety homophobia, but I’ve known a lot of people who were perfectly fine with ‘the gays having equal rights’, they just didn’t want it called marriage. To a pro-variationist, having the same legal language for partnerships regardless of the sex or gender of the participants is really important -- it’s a shield against future discrimination as the laws relating to either marriages or civil partnerships change over time. To a pro-selectionist, changing the definition of words related to fundamental cultural activities is a huge deal. “They’re eroding the very meaning of marriage! Chaos! How much more will the word change? Can people marry animals or cars next?!”)

As I said, this is a spectrum. I’ve met very few people who are on either extreme end -- even the most pro-equality liberal anarchist acknowledges that some standards of behaviour, community responses to inappropriate action and definitions of different communities do have to exist, to protect people, and the most hardocre fascist admits that there needs to be some measure of generating diversity to avoid stagnation and extinction. And people’s default reaction isn’t necessarily their position on all issues -- somebody who’s generally pro-variation might feel specifically threatened by immigration and think a strict proving ground for immigrants is necessary, or someone who is generally pro-selectionist might think that a robust social system is necessary because one’s economic status at birth has no bearing on one’s merit or value. But I’ve always found it to be a very useful general model.

[revolutionary-demosthenes]

4th of July: John Laurens and Slavery, and why we shouldn’t idolize him

I’ve written several drafts of posts trying to explain John Laurens’s complicated relationship with slavery and, in a broader sense, how the hypocrisy of freedom for our country--while denying the freedom of enslaved people--has led directly to the situation we find ourselves in now, in terms of race in America.

I’ve struggled with even going there, because I’m trying to focus on the present now, not the past. But I firmly believe that America can only fix its present once we’ve faced our past. And I want this information on my blog. John Laurens was not a perfect man, not even close. He was an abolitionist, yes. But how he came to these views is complicated and his personal conduct towards African-Americans is often troubling. Too often, in fact, the racist ideas of his era are visible in his writings.

There’s lots out there about not glorifying or idolizing historical figures, such as Thomas Jefferson, Washington, and other slave-owners.

This is becoming particularly clear today, with the truth of violent systemic racism in America finally becoming more fully recognized. When people watch videos of a black man begging for his life under the knee of a policeman, that brutality becomes undeniable.

But John Laurens is often exempt from this “historical disclaimer” of sorts. In the world of the Hamilton fandom and even more broadly in history, he becomes The Abolitionist, a White Savior figure who abhorred slavery and fought for racial justice, no exceptions, no fine print.

But there is a fine print for John Laurens. And it is a vital one to examine, because it shows us the importance of carrying our beliefs into our personal lives, not just our political ones.

First, let’s acknowledge the circumstances John was born into.

South Carolina, where he was born in 1754, was a southern colony, and as such relied mainly on agriculture in its economy. The rich plantation owners were the pinnacle of society. Washington’s family is an example of one such rich and powerful plantation owning family. The wealth and standing in society of these men led to positions in the government. And a man who illustrates this perfectly is none other than Henry Laurens.

Henry Laurens, John Laurens’s father, was, despite his pleading to the contrary, a significant slave owner and slave trader. Though in his private life he claimed to dislike slavery, he co-owned the largest slave-trading house in North America, Austin & Laurens. It doesn’t matter what he thought, or claimed to think. What matters is what he did.

Henry Laurens owned between close to three hundred slaves. His attitude toward the treatment of his own slaves was dehumanizing, self-righteous, and willfully ignorant. He chose to look upon himself as a “good” slave owner, rather than actually face the horrors he was perpetrating. He wrote in a letter that he’d rather treat his slaves “with Humanity” and make “less Rice” than “submit to the Charge of one who should make twice as much rice & exercise any degree of Cruelty towards those poor Creatures who look up to their Master as their Father, their Guardian, & Protector.” What Henry is trying to say here (to my reading) is that he’d rather his plantation produce less of a crop and not work his slaves too hard than treat his slaves cruelly to produce more profit.

Henry Laurens, in an attitude that is all too familiar today,  consistently chose to think of himself as an exception to the problem rather than as part of the problem. He was quick to talk up abolition and condemn cruel treatment of enslaved people. But when it came to his own slaves, he insisted that “my Servants are as happy as Slavery will admit of, none run away, the greatest punishment to a defaulter is to sell him.”

I don’t know how John’s mother, Eleanor Ball Laurens, viewed slavery, but she also came from a large slave-owning family. Even if she personally didn’t approve of the practice wholeheartedly, she benefitted directly from slavery and married someone in the slave trade.

So this is the life John Laurens was born into. A life of incredible privilege, sourced directly from the the slave trade and the labor of kidnapped and enslaved Africans. This is the first thing that needs acknowledging in terms of John’s relationship with slavery. He was able to accomplish much of what he did because of his social standing and wealth as the son of a very powerful South Carolinian, powerful mostly because of his standing in Southern society.

John was able to get his education in Europe because of slavery. He was able to use his father’s influence to become an aide-de-camp to George Washington. His social standing and quality of life all stood upon the backs of slaves.

Because of this background, John was exposed to the brutal truths of slavery since he could understand the world around him. Is this how he came into his abolitionist views? It absolutely could be. But it is more likely that John first became serious about abolition when he was taken to Europe for his education. He attended a school in Geneva, a cosmopolitan place that was very open to new ideas. Being an abolitionist was not considered as radical there as it was in the Southern Colonies, and there was more writing on the subject of abolition, including a poem by Thomas Day, an abolitionist patriot, whom John was friends with.

So John’s serious thoughts on abolition may have partly been a product of being away from a place where slavery seen as a part of life and being in a place which was more open to abolition. John may have thought slavery wrong for a long time, but lacked adequate support to be vocal about it.

Significantly though, John did not abandon his beliefs when he returned to America. He continued to be a vocal abolitionist, and unlike his father Henry, confronted actual slave owners and tried to convince them to free their slaves… including his boss, General George Washington.

He also converted Lafayette into an ardent abolitionist, and Lafayette, even after Laurens’s death, stuck to these beliefs. He later in life even bought a plantation and ran it with the labor of paid black people, to prove it could be done.

But once we get to the war, we must also talk about Shrewsberry.

John didn’t own slaves, technically. But his father dispatched two of his slaves to serve as John’s valets during the war, one of whom was named Shrewsberry. (Something to note: I am not sure if these slaves were paid or not. I would assume not, and I have yet to find a record of payment, if it did exist. But if anyone knows more about this, I would love to know the answer, as it’s an important question to think about.)

This alone would mar John’s “perfect abolitionist” image, but it gets more disturbing when you consider how John viewed and treated his valets. I should mention we don’t have a ton of evidence of their living conditions, but what we do have is distressing.

On to the primary evidence: if you read the correspondence between John and his father, a funny/not funny pattern is that John is always requesting clothes, fabric, hair powder, etc., from his father. He usually thanked his father for these items. But here is a quote from a letter John wrote to his father on December 15th, 1777: “Berry received a hunting shirt and a check shirt. If there be any difficulty in getting him winter clothes I believe he can do without.” So while John advocated for black Americans in his public life, his private conduct tells differently.

And this is further evidenced when, after Laurens’ death in 1782, Thadeus Kosciuszco wrote to Nathaniel Greene that John’s slaves (his father's technically, as explained above) were “nacked” and that they were in need of “shirts jackets Breeches.” (“nacked” meaning “naked.”)

While John Laurens was certainly more enlightened than the average man of his time on the subject of slavery, he still had trouble connecting his broader ideas of freedom and emancipation to his personal life. He also wrongly blamed Shrewsberry for the loss of a hat, writing to his father, “Shrewsberry says his hat was violently taken from him by some soldiers as he was carrying his horses to water. If James will be so good as to send him his old laced hat by the bearer I hope he will take better care of it.” The blame for this incident obviously lies upon the soldiers who stole Shrewsberry’s hat, but John acts like Shrewsberry was in the wrong, or somehow that having the hat “violently taken” indicated that Shrewsberry was not taking care of the hat. The automatic and unjust condemnation of Shrewsberry again speaks to how John did have the prejudices of his time period in his head, even as he fought against them in a broader sense.

Later in the war, John left Washington in favor of his home state, South Carolina. He wanted to raise a regiment of slaves to fight for the patriot cause, who would then be emancipated for their service. John had written his father about the idea earlier, saying,

“I would bring about a twofold good, first I would advance those who are unjustly deprived of the Rights of Mankind to a State which would be a proper Gradation between abject Slavery and perfect Liberty—and besides I would reinforce the Defenders of Liberty with a number of gallant Soldiers—Men who have the habit of Subordination almost indelibly impress’d on them, would have one very essential qualification of Soldiers—I am persuaded that if I could obtain authority for the purpose I would have a Corps of such men trained, uniformly clad, equip’d and ready in every respect to act at the opening of the next Campaign…”

Reading through this carefully, we can see some ideas expressed here that are important to note. Firstly, “proper Gradation between abject Slavery and perfect Liberty.” This means that though John did want to free the slaves, he did not think that black people should have the “perfect Liberty” that whites enjoyed. Additionally, when John writes, “Men who have the habit of Subordination indelibly impress’d on them” he is suggesting (to my reading) that because slaves were constantly treated as inferior, they would be good soldiers (I assume because soldiers have to obey their commanding officers.) Honestly, this reads to me like John wanting to take advantage of the cruelty slaves endured because “They’re used to it.”

Henry wrote back that what John was offering was hardly better than slavery, again assuming his attittude of “my slaves are happy.”

John wrote a long letter in return, explaining his reasoning and also basically being like, “dad please support me, dad, please.” But there are also some phrases here, in his letter defending his abolitionist views, that are revealing about the prejudices John harbored. 

He writes, “I confess, indeed, that the minds of this unhappy species must be debased by a servitude, from which they can hope for no relief but death, and that every motive to action but fear, must be nearly extinguished in them.”

Note John’s reference to slaves as a “species” rather than a race. (And, by the way, race is a social construct, not an actual biological thing.) The belief that blacks and whites were separate species was common at the time, and often used by slave traders to justify their actions. And this bit of writing shows that even if John didn’t really believe this wholeheartedly, he at least had the idea in his head. However, later in the letter John does use “race” so it’s a little unclear what he actually believed.

And we can see the belief that black people were not as intellectually capable as white people, owing to their enslavement.

Gregory Massey puts it this way: “Young Laurens reasoned that blacks were not innately inferior to whites; rather, their apparent mental deficiencies resulted from generations of enslavement.”

John goes on, “I have had the pleasure of conversing with you, sometimes, upon the means of restoring [the slaves] to their rights. When can it be better done, than when their enfranchisement may be made conducive to the public good, and be modified, as not to overpower their weak minds?”

What sticks out here is, of course, the assertion that the slaves had “weak minds.”

Essentially, John thought that once black people were allowed to live free, “rescued from a state of perpetual humiliation” as he put it in the same letter, their nature would change to more like whites. Black Patriots and Loyalists: Fighting for Emancipation in the War for Independence by Alan Gilbert states, 

“Nonetheless, John Laurens retained a slave-owner’s perspective about the psychology of blacks at the time. In a 1776 letter to his father, he ignored manifold black acts of resistance and their hunger to be free: ‘There may be some inconvenience and even Danger in advancing Men suddenly from a State of Slavery while possessed of the manners and Principals incident to such a State... too suddenly to the Rights of freedman. [T]he example of Rome suffering from Swarms of bad citizens who were freedmen is a warning to us to proceed with caution.’ [...] The son insisted, however, on the principal that slavery is simply wrong, the immoral shackling of another: ‘The necessity for it is an Argument of the complete Mischief occasioned by our continued Usurpation.’”

