#For context I have a lot of religious issues regarding my family and stuff

[imveryrandomplzleave]

You know. i never expected to be writing fanfic of a game about cults but here we are.

#For context I have a lot of religious issues regarding my family and stuff #its definitely not that bad but it was what originally stopped me from playing cotl. #like my immediate family doesn't celebrate birthdays/christmas/easter/halloween #because they're conspiracy theorists and think all of those are sins. #So i'm very glad to play a game to desensitize me to all of those slight triggers. #damn this turned into a vent i am so sorry. #uhh #vents #delete eventually ig #ANYWAYS I'm making Lamb as desperate for meaningful autistic social interaction as me :)

[rickie-the-storyteller]

Hello, all!

So, I've been trying to make an overview of the Steph's Crew sequels for you... but it has been taking forever. I did not know how COMPLICATED this story was while I was setting it all up lol.

But yeah. In the meantime, how about I show you some cool stuff?

Character Names + Meanings (for the main cast of UVC):

Stephanie:

The name "Stephanie" has Greek origins, deriving from "Stephanos," meaning "crown" or "garland."

This is a good name for a main protagonist - could indicate her central role within the story, especially regarding the mystery and investigation.

Ben:

"Ben" is often a short form of "Benjamin" or "Benedict," (it's the latter in this case), and both mean the same thing - "son of the right hand" or "blessed."

This name could suggest a significant role in the life of other characters, like Stephanie.

Also indicates what a genuinely kind, good person he is, especially in contrast with some of the other folks in this story lol. Like his wife.

Dylan:

"Dylan" is a name of Welsh origin, meaning "son of the sea" or "born from the ocean."

This name might symbolise his adaptability or fluidity in relationships and life circumstances. He's known for being very chill and easygoing, even in tense moments.

Alice:

"Alice" is often associated with the meaning "noble" or "of noble birth."

Also could be a reference to Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" story (about an ordinary girl finding herself in a magical world).

In the story, Alice could represent a character with a strong sense of honour or nobility, perhaps dealing with issues of loss and relationships (which she does in this sequel... mild spoiler alert).

Bret:

The name "Bret" could be a variation of "Brett," which is short for "Bretton," meaning "man of Britain," or "a native of Brittany."

In the context of the story, Bret's character might have elements tied to his origins or background. Doesn't really say much about him as a character (unfortunate, as there is a lot to his character! Especially in the sequel).

Elise:

"Elise" is a name of French origin, derived from "Elizabeth," meaning "God is my oath."

This name could signify a character with a strong sense of faith or determination. This suits her a lot... it's strongly suggested that El and her family are religious, and she as a character is very determined, strong and principled, and she passionately stands up for herself and what she believes in, even if her views aren't popular with others.

Connor:

"Connor" is an Anglicized form of the Irish-Gaelic name "Conchobhar," meaning "lover of hounds." Or dogs in general.

This name could hint at loyalty or association with dogs, which might relate to his role as a supportive friend. Dogs are loyal companions, and he is a good friend to Elise when they're in Cambridge together, so I'd say that definition fits.

Daisy Sommer (Connor's lecturer):

"Daisy" is a flower name, often symbolizing innocence and purity.

The surname of "Sommer" (German for summer) might evoke a sense of warmth or positivity, reflecting her character's disposition.

Daisy is a warm, bubbly person, and she has a lot of enthusiasm for her work (and just life generally) that makes her stand out to Connor in the story. It also rubs off on people a lot, so people generally just enjoy spending time with her.

Rachel:

"Rachel" is of Hebrew origin, meaning "ewe" or "innocence."

This name represents purity or vulnerability. And she's very vulnerable in book 2, so that fits well too.

Gordon:

The name "Gordon" is of Scottish origin, associated with a place name meaning "spacious fort."

It might convey stability or a strong presence in the story.

Gordon is the opposite of "stability" lol. But he has kind of a strong presence in the story (though I will say, since there's soooo much going on in the story, he probably hasn't got that strong of a presence lol), and in Rachel's story especially.

Charlie:

"Charlie" is often a short form of "Charles," which means "free man."

This name showcases Charlie's sense of freedom or independence. Which... in the first book, there was a specific part where Elise said that was a similar reason why she fell for Bret... his freedom, his desire to live for himself and not conform to what others want from him. All that to say, the girl's got a type.

Mary:

"Mary" is another Biblical name (woohoo!) of Hebrew origin, meaning "beloved" or "bitter."

Could also be a reference to the Mary in the Bible... Mother of Jesus (as well as this pure, good and dutiful woman who always does what God asks of her. Blessed and highly favoured. Mary Johnson isn't perfect by any means, but she's known for being the "good" twin, and she is also academically gifted)

Everybody loves Mary. And she can be rather bitter at times, I suppose. This definition fits well, too! (Oh, and, no spoilers or anything, but Mary in the sequel goes through a lot... it's sad what happens to her)

Angel (Charlie's cousin):

"Angel" is a word often associated with heaven, divine messengers or goodness.

In the story, this character may symbolise a positive influence or aid.

This girl is honestly not important until like halfway through... when the summer formal plot comes in. She couldn't find herself a date, so Bret agreed to go with her (not for the best of reasons... but still a nice gesture from him). They don't end up together or anything (they don't even go together in the end), but in the short time they spend together, she leaves a huge impact on him. Some people just have that effect on others, you know?

Isn't this cool?

Let's make this a tag game!!

Rules for Character Names + Meanings Tag Game:

Make a list of your main OCs and find out the meanings of their names. Then write down their definition and whether or not you think the definition fits their character.

Tagging these people to try it out: @mysticstarlightduck, @winterandwords, @gummybugg, @clairelsonao3, @aziz-reads, @exquisitecrow, @ember-writer

#rickie-the-storyteller #steph's crew #unreported violent crimes #URC #original characters #character names #name meanings #tag game

[benevolentbirdgal]

A “brief” reference guide to modern Jewish denominations / Jewish Writing Advice / Jewish Identity / Jewish Reference Guide [graphic at bottom]

Writing a Jew or Jewish family? Aware that Judaism is not a monolith and want to honor that? Great! Need help with that? 100% cool - I’m here as your friendly (virtual) neighborhood Jewish professional to help. Just want to know more about Jewish denominations in comparison to one another? Also great! Fair warning - this is a long one. At least I included a graphic at the bottom?

Quick notes to acknowledge: As always, this is an American and Americanish perspective (and denominations as discussed here are MOSTLY relevant in the U.S. anyways). Additionally, the modern denominations as we think of them today really sprung from Ashkenazi communities in the 19th and 20th centuries. Most extant U.S. synagogues, day schools, and groups follow Ashkenazi customs and align with a denomination born of Ashkenazi tradition (aligning with the approximately 90% of Jewish-Americans who are Ashkenazi or Ashkenazi plus another community). Sephardi, Mizrachi, and other Jewish communities have their own traditions and jurisprudence. Most organized non-Ashkenazi communities in the U.S. identify as nondenominational but most closely compare in practice to orthodoxy, and many non-Ashkenazi Jews (especially outside of major population centers that may have other specific subgroup’s synagogues) are members of and very involved in Ashkenazi-originating movements, institutions, and synagogues. 

For the purpose’s of today’s discussion, we’ll start in the 19th century, because Karaites vs Pharisees vs Sadducees is a (his)story for another time. This also isn’t a history of how these denominations came to be-with the exception of some ultraorthodox groups, which may have sprung from the shtel a little earlier, all the below movements popped out of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I’m also going to list approximate percentage of the American Jewish population, and I’m going to (kinda) go in order from most to least strict/traditionally observant. 