But the same book also says, “John Laurens was a practical abolitionist. Favored by nature and fortune, he chose no easy path. He could, for instance, have worked for Washington, recruited a company of white soldiers as his father urged, and still have advocated for the “public good.” Instead, he committed himself to the nobler course of fighting determinedly for abolition.”

However, “18th century abolitionist” usually did not mean someone who believed black and white people were equal and should have the same rights. It meant that you wanted to end slavery. The difference between these views often gets blurred for John Laurens. Saying that John Laurens was an abolitionist is accurate, but he probably did not believe that black and white people should have the exact same rights, at least not at first. That needs to be acknowledged. John was an abolitionist, but it is unclear how much equality he really wanted. 

Only paying attention to his anti-slavery professional life also leads to the idea that it is safe to idolize Laurens, rather than critically examine his complex views on race. The idea forms that he is the one white man from the 18th century we can be fully proud of. The one we can say is our beautiful cinnamon roll without having to confront his relationship with slavery. The fact that John Laurens wanted to help enslaved people gain their freedom doesn’t change the ways in which he benefited from white supremacy, nor how he treated his personal servants, nor the racist ideas he expressed in some of his writings.

This does not mean Laurens was evil, or that you can’t like and admire parts of him. By the standards of other revolutionary figures, like the aforementioned Jefferson and Washington (and Madison and Hamilton to an extent*) Laurens was remarkably enlightened. But also, that in itself is terrible. Like, the idea of a “good guy” from the 18th century is still one that believed that black people had “weak minds” owing to their enslavement. 

If we truly want to reckon with the racial sins of America, and how they originated, we need to see figures like Laurens for all they were. Not just the noble abolitionist, but also the inherently privileged white man whose righteous public crusade was enabled by the very system it sought to end, slavery. We also need to see him as the extremely wealthy young man who regarded the command of his servants as part of the natural order of his life.

I didn’t write this solely for history. John’s story is a reminder to all allies that actions based on our beliefs are important to make in our private lives, as well as public. Yes, it’s important to advocate for racial justice in our public and professional lives. But it’s also important to examine and be honest about our own forms of privilege and the ways in which we have internalized the racism of the world around us. All white people in America benefit from slavery and the systems it was built upon, even those whose forebears came to America long after slavery was abolished. I firmly believe that a step forward for racial justice in the US is simply to acknowledge privilege, because we cannot fix a broken system until we realize all the ways in which it is broken. 

[impossiblelibrary]

Today's rant brought to you by: Queer Eye Japan, can we all just try to be as kind as they try to be?

After watching the Queer Eye Japan super short season, I wanted to google to see the overall reaction to the show, make sure that my western eyes were correct in seeing the care that was given to the culture. Were cultural taboos, other than being outwardly gay, crossed? So I find this article in the top results and other than the perspective, why tho? Tokyoesque.com had an article with a higher reading level, with surface level appreciation but at least better written.

I can't get over this hate article though. Unfounded, dumb, wrong and incorrect. Do not go forward unless you like that blistering kind of anger from me.

But the reasons just get weaker as the article extends: "Hurts the country it set out to save?" Looking for white savior much? They did not go to save Japan, they gave some free shit to like 4-5 people, think smaller.

Their culture guide wasn't gay enough.

You want to suggest any lgbt insta models or celebrities, use your platform to raises some up?

"There is a growing sexless culture in Japan for married and unmarried people, and it is perilous watching Queer Eye present this without any context behind what is driving this behavior."

Sexiness is what the fab 5 embrace, unfortunately and it was probably discussed behind the scenes of how much talking about sex was allowed or polite and the conversation of not having sex is closer to the tip of the tongue rather than the feeling of sexiness. The West is not the ones blasting that information. It is across multiple Japanese printed newspapers and online stories by now and the "context" is still being discussed and debated amongst Japanese. So I don't think any outsiders should be weighing in or "explaining" this phenomenon. We can repeat what we have been told but guessing at the reasons is not our place. The reasons illustrated by the author of the article seem lacking, a take but not the only one, but who am I to speak on that being in a sexual relationship with someone who pulls from that culture?

Kiko begins to lecture Yoko-san on how she “threw away her womanhood” (referring to a Japanese idiom, onna wo suteru) by going makeup-free and wearing drab, shapeless clothes.

The mistranslation by the subtitles fixed by this author was necessary information. But Kiko didn't lecture her on it, it was brought up by Yoko before any of them arrived, that was her theme, that was what she had decided to focus on. Meanwhile, if you watched Jonathan, he understood there was no time to spend on makeup and skincare so provided her a one instrument, 3 points of color on the skin to feel prettier. That and the entire episode being the 5 treating her like a woman on a date, not trying to hook her up, which is what they did in American eps.

"In teaching a Japanese woman, who already struggles to find time for herself, how to make an English recipe, Antoni is making great TV and nothing more."

So Antoni shouldn't have taught her apple pie because it's too exotic for a Japanese woman. (Can you smell the sexism?)

He didn't make an apple pie, altho Yoko did mention her mother made that for her when she was a kid. He made an apple tartine after going to a Japanese bakery who makes that all the time. Then highlighted the apples came from Fuji in true Japanese media fashion. Honey, American television doesn't usually highlight where the ingredients come from. A Japanese producer told him to do that. So all worries handled within the same ep. She got Japanese ingredients, had the recipe shown to her and then made it for her friends in her own house. Did the author actually watch this show or nah?

"beaten over the head with his western self-help logic. “You have to live for yourself,” he says."

The style of build up the 5 went for was confrontational but in a "I'm fighting for you" way. It's hard to describe, but the best I can say is, a person has multiple voices in their head, from parents, siblings, society, and maybe themselves. By being loud and obnoxious, American staples right there, they are adding one more voice. You deserve this, you are amazing, you are worth it. I know this is against most Japanese cultural modesty, but maybe it shouldn't be.

Sarcasm lies ahead:

Apparently: mispronunciation is microaggressions, not just someone who had a sucky school system. Yea okay, They're laughing at the language not at how stumbling these monolinguals are with visiting another country. Mmhm. Japanese don't say I love you and don't touch and that should stay that way instead of maybe, once in awhile, feeling like they can hug. Yeah, let's just ignore Yoko's break down that she had never hugged her lifelong friend after hugging strangers multiple times. Maid cafes are never sexualized in Japan ever, just don't go down that one street in Akihabara where the men are led off by the hand sheepishly blushing. Gag me. And Japanese men love to cry in front of their wives and would never break down once the wife leaves. I have never seen a Japanese movie showcase that move. Grr.

"I identify as many cultures."

So you're a Japanese man when it's convenient for you to get an article published? Are you nationally Japanese or just ethnically or culturally?

Homeland is an inherently racist word?

"After the Bush administration created the Department of Homeland Security after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a Republican consultant and speechwriter Peggy Noonan urged, “the name Homeland Security grates on a lot of people, understandably. Homeland isn’t really an American word, it’s not something we used to say or say now.”

Yes, let's use a Washington Post article rather than a etymology professor. Yes, the google search results increased after 2001 Homeland Security was used but the word has been around since the 1660s and I've read multiple turn of the century lit on white people returning to their homeland, i.e. the town off the coast they were born in.

"But" is not disagreeing. I think the repeated offender for the author is the not acknowledging the makeover-ees feelings. But, that is how LGBT have decided to deal with the inner voices that invade from society. They are just that, not our own, they are the influence of society, and we can choose, we have to choose, to be influenced by someone, anyone else.

Karamo can't speak about being black when an Asian is speaking about being Asian, even though the Asian gay man was feeling alone. It's called relating bitches, and I'm done with people saying that is redirecting the conversation, it's extending the conversation. That's how we talk, the spotlight is shared, especially when someone's about to cry and doesn't want to be seen as crying, time to turn the spotlight.

The gay monk wasn't good enough, you should have invited the gay politician.

Yeah, causes I'm sure a politician has all the time in the world for a quick stint and cry. They picked a Japanese monk who travels to NY because they had a guest who travels to the West too. Did you want him to stop traveling back and forth? Did you want a pure, ethnic and cultural Japanese gay man who has no ties to the west to talk to this Western educated young man? Seriously?

This is just not how it works in Japan.

Being in a multi-cultural marriage between two rebels, discussions on facets of culture are plenty in my household. Culture should be respected enough to be considered but not held on a pedestal like we should never adjust or throw some things out. LGBT being quiet and private for instance. "Being seen" was Jonathan's advice, and a good one especially for a Japanese gay man that was called feminine since he was a kid. Some gay men can hide, but as Jonathan said, he couldn't hide what he was, he couldn't hide this. So fuck it. Don't hide. It's actually more dangerous for a feminine man to come off as anxious rather than gay and proud. It makes you more of a target if they think you won't fight back. Proud means, Imma throw hands too, bitch.

This is also from the civil rights playbook going back to Black America: never hold a protest or a fight without the cameras, without being seen. LGBT have found the more seen they are, in media, in the streets, the better off we are. When LGBT Americans were being "private" about our lifestyles, we died, a la 1980s. They won't care if you start dying off if they never saw you to begin with.

And hence why I think the author's real anger is from these 5 being seen dancing flamboyantly in Shibuya, in Harajuku, afforded the privilege of doing this safely because of their tourist status, cameras and very low violence rate in Tokyo, loud and obnoxiously. Honestly, they wouldn't have been invited or nominated if they didn't want that brash American-ness coming into their home, just for a taste, at least.

Here's my real anger, my own jealousy: Japan's queer community currently does not have marriage or adoption rights. US does, so we have progressed further. But we are also not that many years from being tied to cow fences with barbed wire, beaten with baseball bats and left for dead overnight. If things are so bad over there, maybe take a few pages from the civil right playbook we took so much time to perfect and produced by the Black Americans who fought first. But so far, I only hear loss of jobs and marriages, which we still have here too. Stop trying to divide us, we are one community, LGBT around the world and we are here to try to help. Take it or leave it, it's not like we're going to go organize your own Pride parade for you.

Rant over? I guess. Is this important enough to be put in the google results along with his. Hell no, anyone with half a mind can see he's reaching more than half the time. And any argument about: this wasn't covered! There are a shit ton of conversations that are not covered in the 45 min they have. They are not a civil rights show, it's a makeover show, doing their best in that direction anyway. Know what it is.

Next blog post, what research I would guess was happening behind the scenes for each of the 5? I'm pretty sure I saw Jonathan doing Japanese style makeup there...

[transgenderteensurvivalguide]

Why is it that people seem to always support trans women more than trans men?

 Lee says:

If you’re part of an online forum community that is primarily transfeminine, for example, then there’s going to be a lot of resources for transfeminine people.

But if you’re part of an online forum community that is primarily transmasculine, for example, then there’s going to be a lot of resources for transmasculine people. 

And just as there are particular online spaces and communities that tend to be predominated by a certain group, there are also IRL ones that are primarily transmasculine or primarily transfeminine even if they are not explicitly defined as such. 

If you feel like you aren’t being supported enough in the space you’re currently in, see if you can find a community that does focus around the resources you’re looking for! 

As an example- you may have noticed that the transmasculine post-op community on Tumblr is pretty small. There definitely are multiple bloggers out there, and I think I actually follow all of them, but this isn’t really a thriving hub of phalloplasty information or support, or a large community of transmasculine folks who are post-op and post-transition (Thanks, Tumblr NSFW ban!).

So instead, I seek out the spaces where the community I want to be a part of actually is gathering. Now I’m part of many different transmasculine lower surgery groups on Facebook (over 20 of em lol), I’ve attended IRL transmasculine lower surgery support group meetings in person, and now I’m in two different Zoom-based transmasculine bottom surgery support groups. 

I also believe that if you want to see more of a particular thing, you should be a part of putting that thing out there! So I still maintain my transition sideblog here on Tumblr, where I will eventually document my phallo when I get stage 1 in May. And that’s how I support the transmasculine community, in my own way. So if you want to see more supportive posts for transmasculine folks, start typing!