Ultraorthodox (aka Haredi): The strictest, more traditional and expansive observance of the Torah, Talmud, and minhagim (customs). About 1% of American Jews are ultraorthodox. Ultraorthodox is not a unified movement. 

1a. Haredi, Satmar, and most other groups generally isolate themselves from the wider Jewish world and secular world.

1b. Chabad is also ultraorthodox, but specially seeks to interact with less observant Jews. I wouldn’t call it proselytizing, because they don’t seek to make gentiles Jewish, but they do try and find less observant Jews and bring them closer to Judaism, also establishes small synagogues around the country and world in isolated place. 

1c. Ultraorthodox are the most visibly Jewish attired group, wearing Kippahs for all men and boys and tichels (headscarves) and/or wigs for married women. Very modest attire for all. In Ashkenazi Ultraorthodox communities, men also tend to only wear black and white, hats in addition to their kippah (for grown and married men), and wearing tzitzit (a garmet with four corners with strings attached worn under a shirt with the threads sticking out). 

1d. Most likely to speak Yiddish or Hebrew as first language.

1e. No gender equality, very strict kosher, and intense community adherence to particular brand of Judaism.

1f. Communities generally led by a Rabbi and a Rebbetzin (Rabbi’s wife) as pair (rabbis are generally expected to be married).

1g. No female Rabbis, same-sex marriage, or intermarriage. Lots of children. Pretty much all boys have Bar Mitzahs, rarely do girls have Bat Mitzvahs. 

1h. Services entirely in Hebrew (except maybe the sermon).

1i. Only count matrilineal Jews and converts-Jewish father and gentile mother doesn’t count for them. 

1j. Very strict observance of prohibitions and commandments pertaining to Shabbat and holidays. 

Modern orthodox: Orthodox, but with some adaptations to modern life. Roughly 9% of American Jews. Also some division within modern orthodoxy (with some congregations being more liberal than others, particularly in regards to women and LGBTQ+ folks), but there are a couple of major organizations that most modox rabbis and congregations affiliate with one another through larger denomination movements (i.e. the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America). 

2a. Modern orthodox Jews regularly interact with other Jews who are more liberal. They tend to live in more Jewish communities but no issues with interacting with outside world.

2b. Modest clothing and men wear kippot everywhere (when safe). Married women also usually cover their hair (with wigs or tichels). Men also typically wear tzitzit. 

2b. Gender roles, but progress being made. Handful of female rabbis emerging in 2010s/2020s. Whether women count in a minyan depends on the specific congregation and many modern orthodox shuls will have separate women’s prayer groups. The prevalence of Bat Mitzvahs also varies wildly congregation to congregation.

2c. Like ultraorthodox, communities are typically led by a Rabbi and his wife the Rebbetzin. Some acceptance of homosexual individuals as members of the community, but no same-sex marriage (some alternate ceremonies emerging). Like one out gay male rabbi. No intermarriage.

2d. Very strict adherence to kosher, would likely not eat at someone less kosher’s home.

2e. Usually have on the higher end of a “normal” amount of children. Services entirely in Hebrew (except sermon).

2f. Only count matrilineal Jews and converts-Jewish father and gentile mother doesn’t count for them.

Less traditionally observant than this is often known as “liberal Judaism” - around 90% of American Jews.

2g.  Very strict observance of prohibitions and commandments pertaining to Shabbat and holidays. 

Conservative: Brands itself as middle of the road Jewish movement. about 18% of the American Jewish population. No connection to conservative politics, most Conservative with a C Jews are liberal or moderate politically. Often called “Masorti” outside the U.S and hypothetically a unified movement under several connected organizations (i.e. the Masorti Olami and the Jewish Theological Seminary). 

3a. Gender equality. Female rabbis and LGBTQ rabbis definitely an acceptable thing, but not as common as with Reform or Reconstructionist. 

3b. Formally sanctioned ceremony for same-sex couples to wed under Jewish law since 2012 and affirmation ceremonies since 2006.

3c. Modesty in synagogues but comparable to regular American attire otherwise.

3d. Generally comparable family size to other American families.

3e. Kosher, but not as strict as orthodoxy. Many Conservative Jews have kosher homes but are willing to be more lax when eating out. Synagogues are always kosher.

3f. Services mostly in Hebrew, sermons and some prayers definitely in local language.

3g. Intermarriage is frowned upon, but many otherwise Conservative Jews will be married by a less traditional rabbi or justice of the peace to non-Jewish partners. Although Conservative rabbis do not perform interfaith marriages, many interfaith couples are in Conservative synagogues. In the 90s/2000s it was way less friendly to interfaith couples/families (laughs in having a goyish dad) but that has improved in the past 3-5 years substantially. 

3h. Observance of prohibitions and commandments pertaining to Shabbat and holidays is regulated but less strict than orthodoxy. Varies a bit by community. A good example to illustrate this is getting to synagogue on Shabbat:

By the book (not necessarily reflected by attendees): Orthodoxy says you have to walk there (no driving), Reform says it’s no issue to drive on Shabbat, and Conservative says you can drive but only to get to shul and back. 

3i. As with orthodoxy, only matrilineal Jews count. Most interfaith families with non-Jewish moms (or moms who converted post-birth of the kid), particularly those who want to participate in Conservative communities will convert the child as a baby so they can have a normal Jewish upbringing (beyond an extra blessing/prayer in the Bnai Mitzvah process and social awkwardness that oft accompanies interfaith families in Jewish spaces).

3j. Most dress comparably to others in geographic area (synagogue notwithstanding, see my other post). Men on the higher end of observant might also wear kippahs all the time as well. Outside of explicitly Jewish contexts, similar lifestyles to surrounding populations. Around the same number of children as in gentile families. 

Reform: Not at all traditionally observant. About 35% of American Jews. More or less a cohesive movement linked by organizations (i.e. Women of Reform Judaism and the Union for Reform Judaism).

4a. Reform Judaism is the largest group. It generally views Judaism through the lens of social justice, repairing the world, and cultural heritage as opposed to religious mandate. 

4b. Very big on personal choice in what one observes, I like to call it “choose your own adventure” Judaism. 

4c. Keeping kosher is uncommon. Some shuls aren’t even kosher.

4d. Reform services use the least Hebrew, although this is changing in some places. 

4e. Reform’s standard of Jewishness is 1+ Jewish parent(s) and raised doing Jewish things, regardless of which parent is Jewish. 

4f. Very feminist/egalitarian and welcoming to LGBTQ+ folks. Highest number of not-straight rabbis and female rabbis. 

4g. Intermarriage very common and can be performed by Reform rabbis. 

4h. Reform Judaism was way ahead of the curve in terms of LGBTQ+ rights and religion. The movement has had members advocating for homosexual rights (protection in housing, employment, civil marriage, and other nondiscrimination protections) since 1965 (finally passing formal resolutions in 1977), began proactively including/welcoming out gay rabbis in 1990, created same-gender marriage Jewish ceremonies in 1996/7, and has made resolutions explicitly including bi and trans people as well since 2004 (stuff earlier than that generally specified “gay and lesbian”). An additional resolution was passed in 2015 regarding trans and nonbinary inclusion, alongside guides to help congregations do so. 

4i. See #3j - also applies here. 

Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform, are the biggest and “standard” movements people will most typically list and identify with, most likely to appear in surveys and studies, are older than everything listed below. Modern Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform all started in the 19th century and some Ultraorthodox groups trace back further than that. I’ve outlined some practical differences, but the basic theoretical difference is that Orthodox considers traditional Jewish law (Halacha) binding and you can’t change it, Conservative believes it it’s binding but the community can change it, and Reform believes that it’s nonbinding. 