We also have to remember that uplifting transfeminine doesn’t automatically occur at the expense of support for transmasculine people. We aren’t trying to tear each other down, so being resentful of the transfeminine community for the people who support them isn’t a good look. Transfeminine people can never have “too much” support!

I do think that there are certain spaces online that tend to focus on positivity and support for transfeminine folks, and there’s nothing wrong with that- again, yes, transfeminine people do deserve support! Transfeminine people often face the brunt of society’s violent transphobia, and it’s important that we recognize the way that trans women specifically are targeted more than other groups are. 

Trans women are often hypervisible and a lot of transphobic movements are aimed at them as a result; bathroom bills because transphobes don’t want “men” in women’s bathrooms, banning trans athletes because transphobes don’t want “men” to take over women’s teams, trans people being banned from gendered homeless shelters because transphobes don’t want “men” to sleep in the same room as women, and so on. When you listen to any of these politicians who support these gross things, you’ll hear them constantly talk about the “danger” that trans women pose (while insisting on gendering them as “men” and refusing to recognize that they’re even women). Trans men aren’t even an afterthought.

Being culturally hypervisible in the media means you’re the target of a lot of hate and the recipient of a lot of support, which is all happening at the same time. On the other hand, the transmasculine community at large is less visible in the media which means we often slip under the radar as a community which of course does tie into the erasure of the community. Transmasculine people more often slip under the radar on a personal level too, because many transmasculine people are able to pass by at least 5 years on testosterone and many choose to go stealth as soon as they’re able to.

That doesn’t mean that all transmasculine people can pass or want to pass, or that transmasculine people don’t face transphobia and violence either, or that the vitriol targeting trans women doesn’t invalidate us as well or affect our rights too, or that we shouldn’t get to share our experiences or ask for support. 

We can and should talk about transmasculine people’s experiences as well, and transmasculine voices shouldn’t be erased. Studies have shown that suicide attempt rate for trans boys is approximately 20.9% higher than it is for trans girls, for example, and there are many similar statistics showing that trans men struggle in many ways and face a lot of discrimination, which of course deserves acknowledgement.

Experiencing discrimination and subsequent mental health struggles isn’t something that should be glossed over, yet there are many pseduo-progressive folks in the LGBTQ/feminist communities whose posts can sometimes come across as “men are bad and trans men are men so they’re bad!” When you point out that there are plenty of marginalized men out there who need support, people are quick to say “Well, I’ll support you for being trans but I don’t need to support you because you’re a man since men have privilege and therefore perpetuate oppression!” But in the case of trans men, supporting someone for being trans is the same thing as supporting them in being a man, you can’t separate the two.

And you can spend all day talking about in what situations transmasculine people have access to male privilege and in what conditions the privilege applies and so on, but that is a separate conversation from the point here, which is everyone deserves support and that includes trans men (and gay men, and disabled men, and Black men, and Indigenous men, and Asian men, and so on). 

Things like body-shaming men for having neckbeards or small penises is seen as okay even though body-shaming women for having body hair or having small breasts is recognized as misogynistic. Sometimes folks respond by saying something like “you can’t oppress your oppressor” which... makes no sense in this context. Making people feel that their bodies are bad goes against the whole body-positive feminist movement, and that’s true no matter which people you think you’re targeting. 

It’s also pretty obvious that being a man doesn’t inherently make you a bad person, but a lot of the hate and anger directed at men (whether it’s posted as a joke or said seriously by someone who went through trauma) can make it difficult for trans men to recognize that they’re men because they don’t want to become the thing everyone hates. 

So how do we navigate allowing marginalized people to vent about groups who have privilege without causing collateral damage to other oppressed people? 

Some people have tried to solve it by saying “I hate only cis men, not trans men!” but then of course you’ve created a new issue which is the arbitrary distinguishment between a cis man and a trans man. A trans man can be just as misogynistic as a cis man, and being trans doesn’t mean anything about who you are as a person, all it says is something about the gender you were assigned when you were born.

When you say that you only hate cis men, you’re implying that you don’t hate trans men because you think they’re different than cis men in some way in their thoughts/behavior/actions which is a transphobic assumption. 

Or you’re saying you know that trans men and cis men can be identical in their thoughts/behavior/actions because they’re all men, so the reason you don’t hate trans men is ... ?? because they had certain genitals at birth (which they may not have anymore) ?? And that’s also transphobic because it’s saying you hate people solely because of their bodies which they can’t always control or change and implies having a particular type of body is morally wrong somehow or that your body makes you a bad person.

When someone makes a point of telling a trans man that they hate men, it’s sometimes a deliberate transphobic tactic used to make the person feel like having a male gender identity is inherently bad and makes you bad because it’s who you are, so the only way to become a good person is to not be a man which means not being transgender. And this is some how TERFs try and convince trans teens who were AFAB to re-identify as women instead of embracing being men. It’s hard to embrace being something that people have told you is problematic so people try to repress their feelings and ignore who they are.

Yet folks who don’t say “I hate all men” and instead say “the patriarchy sucks but it’s okay to be a man and not all men are bad” have found that statement controversial too. 

Even that phrase, “not all men,” is a red flag because it’s primarily used by the “men’s rights” folks who try and defend their misogyny and push their anti-feminist agenda while denying the ways that they personally benefit from the system. All men benefit from the system of patriarchy if they are recognized as men by the system, but that doesn’t mean every individual man is personally responsible for actively perpetuating oppression or that every man is a bad person.

So when someone points out the ways that men are taught to hate themselves by people who are constantly bashing on men in hurtful ways, or the struggles that men face (even if they aren’t struggles unique to men), there are people who just freak out because they think that acknowledging this is in some way trying to say that men can’t be oppressors, or that pointing it out is somehow delegitimizing women’s experiences or part of a pushback against women’s rights because the MRAs have tried to stake a claim over the entire topic.

So any nuanced conversation about ways that we actually can support men and break down oppression and uplift marginalized folks has been silenced because this toxic group has dominated the conversation and nobody wants to accidentally seem like they support those things, so they don’t support anything that focuses on men at all.

Similarly, when someone posts about something that affects trans men people (usually cis people TBH) often will respond with “trans women have it worse with that issue, and everything else too!” which isn’t a helpful response because while it’s important to recognize the way that trans women face multiple axes of oppression, uplifting trans women in a way that makes it impossible for another marginalized group to have a conversation doesn’t help anyone. It’s okay for some posts to not be about or for trans women without starting to play the Oppression Olympics games because transmasculine people also need support and space and allowing transmasculine people to talk about their experiences doesn’t mean that transfeminine people are being ignored.

All that being said, I would argue that people definitely don’t always support trans women more than trans men, and I wouldn’t even say that people usually do so. It very much depends on the space you’re in. While I do believe that there are a lot of positivity/supportive posts about trans women on Tumblr, this is, in many ways, a direct reaction to counter the large volume of hate that’s also actively being directed at trans women on Tumblr. And while there are plenty of “love trans women!” posts, there is also an issue with the lack of practical resources and material support for trans women because most of the content does not go beyond the surface level heart-emoji type post.

So in what I’ve noticed on Tumblr specifically (as this varies depending on the platform you’re using and the space you’re in), there can be more vocal (aka performative) support for trans women but it mostly tends to focus on their identities saying they’re valid women and so on but doesn’t give them much information or material support or anything else that I would deem a useful resource, whereas there might be less support for trans men in terms of “gender identity positivity for being male” but there’s more practical resources and information that they can use to aid in their transition.

Again, whatever you do, don’t complain that transfeminine people have too much support- that’s not the same thing as saying that you’d like more support for trans men struggling with X issue.

And yes, while we do have many things in common, there are some differences in the struggles the community faces and the experiences we have, and it’s okay to want to talk with other folks who are going through the same thing. That doesn’t mean that you don’t care about transfeminine people or that you think they should have a smaller platform or something, it just means you’d like support for your identity and transition (which is wholly unrelated to how much support there is or isn’t available for them).

So if you are looking for more support for trans men and feel like you aren’t getting what you need in the online or IRL spaces you’re currently moving in, you should try finding the spaces that are meant to be supportive communities for trans men and join them, whether they’re specific blogs, Facebook groups, Discord servers, or in-person/on-Zoom support groups, and also do what you can to create the support you want to see for your community!

[fandomcolourofmyskin]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you realize that this show is explicitly about the poor, Midwestern white male experience? They lack privilege on multiple levels which the show explores (sa m the janitor, Dean the grunt), and all of the queer issues stem almost directly from the poor white male's low level of self determination/ agency or the perception thereof I'm a poor whitish person from a similar area, and it feels unique to see a poor white show that isn't Roseanne.

Hi nonnie,

I have a lot of things to say in response to your message — which does display ignorance of societal organization across systemic racial lines — but without creating a huge extensive post, here are some crucial points to consider:

- The “poor Midwestern white male experience” does NOT discount the insulated bubble of white privilege that Sam and Dean Winchester occupy, and neither is Supernatural immune from racist narratives and/or racist character implementation (especially ‘cause SPN has predominantly white production crew/writers around the table. Again, any literary narrative or script they conceive can and most likely will be influenced by internalized unconscious white dominance —> white-painted narratives perceived by POC viewers. I mean, scour this blog/google ‘Supernatural and racism’ and you’ll get the picture.)

- Additionally, stating that the show is “explicitly about” the poor Midwestern white male experience is false. Yes, you’re a poor white person from a similar area, and so you believe that, as a white person, the show’s premise reflects your experience. However, your statement doesn’t represent reality. The racial blind spot here is: media consumption by (realities of) white people will not equate to media consumption by (realities of) POC.

As I said here, we cannot talk about other systemic forces like socioeconomic class without addressing race. Race is inherently interweaved into other structural dimensions. It’s why BIPOC (Black Indigenous POC) + POC are: statistically paid less than white employees, unequally treated in terms of job capability, encounter unconscious bias across the hiring market, struggle to find jobs, unable to afford three-story suburban houses, and can never seem to find favour no matter how hard we work.

Reni Eddo-Lodge reiterates what white privilege is. When we say ‘white privilege’, we aren’t referring to white people always having it easy, or living in the lap of material wealth (but economic race disparities are instrinsically linked to material wealth), or lacking suffering, or living in poverty.

White privilege: the unearned set of societal benefits, advantages, and positive attitudes/behaviours bestowed upon white people solely because they are white (because of the pale/white colour of their skin). Claiming that Sam and Dean “lack privilege on multiple levels” perpetuates the continuous erasure of the POC reality, as well as intersectional BI+POC realities (being PoC, queer, and disabled, etc). What’s our reality? We actually lack privilege on multiple levels because of the colour of our skin. Your claim could imply that white privilege isn’t a thing, but it is. Think of white privilege as the air we breathe: it’s there, and we’re surrounded by it, and we breathe it in, yet because air is mostly invisible, some people aren’t always aware of it until you tell ‘em “Hey dude, did you know you’re inhaling oxygen?” The answer would be: “Obviously. Idk why you’re pointing that out - I already know that. You saying I’m dumb?” (lol not too far off from white defensiveness, right?) White people are so used to their privilege that they feel weird, ‘uncomfortable’ and ‘unsafe’ once people of colour point out their privilege. They subconsciously (and consciously) refuse to lose their place at the top. They’ll be offended.

To address your message, specifically — Sam and Dean hold white privilege as white men despite being poor. This is an uncomfortable fact that white SPN audiences must acknowledge.

If translated into real life, Sam and Dean will walk inside a bar and not be suspected of crime at first glance. They won’t look suspicious. They won’t get physically assaulted, shot at, killed, and/or lynched, both by police and fellow white men. They can speak, eat, and behave however they please without getting kicked out. They’ll chase after people they wanna bang or make inappropriate moves without being accused of sexual harrassment; BI+POC are typically falsely accused. (*Bonus Salt incoming* Sam and Dean won’t die permanently on their own show. The BI+PoC allies they have are often killed off to forward their plot and channel white manpain, then embody racist narrative tropes. As an Asian, Kevin Tran’s Stereotypical-Asian presence upset me, and his death further hurt my sensibilities. It did not shock me at all to see yet another Asian character killed off. Again, I must mention the horrible Asian-fetishist-exotificating Busty Asian Beauties, as well. Heck, S8 episode title “What’s Up Tiger Mommy?” was blatantly racist that I can’t believe no one demanded they change the episode premise + Kevin and Linda Tran’s characterizations. JUST KIDDING, of course I know why no one emphasized the issue - there are barely any BI+PoC in the writer’s room. This is why hiring us must become important).

Unfortunately - and unlike your opinion - Supernatural is not “unique” for us BI+PoC fans. It’s a show manned by predominantly white cast/crew that centralizes two white men and their respective narrow realities. We don’t live in a bubble. We’re everywhere. Depict us properly, with cultural/racial sensitivity, in entertainment, media, art forms, and more. Acknowledge our lack of privilege on multiple levels.

We live within a society set up for people of colour to fail. Whiteness is the default, and the privilege intrinsically linked to that ensconces an entire array of political, social, cultural and economic structures advantaging white people while disadvantaging People of Colour.

You’re a poor white person. I’m not, and the likelihood of the white poor person being given an opportunity to escape poverty is statistically MUCH, MUCH higher than the likelihood of poor POC to escape poverty.

[dog-day-morning]

WRONG MESSIAH WRONG PEOPLE Acts 1:1-14 Israel is run by gentiles who are not Israelite by blood. They call themselves Jews by declaration not by lineage. Jews are in the midst of casting out God's chosen people from Israel for fear of the prophetic word that states these Edomite gentiles, along with an admixture of the people of Alkebulan’s (Israel), whose DNA the Father anointed has blessed them will bow down, and worship at our feet. They fear the truth knowing we’ve determined the lies they’ve told us were intended to hide our identity from us, and the world out of hatred. The Jewish holocaust lasted for 4yrs whereas the curses of Deuteronomy have lasted 400yrs, and counting. No other tribe of people has suffered like the Israelites according to the curses, and accounts in Deuteronomy 28 save a peculiar people. And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. This is why I don't worship other religious faiths or religions. I'm cautious when it comes to Christianity knowing the deviltry of man, and the depths he will go, and has in order to maintain his stranglehold on us as a people. What allows a person to never be held accountable for their sins on Earth, but makes a race or tribe of people the burden bearer for all of Earth's iniquity? The devil is an accuser whose minions are fearful of the word manifesting in this generation. What we see on display isn't just a show of rebellion, but a fear of an arrogant people losing their position in the Earth which was only meant to be temporary, but in truth it wasn't meant to be at all. If 5 Black males congregate on a street corner it puts fear, spite, and hatred in the hearts of the so-called fragile psyche of those who want to control us. They call the Police in the hope of getting innocent people arrested or murdered. But 200 members of the proud boys can march through Urban Philadelphia in a show of defiance with Police protection, and nobody confronts them except a different breed of Black, Brown, and white people who are not like their fathers of old who relish in the thought of sending Jethro back to the woods with the rest of the hood boogers. The Jewish cabal worships Satan in the literal sense. They are the Devils cronies who know their time is up. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. They understand that the God of our fathers isn't playing games. If you ascribe this to my person as I’ve done in theory, how can God's 2 faithful witnesses see the Son of God and His Father if their hearts hadn't been tried like some of you? Revelation 11:3-13 3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. 7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. 9 And they of the

people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. 10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. 11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. 12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. 13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. The God of Israel has decreed this. The Jews in Israel will suffer a harsh penalty for their crimes against the Nigerian, Igbo Israelites, the Ethiopian Beta Israelites, the Ugandan Abayudaya, and other sects of Israelite people including the American tribal people of Ghana Africa (Judah), Gad (Native American), Reuben (Aboriginal Australian), and Issachar (Mexican South American descendants.) They are deporting the Yisraelites in Alkebulan out of Yisrael as though this can inundate God's plan. You’re bringing God to a higher and greater glory, fulfilling the promises He made to His people in this day for this generation. Joshua 24:13 13 And I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and olive yards which ye planted not do ye eat. It’s a shame to construct a global economy only to be denied the American dream; it's a nightmare. For those that cater to the State of Israel like some Congressmen, and women who are Edomite Jews that are not willing to put in place a reparations plan for the ADOS, FBA, and all indigenous people of North America based on the Western Nations financing of the temporary inhabitants of Israel is an injustice to humanity. Our oppressor isn’t going to give up his throne or authority willingly, he’s drunk with it. Look to God to deliver us not man, especially those who historically have shown their extreme distaste and revulsion for us. God tells us: If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. God foreknew, He's all knowing, and all seeing. If one of them were to cosign a reparations bill for Black people they would’ve been found dead inside their congressional office within days or maybe hours. When your own people who look as you do, but think according to their massa’s will, in order to live a season of sin with the wicked advocating for the gentiles who live off our promised inheritance, and this nonphysical, hidden, unseen, but shrewd, devious bit of craft called white privilege, that Black people who believe in Yeshua spiritually call favor with God. What this microwave generation has asserted, and addressed as privilege in actuality is sinister, and diabolical. It's a Janus-like, double minded, spirit of torment that has caused a lot of agony to a people they refuse to relinquish that will bring a harsh judgment to them and the Earth, and yes, I’m paying my price. The people of Canaan were destroyed after having knowledge of the true living God. The Father isn't one who relishes in the spilling of innocent blood. He will always send you a warning before calamity comes to your doorstep. He's been doing it for the last 2,000 years. Like the Egyptians they refused to believe in the God the Israelites praised, and worshipped thinking He finds favor in them who shed innocent blood. This is the situation we find the Earth in once more with the Israelites who this time are being forced out of their homeland waiting for a deliverer. The people that lived in Canaan were not ignorant of

the God of Israel. Many times the impression is given that God ordered the Israelites to swoop in and destroy innocent people. But these people were neither innocent nor ignorant. They had heard about the God of Israel; it was they who rejected Him. When the 2 spies were sent to spy out the Land of Promise they were told by Rahab the prostitute: Joshua 2:9-11 9 And she said unto the men, I know that the Lord hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. 10 For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. 11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath. They had heard of the true God but had rejected Him. Consequently, their entire society acted in a sinful way. The Apostle Paul spoke of these people: Though they knew God they refused to believe let alone acknowledge Him as the true living God. The Father let their minds become reprobate following their flesh. What comes good of the flesh people? Nothing. They were shapen in iniquity, and in sin did their mothers conceive them. Israel is the biggest Nation on Earth that supports the Trans community being led by a morbidly, corrupted government overrun with rampant homosexuality, and like Amerikkka they endorse pedophilia. Of all the Nations on the Earth, Israel ranks number one in unnatural sex, and relations more so than the United States of Amerikkka, and Amerikkka’s European counterparts. When Jews here in the states get arrested for unlawful sexual acts committed against children those who have convenient connections are able to seek refuge, and fly to Israel fleeing prosecution. Oftentimes this is warranted, by US gov’t protection agencies who assist them in their transition back to Israel. Larry Nassar whose last name is Jewish, but they claim him not. The faith he was raised in makes him a Catholic which reeks of corruption, and entitlement that exceeds the realm of sexually deviant malfeasance executed by this religious sect that historically has gotten away with the most egregious sins committed against God's innocent ones. The FBIs handling of his high profile case was a case study in buffoonery, and an insane margin of flexibility that cannot be explained to a person of a simple mind. Hopefully this gov’t will learn which is doubtful. Pray that the payoff of a high monetary lawsuit will make the US government look at this flawed system, and send Goober Pyle back to law school or a police precinct to learn how to do his job. This is not privilege, it’s sin. Romans 1:21-25 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. The inhabitants of Canaan were neither ignorant nor innocent victims of an angry God. They were committing these terrible sins being fully aware of the true and living God. Because they rejected Him, God judged them harshly. How do you explain the people of Israel, Amerikkka, Europe, and the rest of the West in this day and time? You can't without condemning them, and the rest of humanity which the Father had all authority to do. Instead, He sent His Son to die for Yisrael whom we rejected giving the

gentiles a pathway to His Kindome. Why do you refuse to accept His truth? Forgiving a jackass is like storing wine in old wineskins or plastic garbage bags. The messenger has made your hearts cold, and bitter towards the Father, and His Son Yeshua? Learn from us, and prepare for a New World in its natural order of things because this right here ain't it. Good evening people, Elohim 9/25/2021

[ceres20]

Since JK has been getting a lot of hate lately, I wanted to voice my own opinion on the same. A lot of actors and celebrities and "important people" have come out and criticized her. She's been called a TERF, Bigoted and a lot of other things, that I do not have the mental space to get into at the moment. But here's what I have understood: 

 1. The trans debate is a relatively new one. Believe it or not, there is not much information about the long term consequences of hormone therapy. Even less on Hormone therapy on children. This means that all your current research is short and medium term, and there are no set rules regarding who is a prime candidate for therapy. In fact, there is already speculation that people who have other mental health concerns or those who are on the autism spectrum have a higher chance of also being diagnosed (or misdiagnosed) with Gender Dysphoria. Worst is self diagnosis. So many people (more than 40% of those who identify as trans) are taking hormones without prescription and without full information about the consequences, which remain unknown. I must remind all of you, that absence of evidence does not amount to evidence of its absence.

 2. There is no evidence based debate on transitioning children especially since it has irreversible consequences on their mental, physical and economic situation. Moreover, there are articles every day about over enthusiastic docs who want to diagnose children based on which toys they play with and what clothing they wear. What happened to telling our boys it's ok to play with Barbies and girls that it's ok to play with trucks and dirt? There is a reason for this lack of research. Gender Dysphoria has become a quick way for the medical industry to earn easy money. They thrive on medicating a population that may as well not need it. There is lack of initiative by the health care providers to commission studies that look into long term impact or even study current "conflicting" but negative evidence of of Gender Affirming medical interventions. What's shocking is that female to male transitioners who undergo phalloplasty face painful and lifelong urological consequences (over 80 percent of the cases), and yet many transitioners are lured by positively written papers that only consider short term effects of the same, with fleeting caveats about lack of longer term studies. 

 3. Sex is real. It has real consequences. Even the most universally celebrated feminist thinkers such as Simone de Beauvoir, acknowledge first, that there is a biological difference between the two sexes (There are only two sexes- intersex conditions occur in 2 out of 10,000 cases, and most of those who possess intersex conditions are outside the “norm”. Sexual Reproduction is necessarily Binary in nature, since there are only two types of gametes sperm and ova). However, Gender is a collective social imagination. There is no male brain and no female brain- just as there is no male kidney or female liver. The only organs that are different are the sex organs. So what does it mean when a girl child says they don't identify with the other girls? Does that mean she herself is not a girl? That she's a boy all along? No! None of the other girls who are "girly" know what they're doing either. They're simply conforming to society's ideas of how they should or must behave in order to fit in. It's the same for the boys. There is no definition of Feminine or Masculine because these concepts are unreal, figments of imagination and social impositions that dictate order in society. Whether you're female with chest hair or a beard (hirsutism) or a male with a "feminine" voice or gait- don't let anyone tell you who you are or who you should be. For too long have males looked down upon the female sex- considered to be imperfections or weak. They're defined as being "non-men" or those who simply lack a penis- the symbol of male virility and power. We need to take back the narrative on what it means to be female. We need to ensure that our biology doesn't become the cause of our social and economic slavery. As we finally step into the public sphere and reclaim the space that's rightfully ours- we need to demand sex based rights which include child care leaves, menstrual leave, etc to truly allow the women to participate to the fullest of our capabilities. 