Some smaller movements: 

Reconstructionist - Newest even remotely well-known and organized movement, founded in the 1920s as an offshoot of the Conservative movement. I would describe it as “build your own adventure but Halacha matters (or at least some of it).” The first thing almost every recon Jew I’ve ever met has told me when describing reconstructionism is that they invented the bat mitzvah in 1922, which basically translates to “tradition matters but also egalitarianism.”

Maybe 2%-5% of American Jews today self-ID as Reconstructionist, but I would argue that a lot of nondenominal practitioners have philosophies fairly aligned with the recon ethos. 

Jewish Renewal: very small and relatively disorganized movement started in the 1960s. Attempts to bring Jewish tradition and modern sensibilities, hippie Jews who care about Halacha. Big on mysticism and music, doing Jewish enthusiastically, and a tendency towards more traditional observance in conjunction with progressive politics. Kind of the laid-back cousin of reconstructionism, although neither sprung from the other. 

(Cultural) Humanistic Judaism: “Non-theistic” Judaism for atheist Jews who still want a connection to their history, culture, and celebrations. 

Nondenominational - Nondenominational and post-denominational Jews are the fast growing group. Variety of liberal/non-traditionally observant beliefs and practices, but most will still contextualize themselves around the denominational scale.

#writeblr #jewish writing advice #jewish writing help #writing jewish characters #writing jewish spaces #jumblr #jewblr #writing advice #ref #reference #jewish ref #jewish reference #jewish denominations #judiasm #another long one still not sorry #info dump

[dancedance-resolution]

andi mack friendom, are you interested in some more thoughts about my andi mack / american girl crossover (which is actually just a thinly veiled info dump about american girl history and drama)? if so, you're in the right place!

the andi / buffy / cyrus doll set i designed would be a contemporary line.

CONTEXT (forewarning, this is basically just an ag info dump about the 2017 contemporary line) (also, tagging @kirstensleepey because i think this write up might be useful for the ag project you're working on <3):

so in 2017, american girl did a brand new thing. they released 3 dolls who were contemporary characters but not girls of the year. (prior to these dolls' release, which are called "the contemporary line" by the ag fandom, the only categories of ag dolls were historicals, girls of the year, and just like yous.)

the contemporary line was controversial for many reasons.

first, we have our main character, tenney grant. (tenney is basically taylor swift as a doll, if taylor were uncool and a r*publican lol.)

one of the reasons why tenney is so controversial is that she overshadowed the girl of the year (henceforth abbreviated as goty) 2017, gabriella mcbride.

tenney was released only one month after gabriella's release. ag's social media gave much more focus to tenney than gabriella. upon tenney's release, gabriella's store displays were downsized (which is unheard of for a goty). tenney even had a larger collection than gabriella!

why are we mad about tenney overshadowing gabriella? well, gabriella was ag's first (and as of 2021, ONLY) black goty. also, gabriella was ag's first doll to have an explicity confirmed disability - her stutter.

BRIEF INTERMESSION - SOME STATISTICS ABOUT DIVERSITY IN CHARACTER DOLLS:

only 7 out of the 22 total historical characters have been dolls of color. only 3 out of 22 historicals have been black (one of which is now retired). only 2 out of 22 have been aapi (one of these dolls, ivy, was just a best friend doll and is now retired; and the other doll, nanea, has a problematic face mold. i wrote an essay about why her facemold is problematic here!). only 1 historical doll, josefina, is hispanic, and ag has actually misspelled her name as "josephina" on their social media before.

only 1 doll EVER has been native american, kaya'aton'my, who is a historical character from 1764. (not even any of the just like you dolls have had kaya's face mold! kaya is truly the only indigenous doll!) in fact, ag has had more colonizer characters than indigenous characters. felicity and elizabeth are white character dolls from 1776, and their books fail to address the issues surrounding colonization and treatment of native americans. and kirsten is a swedeish immigrant to wisconsin in 1854. her book does acknowledge the existence of native americans, and kirsten has an indigenous friend named singing bird. (i haven't read kirsten's books and i'm not indigenous, so i can't comment on this storyline.) ag actually had a controversy about kirsten just this year - in 2021, the t-shirt design for kirsten said "settlers gonna settle", and ag actually ended up changing the design to "cabin sweet cabin" after backlash.

moving on to the girl of the year line - out of 21 goty dolls, gabriella is the ONLY black goty. only 6 out of 21 gotys have been dolls of color. there have been 2 hispanic characters (luciana, who is generally regarded as an excellent doll; and marisol, who is controversial because her book talks about how her family moved from pilsen chicago - a real area of chicago that is home to many hispanic immigrants - to a white suburb due to crime. this storyline involves racist stereotypes.) also, goty 2016 lea clark (slightly tan skin, blonde hair, light green eyes) is 1/8th brazilian, and some brazilian ag fans consider the emphasis on lea being 1/8th brazilian racial feticization. next, there have been 3 aapi gotys. one of these dolls, sonali, was one of two best friend dolls for chrissa (goty 2009) - yep, you heard that right, yet another doll of color that is a side character! sonali is the bully in chrissa's books, but she gets a redemption arc. to this day, sonali is ag's only south asian character doll. [additionally, there has been some criticism that all of the aapi gotys are mixed race - jess mcconell (goty 2006) has a japanese mother and an irish/scottish father, kanani akina (goty 2011) has a french/german mother and a japanese/hawaiian father, and sonali matthews has an indian mother and a father of unknown race/ethincity. perhaps notably, the only aapi historical doll who is not currently retired (nanea) is also mixed race (hawaiian mother and scottish father).]

as for the disability thing i mentioned - ag also has a disappointing track record regarding disability representation, lol. it was very lightly implied that mckenna (goty 2012) had a learning disability, but that was never confirmed. mckenna's tutor, who used a wheelchair, was ag's first big disability rep, but she was just a side character in mckenna's story. then, many ag fans were disappointed when mary ellen, a historical character released in 2015, was able-bodied (in canon, she had polio as a child, so it would make sense for mary ellen to be disabled and use mobility aids). finally, in 2020, goty joss gave us some disability rep - she has a hearing aid.

ag's lack of disability rep is very frustrating, especially considering that doll companies, like our generation, have made some really cool disabled dolls. and ag has been doing this ad campaign with the paralympics that feels performative to me - like, they want to seem inclusive by featuring dolls with prostetic legs, but they don't even sell dolls like that!!!

lastly, religious diversity - iirc, there are three jewish dolls (rebecca, goty 2001/2002 lindsey, and goty 2009 chrissa). the rest of the dolls are either christian or of unspecified religion. there has never been an explicitly muslim, hindu, or buddhist doll, or a doll who is a member of any religion other than judaism/christianity/unspecified. (there is some hope that we might get a muslim doll, though, since an outfit with a hijab was leaked, and ag trademarked a persian name that i can't recall off the top of the head at my moment. but take these with a grain of salt - ag trademarks a ton of stuff that they don't use, and the leak could be false or just a truly me outfit.)