4. What is REAL is our biology. The physical difference between men and women that makes every woman cautious in a strange man's presence. If there was no difference, male on female violence would not be so rampant. Females do not WANT to get raped, but the other choices include fight and lose or fight and die. On an average, the female is shorter than the man, has less muscles, lower lung capacity and strength. The difference between them is most stark in competitive sports. Usain Bolt's record in 100m dash is 9.58 seconds. The women's record is 10.49 seconds. Yes, in comparison to men's this is worse than average. A record broken easily by high school boys. But does this mean women shouldn't compete? No! They should compete among themselves! A *very* recent paper by Swedish Scientists (W. Anna, 2019) shows how cross hormone therapy doesn't get rid of muscle advantage of transwomen over biological women. An average female athlete has testosterone in the range of 0-2.4 nmol/L which is WAY below what an average transwoman athlete posseses. Olympic games have revised the testosterone limits to 5 nmol/L to allow transgenders to be included in women's sports. But anyone with any understanding of biology can understand how stark and unfair the difference is. By allowing them to compete on the same footing as females in sports, we're allowing a figment of imagination to override biological realities.

5. There are real consequences of biology. We need to be truly inclusive of all people, irrespective of how they look or behave. We don't need make up, or dresses or high pitched voices to be considered female.We don't need to be giving birth, bleeding or taking hormones to be females or males. We are who we are without having to declare ourselves to be Men or Women. Without the social baggage imposed on either of those roles. Unfortunately we know that as long as there is a power imbalance, there is exploitation. This is true for groups as well as sexes. If one half of the sex is physically stronger, then the other half needs safeguards to ensure this power difference doesn't translate into violence or oppression.  This means females need safe spaces from males. Period. 6. Let's have debate on gender and sex, it's consequences and effects. Let's truly help the communities who require our help- those with dysphoria and intersex conditions. Let's not impose sex normalisation on intersex children. Let's love them and their bodies, let's promote their interests and well being. Let's not normalize gender stereotypes by believing in fiction over fact. Let's embrace people for who they are! Let's get rid of sex based oppressions including genital mutilation (practised widely in certain African communities), female foeticide (practiced widely in South asia, where it's estimated that more than 45 million women are missing as a result), untouchability during menstruation etc. These are real SEX-BASED oppressions. Still, in many nations Females are terminated at birth or before for simply not possessing a penis. Male Privilege exists even before Gender takes its course. To fix these, we need sex based rights! 7. Let's not shut down, or brand people for that would mean giving into the age of post truth. Let's debate, discuss and spread awareness. Let's not be ready to berate but lend a sympathetic ear. Shutting down Gender critical feminists, blocking them so that they can't air their lived grievances, verbally or physically assaulting them- seems to be the chosen preference of many extreme trans activists (note: not trans people). Let's condemn any kind of abuse.

[kuningannasansa]

A musketeers rewatch (that nobody asked for) 1x07

Here we go, my least favorite episode of the whole show excluding season three which I didn’t watch! If you have even a passing fondness for Ninon, I suggest you look away :)

We start with a royal procession through the crowd and there are quite a lot of waving people there. If they can fill the streets with extras for scenes like that, why can those same extras not be used for the court scenes?

Priest whose name I have forgotten is being robbed. The musketeers rush in to help. 

Meanwhile, a crazy girl tries to get close to the queen and ends up being ran over by her carriage. If this is meant to be some Emily Davison analogy, it sucks!

The dead lunatic’s name is Therese and she wanted to give the Queen a note. Constance takes it and says “Fleur, what does this mean?” Am I supposed to take from that that she cannot read for herself? Cause a merchant’s wife definitely, definitely would know how to do that. 

Fleur is nowhere to be seen, however.

“This is an age of glorious discovery!” says Ninon. “Galileo observes the moons of Jupiter... But what is the role of women in this age of wonder?” - well, gee, i don’t know Ninon. Maybe you could have mentioned some female scientists of the era in addition to Galileo? Catherine de Parthenay, anyone? Or Marie Fouquet? Hell, Ninon de l'Enclos, my atheist queen, for whom this Ninon is doubtless named, was a notable woman in her own right! But no, we have to make women look more oppressed than they actually were to make this waste of space look more awesome. 

“My women of Paris, seek your own enlightenment!” - wrong era!

Therese, an orphan from a humble background, wanted to hand a petition to the queen about women’s education.  

“If she was an illiterate orphan she could not have written this. It is misguided but not unintelligent.” - says Richelieu. And indeed he turns out to be right. She didn’t write it. Which is fucking bizarre. 

Anne asks him if he doesn’t favor women’s education and he replies: “I admire learning wherever it is to be found, but this amounts to an attack on the authority of church and state.” Any French history buff know what the actual Richelieu’s thought of women’s education? @tatzelwyrm​? I’m gonna start a biography on him soon, but not until I’m done with this rewatch.

Ninon barges in past the guards and yells “stay out of my way, I will address the King!”. I’m sure this is meant to make her look badass, but she just comes across like a complete idiot who doesn’t understand that she would do better to follow court protocol, no matter how much she might dislike it, if she wants to achieve her goals.    

Luckily for her she’s pretty, so the king doesn’t mind.

“I want to know why this tragedy happened. If your guards are to blame I want them punished.” And then she gives Treville a dirty look! How dare you, you waste of skin and oxygen! Don’t you dare blame Treville for this mess! 

“You knew this lunatic?” - lmao, Richelieu!

Therese was the daughter of Ninon’s servant whom Ninon decided to educate. So she was educated, she COULD have written the petition herself. But she did not. Because when Richelieu says “she wrote this and was killed trying to give it to the Queen” Ninon screeches: “Don’t be ridiculous! She didn’t write it, I did!” And I mean, who exactly is looking down on servant girls here and saying it’s ridiculous to expect them to write something intelligent. It’s not Richelieu. 

But more importantly, WHY?? If Ninon wrote it, why couldn’t she hand it to the Queen? Why did this poor girl have to die? This is so, so stupid! I mean, okay, maybe Therese heard Ninon speak well of the queen and got the idea to hand her the petition on her own, without being told by Ninon to do so. But why did she have it in the first place, if it’s Ninon’s petition?

“Apparently the Comtesse de Laroque believes herself above the normal laws and conventions of society.” ´- well that’s an understatement.  

“The treasury is bankrupt and the country needs a new navy. Ninon has the wealth to provide it.” And that is why Richelieu sends Milady into the salon to find something to use against her. These two are so good in this, I love their scenes together! Pity about the rest of the episode. 

Richelieu is now freaking out about lesbians and Milady is just like “really, dude? really?”. I love her!

“Ninon must pay up or face destruction, I want every last penny from her!” - so it was not his intention to kill her, just to get the money. Interesting.

Fleur’s father is Bonacieux’s cousin. I love that, the commoners having family connections and support circles of their own.

The robbed priest is called Luca! Richelieu is “delighted to see him”, apparently, cause they’re old friends. And Louis isn’t, because he wrote a pamphlet arguing that Kings should bow down to the Pope’s authority. 

“We can’t have a comtesse abducting young women and spiriting them away to her boudoir!” - Oh, Richelieu! Do calm down.

It’s odd watching Richelieu try to use homosexuality to take Ninon down while shipping Trevilieu thou. 

Athos barges into Ninon’s salon, demanding to know where Fleur is and Milady very discreetly hides behind a pillar. Lol! 

And Ninon starts hitting on Athos immediately. She tells him that she’s often thought he’s handsome but the “melancholy aspect” to his looks is “probably only mental vacancy”. Who taught you how to flirt? Why must you be so abrasive and confrontational all the time? Like really, I get she’s meant to be a Strong Woman Who Don’t Take No Shit TM, but she just comes across like a loudmouth. 

Athos likes it thou!

“Forgive our intrusion-” “I will not forgive it!” - Jesus Ninon, it’s just a figure of speech, a polite gesture. People use these in conversation sometimes. She’s so unnecessarily rude smh.

Aramis says he “gladly acknowledges the superiority of the female sex” and I throw up in my mouth a little. That’s not feminism, that’s slimy!

D’artagnan: “If that wasn’t flirting, I don’t know what is.”  Porthos: “Rubbish! She can’t stand him.”  Aramis: “One day I’ll sit down and explain women to you.” - cause we’re all the same and no means yes, right writers?

Luca: “His holiness is concerned about the direction of French foreign policy.” Richelieu: “Well the pope is Spain’s performing monkey.” - he really is so funny! I know I keep saying that, but he is!

Also, YAY politics! Intelligent dialogue! I love this scene so much!

“In matters of religion I defer to Rome, in all else I am my country’s servant” - lol, Richelieu inventing the separation of church and state

Luca: “Is this your final word on the subject?” Richelieu: “It is.” - and that right there is where Luca decides to kill him. The actor plays it really well, knowing it’s coming I can see the briefest moment of regret in his eyes, but without hindsight I wouldn’t notice anything. And he gives Richelieu the poisoned gift. 

Also, isn't it the same guy who plays Margaret’s new man in Harlots? 

Athos says that Therese and Fleur were so far below Ninon in status that they were not in a position to make choices of their own free will. Which is fuckign stupid. But Ninon saying that she views all women as equal regardless of their birth is equally moronic. I mean, sure, they should be, but in reality they’re not and ignoring that doesn’t help anyone. And Athos does point out that Ninon’s money and position gives her certain privileges, but it sits wrong coming from him and not from Porthos or Milady or Constance, who are from poor/less wealthy backgrounds. That said, this is still one of the few semi intelligent scenes in this whole episode, so whatever. At least someone said it. 

Now she kisses him and invites him to dine! And he just looks sad.

Luca tells Richelieu to “deal with” Ninon “firmly”, cause the Pope is dying and Richelieu could be the next Pope if he shows himself a strong defender of the church against “heresy”. What heresy thou? Women learning to read? Lol, that’s so cartoonishly evil and ahistorical, but whatever. This at least explains where Richelieu’s desire to have her burned came from.

Richelieu: “I wouldn’t go so far as to call her a heretic.” Luca: “A woman who openly defies God's laws, what other word is there?” - what laws thou? what has she done, other than hold some salon meetings, as every other noblewoman was doing at the time?

Richelieu promises to consider his options and Luca tells him to pray to the poisoned bone for guidance, lol.

This right here is Richelieu letting personal feelings cloud his judgement, thou! Which he said he has learned no to do. But he allows himself to be carried away with visions of becoming Pope and honestly I don’t see how he can possibly believe that could happen with his foreign policy and how hated he is by the Vatican, as stated in this very scene.  

Milady and Ninon! I love that scene! Ninon clearly thinks she’s super special because she “takes the initiative” by kissing men instead of waiting to be kissed. She’s so damn smug about it! And Milady is just like “oh I could never be so bold” and I swear I can hear her laughing internally! 

And she very cleverly charms Fleur’s location out of Ninon!

Athos’s idea of a first date is the morgue. Charming.

Athos saying that Ninon is responsible for what happened to Therese because she gave a lowborn girl an education doesn’t sit well with me. Classist ass! But she is responsible for not thinking of Therese beyond how daring and adventurous and fun and positively scandalous it would be to educate a servant girl and then not bothering to care for her when she got bored. Cause if she had done, Therese could have come to her with her plan and she could have prevented her death. Because yes, regardless of her education, her background predisposed Therese to be naive about the King and Queen and how petitions work. Where was Ninon in all this, when a girl under her charge decided to do this foolish thing that cost her her life? Because if you want to be someone’s teacher you do have a duty of care. In short, Ninon is a classist ass as well! They’re perfect for each other!