END OF INTERMISSION - BACK TO THE TENNEY/GABRIELLA CONTROVERSY:

so, we get our first black goty, and she's being totally overshadowed by tenney.

here's where a conspiracy comes in:

we can track when ag trademarks their character names. goty names are usually trademarked early in the year prior to their release (by may). but gabriella mcbride wasn't trademarked until october, iirc.

and gabriella is a very underdeveloped character in comparison to most gotys. one of her main hobbies - dancing - was the same main hobby as both marisol (goty 2005) and isabelle (goty 2014). her store displays were underemphasized in comparison to tenney's, as i mentioned before. she was the first goty who didn't get a movie in six years (since kanani, goty 2011). and gabriella didn't even have a big ticket accessory item available until summer!

so, we get our first black goty, and she's underdeveloped, underemphasized, seems to have been rushed (due to her trademark date), and overshadowed by tenney just one month after her release. why is that?

well, some people think that tenney was actually supposed to be goty 2017! (i agree)

tenney was trademarked earlier, had more development, had a bigger collection, etc. we think that tenney was supposed to be goty 2017, but ag decided to do a doll of color (gabriella) at the last minute. (keep in mind the climate of 2015/2016 - ag probably wanted some clout for doing a black goty, and they also probably heard the ag fandom's demands for more dolls of color.)

so that's tenney.

next we have logan everett. logan was ag's first boy character doll. i'm glad that ag had a boy character doll, but logan kinda missed the mark for me. the main source of controversy surrounding logan is his face mold: he, a white boy, uses the kaya face mold. !! it kinda felt like a slap in the face to many indigenous ag fans - kaya is literally The Only Doll with the kaya face mold, and when we finally get another doll with her face mold, he's not even indigenous.

lastly, we have z yang my beloved <3. z yang was done dirty - she is yet another doll of color who is a mere side character, and also, she was available for only a total of 20 months before being retired!

so, that's everything i have to say about the 2017 contemporary line.

now i'm going to talk about the 2021 contemporary line :3

so, it's summer 2020. the black lives matter is becoming more mainstream. brands are now getting clout for appearing "woke."

so, admist this climate, ag is (as always) facing demands from its fandom/collectors to diversify its doll line. so they announce that they're going to be doing a new contemporary line, to be released in "the second half of 2021"!!!! and they promise that the contemporary line will have a black lead character

fast forward to modern day. thanks to ag's trademarks, we can safely assume that the new contemporary line will be called "world by us." we can safely assume that the line will have 3 characters. the 3 characters all live in washington dc and are best friends :) we can safely assume that the characters will be maritza ochoa, evette peeters, and makena williams. i talked about makena and maritza on that ask regrettable-username sent me about my andi mack/ag headcanons! personally, i'm excited for world by us, and i think it has a lot of potential!

alright sawyer, that's the end of the ag info dump fhjhdhfskf.

now for my andi mack friends:

i think the andi/buffy/cyrus line would be structured similar to world by us: andi is the main character, and buffy and cyrus are her best friend dolls :) all 3 dolls would be released at the same time. andi would have 3 books that have buffy and cyrus as side characters, and buffy and cyrus would have one book each.

the big ticket item for this collection would be andi's andi shack. i'm imagining its design sort of like kira's tent mixed with lanie's camper mixed with blaire's farm. andi the walls of andi shack would open up so that when it's fully opened, the four walls are on an even plane with the back wall and extended out like wings. you remove the roof before opening up the walls. the shack is tall enough that the doll can comfortably stand up even with the roof still attached, and wide enough that all three dolls (andi, buffy, and cyrus) can comfortably stand next to each other inside of andi shack.

andi shack would come with a ton of craft supplies inside of it. it would also come with a little flower box that has cece's african violets, like blaire's flower box. (thanks to regrettable-username for coming up with the african violets idea fdjfsj.)

alright i have to go now, so these are all my andi mack/ag thoughts for now, but i might be back later with more thoughts fhdfjs (hopefully not though, since typing this out took me over three hours [sweating emoji]).

sorry for any typos and sorry for how scatterbrained this is! also this may have some forgotten things/mildly incorrect things bc my only source is my brain (and a photo of all the dolls so i can count how many dolls for the statistics portion) and my brain is not the most reliable thing on earth lol.

#long post #american girl dolls #i feel kinda bad about putting this in the andi mack tag since it's mostly ag related; but it does include info about my andi mack/ag au #and the friendom has seemed to be really enjoying the andi mack/ag au (nostalgia i guess) so uhhh hopefully you guys will enjoy this? lol #andi mack

[spooky-chapscher]

I want to talk about Steven’s comments in the latest HWYD. There are apparently quite a few posts cancelling him and I have seen many more fully supporting his comments. I don’t agree with either.

For context, here is the moment of discussion, which occurs at 53:22 in “Surviving a Boring Job” in response to a submitted question where the writer, Janette Shortlocker, wants to cut ties with a racist, homophobic friend but isn’t sure when or how to do so. Steven says the following:

“I have a lot of friends who are a little bit racist and a little bit homophobic and I’m still friends with them. And I’m not saying that I’m friends with them because of their values*, I just value them as people themselves and I try to keep them around and try to, you know, educate them with what I can, but it’s not something that… I don’t want to cut ties with everybody because of their belief system*, because, frankly, I have a different value system than Katie and Shane and Ryan.”

*In his apology (found on the podcast video’s comments section), Steven apologized for his word choice here. He writes, “Racism and homophobia are not values, belief systems, or ideals, they are simply hate and nothing more. Furthermore, there is no amount of intolerance that is okay when it comes to validating someone’s humanity and identity.”

I am not here to discuss the unfortunate word-choice, which I will generously frame as an unfortunate byproduct of this sort of off-the-cuff podcast format. Why he would associate the words “value” and “belief system” with bigotry I’ll get into in my main point.

 -

I’ll come out and say that I do not agree with the message of what Steven was trying to convey on the podcast. I will say, as a queer Latino, that if you know someone who has embraced racism/homophobia/etc… that person isn’t your friend. This person either rejected you or will reject you eventually based on some other thing they can hate. You can know them, you can have a history with them, you can want to help them, you can try to help them… but you are not “friends.”

I say this as someone who has fully dropped people from my life because of shit like this. Friends, mentors, family members. It might sound cruel, but after knowing someone endorses shit like this it leaves a sour aftertaste to every otherwise fond memory I have of them. Like, “wow, I thought things were great but it turns out that they were hurting other people and I had no idea.” That sort of shit really bothers me.

Note that these people I cut out “embraced” bigotry. I do have friends who have occasionally said some kinda prejudiced shit and I have said “whoa, what?” Sometimes it led to earnest discussions of race or class or religion. Sometimes it prompts them saying “oh shit, you’re right. I didn’t think that through. I guess I don’t know that much about it.” But, you know what, the prejudice goes away after this talk and doesn’t rear its head again. Because the prejudiced shit was something that was offhandedly said and normalized by society, not something my friend genuinely believed. And when your friends do this, confront it in (initial) good faith that they didn’t mean what they said. I mean, you probably made mistakes like this too, I know I have, and every time I feel like my friends have made me a better person by calling out some ignorance that I wasn’t even aware of.

But when you try to address prejudice and a bigoted person stands their ground or, even worse, tries to counter with “well, agree to disagree;” then I think that’s the time to start distancing yourself from this person. The “friend” in Shortlocker’s letter is this type of person, and I hope that Shortlocker is able to cut them out of their life as quickly and cleanly as possible. But that’s just my opinion.

Cutting people out can be a very difficult decision, especially if you’re younger and the person in question is a family member. For people of any age, it’s a difficult call to make when the bigoted friend holds some kind of position of power over you – be they a boss, a landlord, a mentor, a spiritual leader, or just someone who can make you miserable or put you in danger if you get on their bad side. All I can say is that you do not need to announce to someone that you’re done with them. You can become “busy” with a project or another friend who “needs help” and then steadily grow apart from this hateful-ass friend until they’re only a hateful-ass acquaintance. Please stay safe.

 -

Why I’m this way goes into where I think Steven’s coming from. Some people have commented that holding onto racist and homophobic friends is “unlike” Steven. I disagree. If anything, I think this is very on-brand for him, if only because I know quite a few religious Midwesterners and almost all of them are like this. I have seen my parents try to hold onto friends who once marched with them for civil rights but the friends ended up radicalized by racists after moving to small towns. I have seen friends try to maintain work friendships where my friends would have to remain closeted or risk losing their job. My parents and these friends? All quite religious. And none of the “friends” they tried to change ended up changing, which left the people I care about miserable and hurt.

There’s this sort of attempt to turn the other cheek, because that’s the righteous thing to do. It is what my parents and people like them genuinely believe. So no, they wouldn’t approach hatred with hostility or indignation, as I would, but instead approach it with the genuine belief that this “friend” is misguided and needs to be shown the light, an action which requires love and patience. Perhaps it’s because it’s how it was raised, but I think that’s a very noble approach, despite the obvious roots in evangelism. Part of me wants to believe that with enough time and love (and therapy) that someone can unlearn their own hatred. That’s a beautiful thing. There have been stories of a number of people who truly have turned their lives around after being helped by a friend… I just have yet to ever see this actually happen.

With this in mind, it makes sense to me why someone who believes this will find ways to rationalize keeping someone so hateful in their lives. On one hand, staying with this hateful person in order to help them is an act of charity, which is a good thing. On the other hand, staying with this hateful person might make them think that their behavior is appropriate, which is a bad thing. However, having healthy debates and discussions with someone with different beliefs than you and trying to find compromise and common ground is a good thing. It’s certainly easier on the conscience if, during these discussions, you think of your friend’s hatred as a “value” that you need to learn to see from their perspective in order to fully understand and confront properly. And when someone is so far into this line of thinking, it’s sometimes difficult for them to remember that there are people on the outside who are still being hurt by this person. It’s easy to forget, when trying to salvage a relationship, that ignoring the hurt of others is itself an act of cruelty.

 -

The root of this discussion is “why do people hate” and, basically, I think it’s because they have found some kind of community in their bigotry. Their family is like that or their friends are like that or their neighborhood is like that or their online circles are like that or their entertainers are like that. There are so many people telling them “everyone in the circle is good and everyone outside the circle is evil and untrustworthy and will hurt you.” Some people, like my parents and other religious Midwesterners, will think that the way to confront this is by repeatedly demonstrating that “no, there is nothing inherently wrong with the people outside the circle,” in hopes that their dissenting voice will overwhelm all the other insider voices.

My approach is that if you make the circle as small as possible then eventually they’ll have nobody to talk to and start rethinking the whole “outsiders bad” thing. I’ve gone back and checked on a few people I cut out. Some of them are still in their hate circle. Some of them have left the circle and started a new life and I’m proud of them and if we ever meet again I’d give them another chance. 

-

The heart of Steven’s sentiments come from a place of good intentions and reflect a philosophy that firmly believes that people want to better themselves morally. I do not share this philosophy and think that his approach minimizes and risks trivializing hateful actions. It puts far too much of an emphasis on making sure the bigoted person is comfortable and not enough emphasis on defending the targets of the bigot’s hatred.

Our aim should always be to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. 

I disagree with Steven’s approach and hope that he will do better in the future when discussing things like this. Hopefully he’ll take the time to consider how his actions impact those he means to defend.

-

(If you’re curious, my philosophy is that we all want to make each other happy the best way we know how. Self-betterment has only a minor role to play in all this. For some people happiness means helping others and telling jokes and making art and cooking and all that good stuff. For some people this “happiness” comes from keeping those closest to them inside their walled-off circle, firmly believing that the outside world would hurt them. These people far too often go out of their way to harm outsiders, be it through verbal abuse, physical violence, or systematic violence - leading to larger societal issues such as legalized discrimination, redlining, and corrupt law enforcement).

 -

(Oh, and regarding Shane and Katie’s lack of comment to this… at first I was let down and hoping that they just wanted to avoid a very long debate at the end of a podcast that was already approaching the hour mark. But, after giving it a little more thought, it would be kinda gross if Katie and Shane went out of their way to police how Steven handles his racist friends, what with them both being white. I understand their reluctance to speak up on this matter but still feel that there should have been a better way to deal with it… although I don’t know what that way is.)

#discourse

[roxilalonde]

yo give us some highlights of steph's links between twilight and mormonism plz!!

oh for sure! i dont have my copy of the text on me so you’ll have to take my memory’s word for it but here’s the highlight reel of twilight ft. Mormon Antics:

this sounds really fucking funny because it is but: caffeine is a bigger tell than sex. meyer writes quasi-realistically with regards to sex and abstinence, but mormons don’t do caffeine at any capacity and it shows in how hyper-aware bella is of the caffeine she consumes. she’s 17 and she doesn’t drink coffee or caffeinated tea. several times when has a soda she mentions the caffeine in it. it’s so weird because it almost only makes sense in the context of a mormon writing for non-mormon audiences: aware enough to know that most kids drink caffeine, not aware enough to know that most kids don’t think about it so much.

the whole conversation about edward’s soul and whether or not vampires have souls, theologically speaking, is concerned with an idea of heaven and hell rooted in christianity, if not mormonism specifically (im not familiar enough with mormonism to say). they cite the bible. carlisle cullen, edward’s dad, is the son of a pastor whose worldview is centered around his approach to religion (which is non-secular christianity it seems like? he’s weirdly vague about it. might be a presbyterian but i don’t buy it. like have you seen how lavishly this mans house is decorated? the bitch is catholic.)

edward’s theological torment is kind of hilarious because i’ve never met a 17 year old in my life who’s concerned with their immortal soul, even if they do have existential angst, but damn if edward isn’t spending every other page monologuing about the pain of living a damned existence. still, it’s actually one of the more coherent ethical conversations that the books have. unfortunate that it’s on a completely irrelevant issue since vampires don’t exist

breaking dawn. breaking dawn as a story is a dumpster fire in its own right but the whole abortion debate is weird and unsexy to the max. basically edward knocks bella up and he and his whole family are like “hey....lets get rid of the fetus it could literally kill you if you try to give birth to a vampire baby” and bella decides to carry it to term anyway. and then....guess what! it kills her. straight up full stop. its all so badly done that its actually hard to tell whether it’s a pro-life thing but in the movies it’s a lot more apparent in the way bella + the cullens frame the language they use

misogyny....if youre even vaguely familiar with the twilight series then you know what im talking about with this

the khakis. mormons have a stringent dress code (nothing above the knee, not too much cleavage, nothing too tight) that bella always, always follows, as does edward. the movies have defined popular imaginations of what edward and the cullens look like but the costume designers threw the whole book out the window with those films, and THANK GOD they did because in the books edward and bella both horrifically unfashionable people. bella only owns one skirt (cool!) and it is khaki (horrifying!). edward wears nothing but khakis and beige pullovers. at one point he rolls up to bellas house for a date and they’re wearing THE SAME SWEATER/KHAKI COMBO. i would break up with him and move to another continent at that point but thats just me ig

cussing. ye shall not take the name of the LORD your god in vain, etc, etc. bella uses “oh my god,” i think, but pretty rarely (if ever?) and she’s also pretty stringent with cuss words otherwise. never anything stronger than “damn,” barely even uses “hell” (says “to the fiery pits of Hades” at one point in the first book), and otherwise doesn’t swear at all. same goes for edward, obviously.

i’m sure i missed a lot but this is the stuff i remember off the top of my head. of course, to her credit, there’s also stuff you wouldn’t necessarily expect from a mormon writer -- bella’s parents are divorced, for example; she really doesn’t want to get married young, and also she’s pro-sex before marriage -- but the books are also told through the lens of someone who isn’t necessarily trying to separate their religious beliefs from their work, so. take both sides with a pinch of salt.