So Luca’s stolen bag is in the morgue with the body of the thief who stole it. And Athos promises to send for it in the morning. I know it’s CSI: Musketeers and all, but why was it not delivered to Luca the moment it was found, lol? He’s a pretty important guest at the palace and it’s his property. 

Athos agrees with Ninon that marriage is a curse. LOL!

Ninon’s reason for not marrying is that she does not want a husband to own her wealth and body. Makes sense and that’s why many independently wealthy women chose to stay unmarried. Just pointing out the few things that make sense.

“You are a rebellious woman” - oh good, we managed to squeeze the title of the episode into the dialogue! 

Aramis just tossed a red guard out of Ninon’s house. Can’t tell if he’s dead or not, but certainly unconscious. 

There’s fighting. The red guards have swords, the musketeers have books. Athos screams “where is your authority for this!?!” - well, the Cardinal, I’d assume, since they are his guards. Oh bear of very little brain!

Fleur and some other runaway girls are found sleeping in a secret chamber and Ninon is arrested for abducting them.

Athos is all like “you said she wasn’t here” and Ninon tries to explain that Fleur did not want to be found and begs “make them stop” to which Athos replies “sorry, I can’t”, his voice and face making it very clear that he doesn’t want to. Because a woman lied to him! This is the worst crime! Really Ninon is lucky she’s being arrested right now, otherwise she’d end up swinging from a tree.

“Four young women! In their nightwear! I can only speculate as to the horrors they have endured!” - Richelieu really has a bee in his bonnet about lesbians. The days before p*rnhub must have been hard for a catholic cardinal. 

Luca is even worse thou! “Your majesty is joking but Satan is real! And his female familiars are everywhere amongst us.” Jesus christ guys, calm down! Have a wank or something!

“She had the girls, she lied, she brought her fate on herself.” - Oh shut up Athos! Not everything is about you and your relationship issues! As Aramis points out. Thank you, Aramis! And I never believed I’d ever say that.

Ninon/Aramis  > > > > > > > > > > Ninon/Athos

Aramis gives Ninon the cross Anne gave him. This is quite sweet!

“It’s not so easy when you don’t have money” Constance says and she is right. But it’s like the show is saying that the only way women can be independant is if they are independently wealthy like Ninon. But that’s not really true, Fleur could get a job such as a seamstress or pharmacist or grain merchant or actress or even as a secretary now that she knows latin and greek thanks to Ninon. Women did have jobs in 17th century France and even belonged to guilds etc. Not saying that Fleur would not be more financially secure still with a husband, but if she really doesn’t want that she has options and I don’t like how this supposed “feminist” episode constantly erases women’s actual history. 

Fleur’s father rages “what does she need an education for? She’ll be a seamstress until she’s married and then she’ll be a dutiful wife and mother.” But if he is Bonacieux’s cousin then they are in the same social class, that is to say, the merchant class. And merchant women had to keep their husbands’ shops when their husbands were away. They needed to know how to read and write and do sums. They needed this to be an attractive marriage prospect to a husband of their own social class! 

And the father wants to hit Fleur and D’artagnan all heroically threatens him. How boring!

Richelieu: “Many of our young women are educated. It’s not something we’re ashamed of.” Fleur: “Not just embroidery and sewing.”  Me: “WELL OF COURSE NOT!!!”

Then Fleur says Ninon taught them the “secrets of our bodies” and Richelieu is a hound on the scent!

“Be quiet or you’ll be gagged!” - Again Armand, this is neither the time nor the place to indulge your kinks. 

ENTER MILADY! 

She does such a brilliant job of her testimony! This is again her lying about rape and I talked about before why that is bad, but in this case I don’t mind cause it’s for state reasons and doesn’t in any way invalidate her own story the way the thing with D’artagnan does.

Athos completely LOSES HIS SHIT!! Not doing the defence any good there, buddy!

The look she gives him as she walks out is priceless!

Queen Anne to the rescue, bringing clemency from Louis! Clever girl, must have manipulated it out of him! Season 1 Anne was intelligent.

And Ninon ruins it by saying: “I have never consorted with the devil until this moment. I am looking at him.” To which Richelieu replies: “Condemned from her own mouth.” As any person with half a brain would. Jesus christ Ninon, you should have been gagged! For your own safety! 

And then Richelieu stops breathing! And we get Treville’s reaction to it, thank you camera people! Thou Treville mostly just looks confused, like “what is that drama queen doing now?” 

Now he’s twitching! And I’m sorry but it looks hilarious.

Aramis carries him to bed on his back and puts a hand over his mouth. I’m not sure that helps with the breathing issues... 

Louis pushes Aramis out of the way and cries “please don’t die! please don’t die!” aawwwwwwwwwww!

Aramis really saves his life here, huh.

Anne is briefly jealous about the cross and asks Aramis if Ninon is his lover. Lol! She never expected him to stalk her for the rest of her life, she fully expected him to keep lovers.  

Luca: “Satan turned his blood to acid at her command!” Porthos: “We’ll add Satan to the list of suspects.”

Fleur: “You think I poisoned him?” Constance: “That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard even by musketeer standards.” - THANK YOU CONSTANCE!

Fleur is to be married to a 40 year old butcher. Poor girl!

“Was it you?” - LOL!

“Half the doctors say you’re doomed, the other half claim you’ll make a full recovery. There’s a lot of professional pride at stake.” - Milady is very funny too! But I’ve always known that! 

“Whatever happens to me, I want you to extract this confession from Ninon.” - translation: it doesn’t matter if I die, the main thing is that France gets that navy. For France, always. I’m amazed by how much he trusts Milady here thou.

Milady thinks the kneebone of St. Anthony is gross and “as much use as the doctors”. Bless her!

Constance very sweetly talks Fleur’s father out of forcing her to marry. Go Constance!

Ninon: “There is nothing worse than a woman who betrays her own sex” Milady: “I can think of a few things, but let’s not argue.” - THIS!! This is my favorite part of this whole miserable episode, because yes, with her background she can think of things Ninon couldn’t possibly imagine. It’s also a fuck you to that “don’t encourage girl on girl hate” line terfs and white feminists always hide behind when they get called out on their bullshit, though this wasn’t the point here. I love how she doesn’t even explain, too. Let’s not argue, cause what’s the point. You’ll never get it.

I do want to stress that Ninon is not wrong for educating other women and she has been unjustly condemned (althou I would argue that she might not have drawn Richelieu’s ire if she went about it in a more subtle, less smug way, for the safety of the girls she teaches if not for her own). But Milady is employed by the First Minister of France and is doing her job here, a job which she depends upon for her own independence and safety. As she says, Ninon didn’t do anything to her, she’s just a victim of circumstance. 

“If you don’t confess, the women of your salon will burn in your place. Surely you wish to save the lives of your accomplices in Satan?” - Milady does a good job of selling it, but if you think about it, that makes no sense. These women have already been publicly proclaimed Ninon’s victims. And if they have legal trouble with burning her alone, how would they manage a whole bunch of them, most of whom are also high ranking noblewomen?

Ninon falls for it thou. Fail!

Richelieu orders Ninon burned and Milady says that the Queen and King won’t like it. Richelieu replies that: “she’s irrelevant and a new navy will soothe his dismay.” He’s really underestimating season 1 Anne here. But season 2 will prove him right, sadly.

“The kingdom of heaven is a dream. Our only life is here.” - Go Milady!

Richelieu says he won’t burn her for heresy but to be careful cause “one day someone else might” and idk, but it comes across like pretty friendly advice, considering what he’s currently doing with Ninon. 

Now he worries he might go to hell! And Milady says he’s already there, lmaoo! I LOVE THIS SCENE!!

They go to the morgue to retrieve Luca’s bag and discover that the thief was poisoned in the same manner as the Cardinal. Thus the plot is uncovered.

“Open his mouth!” “You open his mouth!”

Luca kills a red guard and is about to kill Richelieu (who fights him with a fork!) when the musketeers burst in. And Richelieu curses them for being late!

Richelieu had apparently worked out that it was Luca who was trying to kill him at some point during the night. No idea how. 

Athos begs for Ninon’s life while the pire is already burning. And Richelieu agrees cause burning her is all very “dark ages”, like he said to begin with. He says he’s not a cruel man, just a practical one. But practicality sometimes requires cruelty. He’s not a sadist thou, that’s what he meant and that’s true. 

Athos drags Ninon off the burning pire. So the great feminist character got duped by Milady and then had to be rescued by her love interest. So good, much feminist. 

“As far as the world is concerned, Comtesse Ninon de Laroque died on that pire today.” Richelieu takes her lands, her property and her money and sends her into exile. Then he threatens to execute her if she ever tells anyone the truth of what happened.

“My voice will never be silenced, but I promise you will never hear it.” - the stupidest line of the whole episode and that’s saying something. Seriously, what does this mean? Your voice was silenced! Richelieu got your wealth which you could have used to educate more women. You were completely defeated. Like really, who is the idiot who wrote this? And what made them think this is in any way empowering or even just a satisfactory conclusion to Ninon’s acr?? Ughhhh!!

I do love Richelieu and Milady getting a rare victory thou! 

“Nothing, no person, no nation, no god will stand in my way.” - HOT!

Aramis gets his cross back lol. Otherwise it would have burned. 

Lmao, Richelieu sends Luca’s ashes to rome with a threat to the Pope.

And Capaldi pronounces “Richelieu” in a very strange way. 

Milady: “You do realise you’ll never be Pope?” Richelieu: “It’s an Italian club and largely a clerical position. I prefer something with a little more influence.” - L! O! L!

Ninon plans to open a school for poor girls and be a teacher. Well, idk, I hope she does a better job of it than she did with Therese.

Athos asks Ninon if “Madame de la Chapelle” ever told her anything about herself. And Ninon is like “so you did know her after all?” and he says “in another life” and she warns him to be careful because she has the cardinal’s protection so “a blow against her is a blow against him” and idk, does she realize that Milady was Athos’s wife here? Is that how I’m supposed to read it? He did tell her before that he used to be married.

Then she kisses him and tells him she could have loved a man like him. And she’s just way more into him than he is into her.

Lmaooo, Fleur is not forced to marry and can continue with her education and she’s “sure” that the woman who convinced her father was Ninon. And Constance doesn’t correct her and doesn’t even want the credit, but I’m mad lol, as if Ninon even remembers you exist Fleur!

D’artagnan gives Constance the credit, at least! And then comes his declaration of love, which is actually very sweet and I really liked them together in season 1! Constance is so beautiful in this scene too! It’s very well lit and she’s wearing that lovely dress!

Aaaaand we fade to black on some PG13 kissing and groping! Sorry, this was very long, but there was a lot to complain about.

In conclusion, awful! Like, the thing that bothers me the most is that this token girl power episode would not even have been radical in 1970, never mind today. The message is simply that women should have an education, which no sane person today would disagree with. It’s very safe and bland. And erases women’s real history in the process. It’s almost as if these male writers are congratulating themselves “weren’t things ever so bad Back Then, we are so much more progressive now”, instead of doing the truly radical thing and showing women’s real history, showing women in positions of power running their literary salons and not getting burned for it, showing women as independent businesswomen with an education! Why not give Bonacieux a female rival in the cloth business? Why not go deeper than “women are human beings” and give the episode a truly radical message that still resonates today. After all, we might be ever so educated now but it’s not like women have achieved equality. More on that in this old post: https://kuningannasansa.tumblr.com/post/126434697304/the-problem-of-ninon 

Anyway, I really hope the next episode will be better! 

Red Guards killed: 1 or 2, impossible to really tell

Ladies killed: Therese

Best Dressed: Ninon. She did have some pretty dresses. 

[shutterupp31]

Toxic masculinity-Whats wrong with our boys?