#twilight #twilight saga #Anonymous

[hirazuki]

I’m going to try and summarize what bothers me about VLD from as objective a standpoint as possible. A lot of people, including myself, have already made posts pointing out specific issues, especially with regards to the messages it sends to abuse victims, so I’m not going to touch on that or any type of emotional issues here at all. I’m going to skip specifics except where needed as examples, and just talk about the nature of story telling itself. As someone who not only has used fiction for escapism, but who has studied story telling both in terms of literary analysis of novels and of religious texts, it’s a subject that I feel very strongly about.

Warning: long ass post.

Okay, a couple of disclaimers first.

One, I am a firm believer in the “don’t like, don’t read” mentality. If I don’t like something, I don’t talk about it, I just move on. Y’all have never seen a single discourse post about The Dragon Prince, right? Yup, that’s ‘cause I really didn’t like it. It goes for countless other things too. I don’t expend time and effort and energy on things I don’t like, that’s just wasteful. So, why am I harping on VLD? Because I really enjoyed it, despite a couple of what I felt were minor issues at the time, for most of its run. That’s why I -- and I imagine the same goes for many other fans -- am so bitter.

Two, I came late into the Voltron universe. I joined in a couple of days before s6 dropped, and only watched DotU as well as the other Western versions in the past couple of months. Haven’t had a chance to see the original Japanese anime yet.

Three, I’m not a shipper, in general. I don’t ship anything in VLD except Zarkon/Honerva. Romance/sexual stuff is just not my thing, I’ll take swords and explosions any day over that. So my saltiness regarding the series has nothing to do with ships.

Alright, so I think my major gripes with the series can be sorted into three categories:

1. Inconsistency of Story Type:

This is, of course, my own opinion, but through my time of consuming fiction, I think there are three types of stories:

Good vs. Evil: the most basic type of story. The good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and everyone stays well in their lanes. Think Disney movies, typical Saturday morning cartoons -- the heroes are exemplary of good traits, the villains are one-dimensional and unrepentant, evil for the sake of being evil. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this story type imo, and there are several stories of this nature that I really do enjoy.  ��

Grey Morality: a much more nuanced take on the concepts of good and evil, right and wrong. Due to the very nature of grey morality, there are varying degrees to which this can be implemented. Probably the most common one I’ve seen is where the heroes do some bad/questionable things, the villains/antagonists do some good things or have the right motives or are “noble” in some way; but overall, there is a sense that there are certain lines that shouldn’t be crossed, certainly by the heroes but also sometimes by the villains/antagonists too. An excellent example of this is Firefly. Another example, that puts a total twist on it by having the protagonist also be the “villain,” is Death Note -- even though the story resolves in a way that to the audience is, really, the only sustainable way possible, it still leaves neither the characters in-show nor the audience with any sense of victory. This concept is taken to the extreme by a series like Tenpou Ibun: Ayakashi Ayashi, where no one is right and no one is wrong, but at the same time everyone is right and wrong, and simply just human. There is no good and no evil, just context, circumstances, and choices. 

Combination: this type of story starts with the Good vs. Evil dichotomy but, as the story progresses and the protagonist becomes more acquainted and involved with their environment, both the protagonist and the audience come to understand that the picture is actually much more complicated than that, and it evolves into Grey Morality. Bleach is a great example. We start with seeing the Hollow as evil, mindless monsters that need to be killed; we learn that they are actually human spirits that have transformed into “monsters” through pain and grief and, therefore, we pity them but also understand that it’s a mercy to put them down; we then find out that, actually, not all are mindless and they have a complicated society and culture of their own; and, eventually, come to accept them as (reluctant) allies against a bigger threat, understanding that they are creatures in their own right. 

From the moment that Keith -- arguably the character within the main cast that had the most time/character development spent on him -- was revealed as being half-Galra (that is, half the “evil” race of the show), VLD promised to be that third type of story. Because there is no way that the writers would make one of their protagonists evil by default because of his blood in a kids’ show, duh, so by logical conclusion this means that that race is not all evil, after all. This was further emphasized by Lotor’s introduction to the plot -- a severe departure from his character in any previous incarnation -- and cemented by the episode, “The Legend Begins,” where we finally get to see the other side of things and the fact that not even Zarkon and Haggar were “born evil,” as well.

After the Keith reveal, we got shocked reactions from his teammates, notably and understandably Allura; got only an apology from her and not the rest for their treatment of him (which could have been better but, whatever, it was a step in the right direction, great!); and then... back to a weird strained relationship in working alongside Galra without another word on the subject.

Okay. Fine.

Then we get Lotor -- again, some of that initial resentment/treatment could be understandable to some extent, and eventually on the road towards, seemingly, genuine acceptance. Cool.

I won’t go into details about the colony episode, because that’s been done to death already, but, woah, major setback there. Back to the knee-jerk reaction of treating individuals of a race as complicit and responsible for the actions and perception of that race as perpetuated by a handful of individuals. And then -- flash forward to s8 -- we are welcoming Galra allies in our cause! Please join our Coalition! We want to help you!

Look. I’m not saying that you can’t retcon stuff; that you can’t go Good vs. Evil, develop into Grey Morality, and then reveal something and BOOM, jk, it was Good vs. Evil all along, gotcha! I’m sure that there is an author somewhere out there that has pulled that off effectively (I can’t think of any examples myself right now, but I’m sure it must exist somewhere).

I am saying that if you’re going to do that -- if you are going to pull the rug out from under everyone’s feet and sacrifice some crucial character development (and crucial characters themselves, let’s be honest) -- you better have a DAMN GOOD IN-UNIVERSE reason for doing so. And no, shock value or getting rid of a character because they were overshadowing the protags doesn’t count. Otherwise, your protagonists will look like giant jerks. Unless, of course, that’s what you’re going for, but I highly doubt that was the thinking here.

And then, we proceed to flip flop between “I knew it, the Galra are irredeemably evil, what’s wrong with these people?!” (I think Hunk -- HUNK, by far the most empathetic character -- said this at some point in s7?) and “Here, we can work together towards a brighter future” or some shit. You can’t do that. I mean you can, but you’re gonna get major backlash from your audience. Pick a fucking direction and stick with it.

For the past three seasons, it has really felt like the story line is being pulled into two different directions: 1) staying true to the original source material of Paladins = good, Galra/Drule = bad, and 2) providing the viewers with a groundbreaking, nuanced interpretation. 

My dudes. You can’t have both. Trying to implement both of these approaches means having morally grey, nuanced characters operating within a narrative framework that is subject to an overarching principle of a strict Good/Evil dichotomy. Do you know how fucking hard that is to pull off effectively without diving headfirst into the pitfall of punishing your morally grey characters by default, simply because they happen to exist in a universe that cannot, by nature, support them???? I can think of only a handful of authors that have managed that and, I would argue, that the man at the top of the list only managed to be so effective and influential because what he wrote was, in essence, a mythology. Mythologies have a totally different set of concerns surrounding them. And even then, he went to great lengths, both in his works and outside of them in discussions/interviews, to note that the “evil” in his world could never have happened without it intentionally being part of the larger cosmological design, i.e. balance. I’m talking, of course, about Tolkien. 

Why the fuck would you attempt to pull something like this off in a kids’ cartoon?! Avatar: The Last Airbender, since everyone loves that comparison, was defined by a black/white view that developed into a very simple grey morality, and it was this limited scope that allowed it to be presented so effectively. None of this sashaying back and forth. 

Especially when this flip flopping is done for le dramatic effect/shock value, with seemingly no good in-story reason?? Of course it’s gonna fall flat.

2. Concept vs. Execution:

This is probably what drives me crazy the most about VLD. 

As an idea, it was fucking brilliant -- anyone who has watched DotU, even with all the nostalgia, I imagine, can admit that it was very much a cut and dry 80s cartoon, with simple concerns; Vehicle Voltron attempted some nuances, but the Lion Voltron part of the show, which was by far the more popular part, was pretty stiff in that regard. VLD took that and introduced themes like: being biracial (Keith, Lotor, etc.), having to choose between duty and family (Krolia), having to choose between personal dreams and important relationships (Shiro), having to overcome deep-seated understandable prejudice and work with people you never thought you could come to stand for a greater cause and through that see that not everything is black and white and attain a greater understanding of the world (Allura), leaving home and learning to survive in a totally foreign environment in the worst circumstances possible (the paladins), dealing with disability, mental illness/ptsd while also dealing with issues of being in a position of leadership/power (Shiro), parental abuse (Lotor), substance abuse (Honerva and Zarkon), being a clone and coming to terms with that (Shiro/Kuron), learning to compromise and sacrifice personal integrity/morals for the betterment/survival of those you have made yourself responsible for (the paladins), and so much more than that. Lotor’s relationship with Honerva/Haggar had serious undertones of both Mother and Child symbolism, as well as Arthurian legend. The whole quintessence thing drew pointers from ancient and medieval concepts of alchemy.

The inclusion of any of these things, injected into a pretty straightforward and tame original source material like DotU, was inspired. What an absolutely fantastic take, with incredible potential.

... and it was the shoddiest, shittiest implementation and execution of any concepts that I have ever seen. Like... how? How did they manage to not be able to successfully see any of these themes to a close, and to actually offend the vast majority of their fanbase (regardless of background, age, race, sexuality, literally from all walks of life) by the way these themes were handled???? 

I’m sure time restraints, direction from above, etc., played a big part in it, but still. If you don’t have time to properly develop the interpersonal relationships between the core members of your main group of characters -- to the point that, say, Keith and Pidge? Hunk and Shiro? Did they ever properly, truly have any meaningful interactions? -- there’s no way you could properly handle all of this.

Don’t bite off more than you can chew. 

Also? As stories are being fleshed out, they and their characters tend to take on a life of their own. The Lotor/Keith parallels? I totally believe and understand how it’s possible that it was unintentional. But when that happens, you go back and rework the rest of your plot to make sense with what you now have before you. You adjust and adapt. You don’t barrel on ahead headless and not acknowledging it, and you don’t force your characters into straitjackets just because you want to doggedly follow this one idea.    

3. The Female Lead: 

Let me begin by saying that I really, really wanted to like Allura, and the way she was written was one of the biggest turn offs and disappointments for me. I won’t go into specifics regarding her, as there many posts that already address the problematic nature of how she treats people of her race vs. anyone Galra, but I will just look at her character development as a whole.

Perhaps the easiest way for me to voice my frustrations here would be with a comparison. Let’s look at my favorite female protagonist of all time, Nakajima Youko, from Juuni Kokuki (aka. The Twelve Kindgoms).

Youko starts off as a very meek high school girl, from a typical modern Japanese family. Class representative, top grades, is scared of conflict and wants to live up to everyone’s expectations of her, which makes her very submissive, a total coward emotionally, mentally, and physically. She seeks to please everyone and, as a result, harms her own development by never giving any thought to her own desires and ends up bullied by everyone around her. Magic happens, shit goes down, and she is whisked away to a different world that is parallel to our own, along with two friends from school; ripped from her home, her family, with absolutely no way back. This other world has a different language, people who end up in there from our world are treated like garbage and are slaves, has a medieval level of tech/advancement, and Youko with her friends has to figure out how to survive. She finds out she is actually queen of one of the realms in this world, which makes her a target of various groups. She is betrayed by literally everyone around her, everyone she places her trust in, including the two friends that got transported to this world with her. 

She goes from meek and mild to bloodthirsty and brash; lashing out at everyone around her, plotting to kill those that offer her a helping hand, becoming unreasonably suspicious and racist and way out of line. Understandably so, but the narrative doesn’t, for one moment, present this as okay. Some more stuff happens and she finally snaps out of it, comes to a couple of realizations, and has major character development. She develops the attitude that, yes, people have betrayed and hurt her, but their actions towards her and their opinion of her is none of her business. It will not stop her from acting in ways that are in line with her own morals; if people choose to betray and use her, that’s on them. She will simply do what she must, and treat everyone as an individual according to their actions. This doesn’t mean that she adopts a pushover mentality -- it just means that she loses her knee-jerk reaction, and doesn’t rush to conclusions. She becomes a badass warrior and queen, strong and just, and, frankly, one of the most well-developed female characters I have ever seen.

Do I think this is the only way to write a strong female character? Of course not. But I’m convinced this is what the writers wanted to do with Allura, this kind of progression and path, from being angry, lost, and alone to being a confident, capable, magnificent ruler. And, imo, they totally missed the mark.

I think that the writers were so focused on giving us a “strong” modern female character, and getting as far away from her DotU damsel in distress depiction as possible, that they ended up writing her as, basically, a bully. Sure, they tell us -- both through other characters’ words in the show and through interviews -- about her diplomacy, peaceful nature, leadership quality, open-mindedness, etc., but they never show it to us. In almost every key moment in the series, she has been written to be combative and suffering from tunnel-vision.   

And a huge part of this is that they simply didn’t give her any room to grow. Youko’s character started off at maybe... 5% of her potential? She was honestly so “weak,” I thought about dropping the series. But by the point the anime ended (because the story itself is unfinished and unlikely to continue, unfortunately), I’d say she’s at around 70%. That makes for an extremely dramatic, fulfilling, and believable character development. The VLD writers started Allura off much higher than that. Too high. From the get-go she’s a highly accomplished martial artist, has incredible physical strength due to her Altean heritage, a seemingly natural affinity for leadership and for appealing to people, she’s very attractive, well spoken, had a loving and supportive family, is a princess, had a brilliant alchemist for a father, has access to the universe’s greatest super weapon -- I mean, yes, she’s had to deal with immense loss and grief and come to terms with it in a very short period of time, and lost her father a second time so to speak with Alfor’s AI -- but overall, everything has been set up and handed to her in a nice package. Other than overcoming her hatred towards the Galra and idealization of Altea/Alteans, really, there’s nothing left for her to do that would be defining for her character.

That’s not to say that characters that are extremely accomplished from the start are a bad thing. But in their case, their emotional and mental development and maturity is that much more important, because that’s all that’s left to work with. The writers didn’t really give Allura any significant room to grow in terms of any of that. (And no, I don’t consider her new alchemical powers from Oriande as her growing; she expended no effort for that, it wasn’t really a trial at all for her; it was like me playing a video game on casual mode with the “killallenemies” console command enabled). Her overcoming her racism towards the Galra, beginning with Keith and BoM and continuing to do so with subsequent Galra allies, had a TON of potential and I had been so excited to see where it would go; but that fell flat, totally forgotten by the story.

In contrast, you have Lotor -- we see him struggling to claw his way out of the hand that fate has dealt him, to grow beyond his family’s influence and abuse. Both on and off screen, even described by his own enemies in great detail, we see just how much he has had to fight and to earn everything he has and he is, even things that shouldn’t have to be “earned” in the first place. He’s lost Daibazaal and Altea, both his father and his mother, he’s too Galra for anyone who’s not and not nearly enough Galra for anyone who is. Literally nothing has been handed to him. The juxtaposition between him and Allura, had Allura been given more breathing room by the writers, could have been fantastic and I would have shipped the hell out of it, like I do in DotU. She’s had everything he’s ever wanted (loving family, supportive father, Alfor himself, exploration, alchemy), etc.; envy would have been extremely appropriate on his part, and very interesting to work through, but that was never explored either.