For centuries men have been condemned for acts of aggression, violence, and sexism, contributing to the ongoing popularity of the phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ which distinguishes these traits as toxic and unhealthy. The American psychological association have even recently introduced new guidelines for therapists working with both men and boys, indicating that early signs of extreme ‘traditional masculine behaviour’ can root themselves in personality traits that encourage outcomes of violence and misogyny, and must be disestablished early.

With the increase in male suicide rates and drug overdoses in the western world, combined with the rise of fourth wave feminism, as you can imagine, the debate on toxic masculinity is becoming all the more relevant amongst both genders. Mass media have blamed toxic masculinity for rape, mass shootings, online trolling, climate change and even the election of Donald Trump.

BUT is the phrase toxic masculinity actually helpful, accurate or universal? Let's discuss. 

Like any phrase or term regularly recycled within gender debate, the stereotypes it highlights have divided peoples opinions drastically, a predictable conflict that has most definitely contributed to the terms rise, (Yay politics). On the right we have many conservatives who allege that the charges of toxic masculinity is itself an attack on manhood. With mental health problems amongst males consistently rising, combined with the challenges the men's right movement already face, including paternity rights, homelessness, education to name a FEW, these people argue that it is dangerous and unfair to strip boys of what some would say is a necessity for them to discover their true selves as men in their time of need.

On the other side we see many ‘progressives’ who believe that the detoxification of masculinity is absolutely essential on the road to gender equality.

NOW, i'm sure (I mean I hope) we can all agree that issues including sexism, rape, violence and so on are obviously important and anyone male or female that possess these traits and/or actively defends them, needs help! Research consistently shows that those who hold sexist attitudes are more likely to perpetrate gendered violence. (DUH), but the potential biological and cultural contributions to why these figures are disproportionate amongst men and women is not something I wish to discuss at present, that's a whole other debate. 

What I do want to talk about (and what a lot of people aren't talking about) is this ‘painting every male with the same brush’ phenomenon and the extent to which this could be harmful.

My issue with the shift we have seen in which masculinity is rapidly becoming a dirty word, is that it genuinely encourages a narrative in which masculinity is fundamentally toxic. 

The assumption that the majority of what can be considered as male specific characteristics, as fundamentally harmful, is becoming increasingly worrying within socialist politics. Traits such as aggression, violence and dominance are more and more often being lumped in with those such as strength, confidence and independence and this is the problem. Yes masculinity can indeed be somewhat destructive, (AGAIN VIOLENCE IS BAD VERY BAD, NON VIOLENCE GOOD VERY GOOD) but both conservative and liberal stances on this issue commonly misunderstand how the term functions.

When people use it, they tend to diagnose the problem of masculine aggression and entitlement as a cultural or spiritual illness, something that has infected today’s men and leads them to reproachable acts. But toxic masculinity itself is not a cause. Over the past thirty years, as the concept has morphed and changed, it has served more as a barometer for the gender politics of its day and as an arrow toward the subtler, shifting causes of violence and sexism.

Acts of violence, aggression and sexism arise for a whole host of reasons, including socioeconomic factors such as education, class, and poverty, NEWSFLASH, not all men that celebrate the idea of being emotionally or physically strong intend to murder and rape the entire female population!

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT TIME

How often do you see women on social media celebrating what it means to be a woman? All the time right? Now, don't get me wrong, this rise of what I'm gonna call ‘girl power culture’ is phenomenally empowering.  

But how often do you see men innocently celebrate their manhood or say they are proud to be a man online in the same way?

Very rarely, and if they do they are often immediately attacked for being misogynistic and failing to recognise their privilege by Feminazi’s who fail to read context and get triggered by buzzwords. 

Ooooo Controversial? Perhaps, but AGAIN, I'm not failing to recognise that things like lad culture, and boys will be boys culture exist, and perhaps this obvious difference on social media has something to do with the years of oppression against women up until very recently, in fact it probably, most certainly is, however not acknowledging the multiplicity of reasons for these toxic behaviours, and not allowing men to celebrate that they like and may even enjoy being one, in the same way as its widely excepted amongst women, is well, kinda just dumb.

Don't believe me yet? Let's look at the evidence. 

First I think it is important to establish where the term originated. Despite the term’s recent popularity among feminists, toxic masculinity did not originate with the women’s movement. It was coined in the mythopoetic men's movement of the 1980s and ’90s, motivated in part as a reaction to second-wave feminism. Through male only workshops, wilderness retreats, and drumming circles, this movement promoted a masculine spirituality to rescue what it referred to as the ‘deep masculine’, a protective ‘warrior’ type masculinity, from toxic masculinity. Men’s aggression and frustration was, according to the movement, the result of a society that feminized boys by denying them the necessary rites and rituals to realise their true selves as men. 

The claim of a singular, real masculinity has now been roundly rejected by a new sociology of masculinity. Led by the sociologist Raewyn Connell, this school of thought presents gender as the product of relations and behaviours, rather than as a fixed set of identities and attributes. Connell’s work describes multiple masculinities shaped by class, race, culture, sexuality, and other factors, often in competition with one another as to which can claim to be more authentic. In this view, which is now the prevailing social scientific understanding of masculinity, the standards by which a “real man” is defined can vary dramatically across time and place.

Connell and others theorised that common masculine ideals such as social respect, physical strength, and sexual potency can of course become problematic when they set unattainable standards. Falling short can make boys and men insecure and anxious, which might prompt them to use force in order to feel, and be seen as, dominant and in control, HOWEVER Male violence in this scenario doesn’t emanate from something bad or toxic that has crept into the nature of masculinity itself. Rather, it comes from these men’s social and political settings, the particularities of which set them up for inner conflicts over social expectations and male entitlement.

The popular discussion of masculinity has often presumed there are fixed character types among men, and I think it's become increasingly more important to be skeptical of this in order to understand the situations in which groups of men act, the patterns, and the inevitable consequences, because without doing so ,YOU may be contributing to the reinforcement of the toxic masculinity in which you despise so much, which brings us on to….

The blame game-are you contributing to toxic masculinity?

Where do these sexist attitudes come from? Are men and boys just the victims of cultural brainwashing into misogyny and aggression, requiring reeducation into the ‘right’ beliefs? Or are these problems more deep rooted, and created by the myriad of insecurities and contradictions of men’s lives under gender inequality? The problem with a crusade against toxic masculinity is that in targeting culture as the enemy, it risks overlooking the real life conditions and forces that sustain culture.

It is more than likely that you have somewhat contributed to the reinforcement of toxic masculinity without even realising. Something I see so often is both men and women emasculating men for being emotionally vulnerable and this specific topic is something I personally find alarming. In the same way I defend a man's right to choose how and whether he verbally expresses emotions, I strongly believe that there is work to be done to deconstruct the stigma that is attached to this, when and if they choose to do so.

In similar fashion, in the way we have fought so hard to reject female beauty standards, it's really essential that we consider the male equivalent. Don't think there is one? Ask any man under 5 foot 8, ask any bald man under the age of 30, ask any man who has been shamed for the lack of, or excess of body hair. We have to start recognising that there is a double standard, and without too much speculation, could these expectations and lack of attention we are giving them in comparison to a lot of feminist issues in mass media, be somewhat contributing to the frustration and anger that manifests into these toxic traits we have been discussing. YEAH, FUCKING PROBABLY.

Anyway, in summary what I'm saying is, in the same way that the toxic traits we subscribe to masculinity are not universal amongst all males, the solutions to those issues that we have identified within this culture, are also not universal. Recognising differences in the lives of men and boys is crucial to the effectiveness of efforts to resolve gender violence and inequality once and for all, some food for thought. 

Stay kind always, Abbie x

[maybeilikenumbers]

Qualifying Immunity

Midnight on July 18, 2004, Donald Rickard was pulled over for a broken headlight. Upon being asked to step out of his vehicle, Rickard drove away at high speed and police pursued. Officers later surrounded Rickard in a parking lot, where he again attempted to flee. Officers then fired shots into the vehicle in an attempt to stop the suspect, killing Rickard and his passenger. Donald Rickard’s family filed a claim against the local government for the incident, citing a number of alleged injustices; however, the police department attempted to have the suit dismissed as frivolous due to officers’ “proper conduct,” which should have granted qualified immunity — freedom from certain lawsuits against public officials, granted to avoid trivial lawsuits. Regardless of whether immunity was granted in this particular instance, the fact remains that it was a viable alternative for the defense to use against a trial bringing multiple high-profile charges—a privilege that ought to be limited for the common beat cop.

Pearson v. Callahan clarifies that “qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably” (Pearson v. Callahan). This definition clarifies the purpose of the doctrine, but opens a few questions in so doing: When do public officials’ actions become ‘irresponsible’? And what constitutes a ‘reasonable’ action? Both of these seem impossible to distinguish without clarification of what action is necessary in a public official’s position and to what standard officials must be held. To make such distillations simpler, limit the problem to police officers, as in the aforementioned Plumhoff v. Rickard. 

So what is a police officer’s duty? The standard value applied to law enforcement is the promotion of security, although many would contest that in the United States, such security is unequally applied to a population that has generally all “agreed” to a social contract by living among others in a society. Thus, two values emerge: security of the population and equality of security’s application.

To begin, first examine equality (a sensitive topic in regards to law enforcement, but a necessary portion of the argument nonetheless). The fairness of law is generally always established by how evenly it is applied to the citizenry, regarding race, ethnicity, culture, disability, occupation, and so on. The podcast Invisibilia, in its episode “The Culture Inside” explores the commonality of implicit bias and how culture ingrains near-indetectable beliefs in individuals, focusing on race (“The Culture Inside”). This presents a notable analog to the issue of qualified immunity, as there is significant disparity in how minority groups are treated by police forces nationwide likely due to racial biases, as presented by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2018 (Mesic et. al.). A better analysis, though, looks into qualified immunity and by whom it may be granted. It’s already well-established that implicit bias exists, typically against those from racial or ethnic groups different from their own, so observe trends in those who are given the reigns to immunity. “A Demographic Snapshot of America's Federal Judiciary: A Prima Facie Case for Change,” published by the Richmond School of Law professor Jonathan K. Stubbs, details trends in the judiciary based on race and gender, contrasted to the reality of the United States’ population. Stubbs’ findings give a significant reason to question the validity and equity of qualified immunity claims: sixty-seven percent of the bench consisted of white male judges, while black males comprised only six percent (though still, black males comprise the third largest group reported by this study, following white males and females, which altogether sum to approximately eighty-three percent of the judge pool) (Stubbs). By comparison, the 2010 census estimated thirty-two percent of the population were white males, displaying a gap between the proportion of individuals who have power over qualified immunity (police officers and judges) and those who such a privilege may actually harm—even without full awareness—through each person's naturally ingrained "culture inside." Here lies major reason to question, or even challenge the allocation of security as being “equal.” 

Yet, even if one were to set aside the question of fairness, the purported security of the doctrine still  remains to be placed on trial. The core assertion in the qualified immunity argument for increased safety goes something like this: “It would be in poor practice to allow US law enforcement officers to go about their day-to-day business whilst having to simultaneously face the bother of an overly-litigious society. The boys in blue have enough to worry about as is.” This, unfortunately displays an assumption from unfounded grounds, which the father of empiricism, Francis Bacon, might have referred to as one of a number of idols, most clearly those of the Cave or Marketplace. Throughout Bacon’s discussion of what he calls Idols of the Mind, he makes it apparent that, in order to counteract the common fallacies of conventional wisdom, one must question their validity and accuracy (Bacon). How then is Bacon’s process applied to previous assumption? Bacon’s question would likely be, “What police officer, going about the menial, everyday tasks of their occupation, or even enjoying the thrill of the less common aspects of vocation, truly carries an endless burden for fear of lawsuit?” It is likely that none do, and also likely that those who do carry a guilty conscience. Rather than an assertion for security would suggest, the risk of lawsuit likely encourages better professional practice where necessary, as it does in any other field. So why is it truly valuable to limit a fairly simplistic channel by which US law enforcement may be held accountable? There seems to be little reason remaining.

To summarize, one must observe the difference in how qualified immunity is justified: in its ends. In the long-run, it is difficult to see the consequences of immunity for police officers being much more than a number of low profile court cases dismissed to give already overworked public defense lawyers a much needed recess in their duties, however the end result is not always a proper justification. Were a man to swindle ten-thousand cattle from a poor rancher in the midwestern United States to feed many more individuals steak dinners for charity benefits, would his ends be justified? One may say, “Yes. The dinners likely supported a number of wonderful causes, and tens of thousands of steaks make for a good many donors.” This stance, while it acknowledges the altruism of one man’s actions, fails to take into account the means by which this man acquired his benevolent offering, by stealing from someone in a position worse than those reaping the benefits. So too does qualified immunity detract from its justification of practicality by excusing injustices of police men and women. “Excusing a number of low profile court cases” seems to be reasonable until one realizes that little things add up to a lack of accountability. An inconsistent justice system in which errors accumulate to become precedent is no tool for the people, it is the government’s kidney failure—a system of platitudes, concessions, and appeasements which disable accountability and distract from objectives, concentrating waste until the general body can no longer stand to face the flaw any longer and it must be fixed, cleansed and replaced, or left to fester. 

Then, qualified immunity must be confined by a similar set of constraints, which block any extra avenues for misbehavior, inequality of treatment and judgement, and acknowledge the value of people as means, not ends, to be treated justly.

Works Cited

Bacon, Francis. "The Four Idols." Sophia-project.org. 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 5 Oct. 2018.

Mesic, Franklin, Cansever, Potter, Sharma, Knopov, and Siegel. "The Relationship Between Structural Racism and Black-White Disparities in Fatal Police Shootings at the State Level." Journal of the National Medical Association 110.2 (2018): 106-16. Web.

N.a. "The Culture Inside : NPR." Npr.org. 8 Jun. 2017. Web. 2 Oct. 2018.

N.a. "PEARSON v. CALLAHAN." Law.cornell.edu. n.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2018.

Stubbs, Jonathan K. "A Demographic Snapshot of America's Federal Judiciary: A Prima Facie Case for Change." University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository. 4 May 2017. Web. 5 Oct. 2018.

[moonlitgleek]

ramzesfics reblogged your post and added:

[....] where did the idea of having the option to safely say “no” go? Someone thinks that Elia actually could safely say “no” to the man who decided that this was the only night he had to fuck her in? (Remember, this night was very important to him, else he would have tried again before and after.) But this possibility isn’t even mentioned. The entire awfulness of the situation is waved away with a tentative, “MAY be utterly callous… it does interfere with her consent”… Makes me wonder where the callousness is. If Elia was this willing, Rhaegar is not callous at all. It was her choice, after all. Her risk to take.

Earth to fandom: a consent interfered with is not a consent freely given. Amazing, I know, but this is a concept that doesn’t only apply to cutely wilful wolf-blooded girls of fifteen, it also applies to until recently bedridden Dornish princesses who almost certainly knew that waiting for a mere month or two vastly improved their chances of going through pregnancy successfully but had prophecy obsessed husbands. For the record, I also wouldn’t call Rhaegar a rapist. Elia most certainly thought it was her wifely duty. But it sure as hell falls under the definition of “a little rapey”, like many things in GRRM’s world.

I’ll choose to ignore the blatant hostile and condescending tone you use throughout your reply in favor of addressing your points. But perhaps next time you might think of toning that down. Your points can be easily made without talking down to me like that, and less hostility makes for a more productive discussion instead of a shouting match.

Anyway.

I clearly said that Elia’s consent is interfered with. I clearly said that it isn’t a healthy situation. My point is that calling it rape, or a bit rapey which is essentially the same thing, puts Rhaegar as the perpetrator and the one responsible for that which I don’t agree with. The problem with Elia’s consent, in my interpretation, is that the sociopolitical culture of Westeros inherently undermines free consent. That stands true for most Westerosi marriages. It’s a society whose politics and power structure is maintained through arranged marriage which doesn’t really bother with clear and free consent. It commodifies highborn individuals, especially women, as pawns to be used to gain alliances, political power, status, economic privileges, etc. It engenders a significant power disparity between genders which translates to men having inordinate power over their wives, which is then exacerbated by the societal pressure it places women under by holding them to a rigid structure of conduct. Society says that providing sex to their husbands is a duty, that bearing and rearing children is a duty, that giving access to their very bodies is. a. duty. On top of that, it makes it that their political legacy and power is intrinsically tied to their children. Outside of ruling ladies, noble women maintain power through their children so having children seizes to be only a thing they are taught is their duty, and quite literally becomes a way of securing the mother’s place. In a society where women are subject to men’s power and whims, that is an important objective.

All that makes consent a mess. That’s what the make-up of Westerosi society does; it removes true sexual agency from people. That stands especially true for women, particularly those in certain ranks where providing children becomes a political obligation. That absolutely interferes with consent so I can see where it can be called rape. My problem comes from the fact that we’d be basically calling pretty much every marriage in Westeros rape that way, because consent is interfered with everywhere. So is Ned the same as Robert? Is Stannis the same as Aerys? Is the consent issues the same? I can’t say that. Which is why I draw a line between “yes, there is an issue with consent here but that doesn’t makes this person a rapist” and “someone is clearly and deliberately ignoring consent and/or creating a situation where consent can’t be given”. Rhaegar/Elia are in the first category, Rhaegar/Lyanna in the second. I hesitate to draw parallels between them, and it’s not because Lyanna is white and Elia isn’t.

It’s because that while I think that Elia’s consent is interfered with because she is under pressure; this pressure didn’t necessarily come from Rhaegar’s person. You have a valid point in criticizing me for not allowing a margin of error because yes, it is possible that Rhaegar himself pressured Elia because there was a comet in the sky this specific night (though I’m not sure where your confidence that this was the only night of intercourse between Rhaegar and Elia comes from). My interpretation differs, partly because I don’t see any instance where Martin hints that the situation isn’t what it appears to be, partly because I’m almost certain that this is an example of his inability to math and that he just didn’t notice that having Elia bedridden for six months after Rhaenys’ birth but having Rhaenys and Aegon born in two successive years when Rhaenys couldn’t have been possibly born any earlier than late 280 leaves a very small window for Aegon’s conception. The author’s doylist math challenges should not overwhelm in-universe explanations but it lends a useful frame in light of the lack of additional evidence. So my point is that while Elia’s consent is interfered with, it’s not necessarily Rhaegar who caused that interference and thus should be blamed for it. Which the original ask does.

In terms of the comparison between Elia and Lyanna, I don’t parallel them because their ability to consent isn’t the same. On account of age alone, there is a whole lot of difference to what Elia could hypothetically consent to as a 25-year-old and what Lyanna could consent to as a 14-year-old. Elia can consent to sex with Rhaegar, Lyanna can not. It is not possible. The situation is drastically different as well; it’s possible that Rhaegar pressured Elia but it’s just as possible that Elia agreed willingly (and I hear what you say about the dangers this could pose to her fertility and don’t disagree. But Martin has eschewed that logic way too many times for me not to see this as a solid possibility.) Rhaegar held power over both Elia and Lyanna that could be used to coerce, that’s true, but Elia’s ability to say yes to her husband with whom she has a comparable maturity level and rank, in their home, with a loyal retinue in the vicinity is starkly different from Lyanna’s ability to say yes when she has none of that. That does not mean that Elia couldn’t be coerced, but the two situations are not comparable. In Lyanna’s case, Rhaegar created the situation that prevented Lyanna’s consent to be valid or free. He deliberately perpetuated a chain of events that left her at a disadvantage, isolated and completely vulnerable to the crown prince and three loyal Kingsguard. Rhaegar himself unambiguously interfered with Lyanna’s consent. The difference here is that there is a possibility for Elia to consent, but that isn’t true for Lyanna.

Finally, I admit I’m a bit confused. You say that you also wouldn’t call Rhaegar a rapist for this. You concur that Elia probably thought it was her wifely duty. So the issue seems to be that you think I brushed away the awfulness of the situation. Except.... do I need to point out that a woman feeling it’s her duty to provide children for her husband or to secure herself is fucked up? Sometimes I do spell it out. But sometimes I rely on the fact that people reading don’t need me to tell them that’s not right. I acknowledge that it’s not a healthy situation. I acknowledge that Elia’s consent is suspect. There are consent issues but I don’t call it rape because I blame Westerosi mores that wreaks havoc with consent on the best of days. So I haven’t ignored the awfulness of the situation as much as that you think my word choice makes it too tentative. But at the same time you refer to me saying “Elia might” in my post as “a long post why this woman had almost certainly decided it was the best idea ever, her saving grace!”. Okay?

[constellations-and-energy]

Can you review WHITEBOY by Tom MacDonald?

i’m not quite sure how to review songs but i’ll give it a go!

I think it’s an important song. The lyrics are expressing something that I think a lot of white people feel when they hear black people hating on white people. He does a good job naming white families in power who are directly responsible for hurting black people and minorities, such as the Bushes, Rockafellers, etc. 

While the song does address some good points about how white people, specifically white straight men are viewed in our society today, I believe that it’s at least partially coming from a place of personal responsibility. It feels as though he is on some level accepting the responsibility for the atrocities white people have committed in the past and is taking the “white people suck” mentality onto a more personal, individual level. 

In reality the “white people suck” mentality is a whole lot like the “men suck” mentality. They are not meant to attack individual people (for the most part). They are meant to attack the societal structure that allowed white people to do such horrific things to black people and other poc. 

Taking it and addressing it on a personal level can, as I understand it, come off as white people asking for forgiveness from black people so that the emotional responsibility of forgiving a white person for all of the harm and damage white people have done to black people falls once again onto black people’s shoulders. It’s not black peoples’ job to make you feel better about being white, it’s YOUR job to become an advocate and do your part to make the world a better place for black people and other poc to exist in. 

Yes, being angry and bucking against the specific white people in power who are causing harm to black people on a massive scale is incredibly important! 

But maybe what’s even more important is recognizing your part in society, the privilege that you have to make a change, and the strength and willpower to put your privilege to work to help lift up and make the world a better place to be for people of color. 

One verse in particular got me a little iffy, the line in which the artist says,

“Got no patience for Nazis, I think they’re better off dead

They’re fightin’ hatred with hatred makin’ the hate more intense

I don’t want nothin’ to do with either side of the fence

So don’t blindly attack me for wearin’ braids on my head”

Firstly, saying you don’t want anything to do with either side of the fence, Nazis being on one side, the people being attacked by Nazis on the other side, automatically makes you complicit in Nazi ideologies. So you can say all you want that you think Nazis should die but as soon as you say you don’t want to take a side, well guess what my guy, you’ve already taken one and it’s not the side of the victims.

Secondly, if a black person is attacking you for wearing braids it’s because it’s cultural appropriation. A black person would not attack you for wearing white braids, but cornrows or box braids? Of fucking course they’re going to go after you because IT IS RACIST. You can’t make a whole song about how you’re not racist and then get mad when you get called out BY BLACK PEOPLE for BEING EXPLICITLY RACIST. 

There are other examples in the song like that and the link to the lyrics is in here but that’s where I’ll leave it because this is way longer than I was expecting it to be.

TL;DR: WHITEBOY is just a white person refusing to acknowledge their privilege and putting their energy into telling black people not to hate all white people when they could instead be writing songs solely advocating for black people, speaking out about injustices to black people, and also, not rap because in my opinion rap belongs to black people and white people shouldn’t have anything to do with it because it’s not for us. 

Here are the lyrics for those who are interested