So, I feel like what ended up happening was that a huge imbalance in how these two characters came across was created, made only more evident when their relationship with each other was what was front and center. And, at least for me, this is what makes me completely unable to see Allura’s side of things, and I freely admit it -- I simply don’t understand her or her actions, because I don’t feel like I’ve been shown enough of her inner workings as a character to be able to care about her in the slightest. I can definitely see where the writers were going with her, or where they thought they were going. But unless they actually meant for the character that is, for all intents and purposes, their female lead to be a  racist, abusive, immature person playing at being an adult and at being the leader of a coalition spanning galaxies, who has no problem condemning millions of lives to death and devastation at a whim of her emotions because they are Valid™, and who wades dangerously close to “Mary Sue” territory many times due the way the narrative frames her... then all I see on screen is an unfinished character. Unfinished, because the writers didn’t take any opportunities in the narrative for the flaws and issues she does have to be addressed and overcome, opportunities of which there were plenty! I absolutely don’t mind that she has flaws -- flawed heroes are amazing. But, you gotta do something about them, i.e. address them and work through them. Otherwise your heroes remain static in a plot that is evolving and that’s not a good look.

And, you know, I honestly think DotU Allura is a much stronger female character. She works for everything she gets. She works her ass off. She has to fight to not only be allowed to be part of the team and fly a lion, but even just to do everyday common things like be out in the fields or swim or whatever; forget practicing martial arts. Coran literally ties her up at one point to prevent her from participating. Nanny is a constant battle for her. Over everything, from her clothes to her manner of speaking to where she’s going. But she doesn’t stop, she doesn’t give up. And she fucks up, BIG TIME, several times, she does TONS of stupid shit. But she learns, acknowledges it, gets called out on it, tries again, and keeps on trying. DotU Allura’s biggest battles, in my mind, aren’t with Lotor or the Drule forces or Zarkon, but with her own team and those she considers family, and her struggle for the others’ acceptance of herself and her skills within the group. And for that, she is a much stronger, more solid female character than VLD Allura, despite all superficial appearances and frilly pink dresses and 80s voice acting.

Again, like I said in a previous post, I don’t conform to the view that creators owe their fans anything. Write things however the fuck you want. You want to kill Allura off, fine. Do away with Lotor too? Cool. I completely understand people who want happy endings in fiction because, it’s true, reality fucking sucks; there are several fictional works I turn to whenever real life is too much. And I would be lying if I said that I don’t crave stories where characters like Lotor are given happy endings; of course I want my favorite characters to be okay. But overall, I’m the type of person who, as long as things make for an effective, compelling narrative, I’ll be content with it, regardless of whether the ending is tragic or happy or anything in between. 

So you want to kill off your morally grey character and your female lead, who is also one of the only women on the team, who is also a princess figure, who has also been completely visually redesigned in such a way that you know women of color will relate to her? That’s fine by me, go right ahead. But do so in a way that is meaningful and makes sense within the larger narrative you created, and isn’t some empty, sensationalist gesture. 

And also be aware of your fanbase. This is a reboot -- that comes with certain expectations attached, as a number of the viewers will very likely be fans of the old series, watching out of curiosity, nostalgia, etc. Expectations like, the princess lives, the heroes aren’t assholes, etc. (and I’m referring to expectations from DotU and other Western iterations, rather than the original Japanese series). You don’t have to conform to these expectations -- personally, I’m a big fan of tropes being subverted -- but you need to be aware of them. You need to know the rules before you break them, and if you break them, you better break them damn well.

Imo, VLD ultimately failed to deliver on these fronts, and pretty much fell prey to what a lot of series do -- it couldn’t handle the shift from being primarily episodic in nature (i.e., each episode is self-contained, with a clear beginning, middle, and end, while operating under a distant general goal, like defeating Zarkon; so, s1 and s2) to becoming a more complex narrative unraveling a hidden agenda (s3 onwards). Kind of like how the paladins made no provisions for how they would handle things after Zarkon’s defeat, it feels like the writers didn’t really have one solid plan for how to develop past that point as well.

tl;dr: Whoever is responsible for the way VLD turned out should write a book: how to offend your entire audience in eight seasons or less.

#okay i think this is my last personal post on the matter #i think i've vented about everything that's been bugging me for the past couple of seasons #i'll still reblog and comment on things i find interesting #but i'm gonna focus my energy on constructive stuff #like plucking the hairline of lotor's wig and writing fanfic :) #talk: v

[itshistoryyall]

Part Three: Rule of Three

Photo Credits: here

In this next part I want to talk a little about some important texts for the context of this project. One of them is the Canon Episcopi, a 10th century medieval canon law. For anyone who doesn’t know what “canon law” is, it is basically a written guideline authored by some church authorities and used to govern the church, its clergy, and its patrons. It’s important to highlight this text because it gives us a clear idea of what surviving pagan cultures looked like in Medieval Francia (modern France), but not in the way you might expect. As mentioned above, a lot of what we know about the past is just really good detective work, and this is one of the instances where a document helps us understand far more than what was originally intended. It’s a cohesive set of ideas that suggest how the church should treat several circumstances regarding their local pagans, and as usual, it wasn’t preaching tolerance. In summation, it called anyone who believed in anything other than Christianity an infidel.[1] Pagans still existed, and still do to this day, in fact, but the Church used a heavy hand when dealing with them most of the time. Often, they used their own beliefs against them and merged popular Christian anecdotes to help assuage people who were not happy with the idea of conversion to a new religion. I think that the author of the overview for this document said it best when they said that,

“new Christians [did not] simply cast aside old beliefs…conversion was a dynamic process…[and] elements of indigenous religious practice were frequently mixed, often deliberately, with Christian belief and ritual…Certain practices can be said to have ‘survived’ the process of conversion…After all, nearly every Christian ritual had some sort of pre-Christian antecedent or model.”[2]

They just simply couldn’t kill them all or threaten everyone with violence in order to bring them to their knees before the Lord, and so, they got creative.

           Canon Episcopi calls anyone who believes in the mystical arts a liar and, what I’m most interested in is it’s mention of, “wicked women, who have given themselves back to Satan…[who] in the hours of the night…fly over vast spaces of earth.”[3] You just can’t get more witchy than that folks, and don’t worry, I know that this was written in like 900CE, but I should also mention that it was referenced in another important document—Corpus Juris Cononici, a canonical law that remained intact beginning in the 12th century all the way until 1917. I’m not going to attempt the math there, but it’s too damn long and we can all agree on that. So, now we know our Collective Catholic Opinion (CCO for the rest of this project),[4] is that we don’t like pagans, and with the introduction of this new text, witchcraft is now a pagan practice. This was originally, a really good detail to hammer out in canonical law because it typically kept the Inquisition from meddling in matters of alternative religions, UNTIL (you knew that was coming, I already warned you in Part 1) Canon Episcopi was thrown out by Pope Innocent VIII in 1484 (not the same Innocent One as before, but damn did we not learn a lesson?). Anyway, the most innocent pope of all time decided that witchcraft was to be forever tantamount to devil worship which was what gave inquisitors permission to go after pagans and those accused of practicing witchcraft—great.[5]

           So, that brings me to my next document of importance, the Malleus Maleficarum, the Latin here, in case you aren’t a weird Disney fan, is where we get the word ‘maleficent’ and thus the name for one “Mistress of Evil”…moving on.[6] This book was written between 1486 and 1487 and can also be referred to as “The Hammer of Witches,” a direct translation of the original Latin. It was written by some German Dominican monks—'Dominican’ here, refers to the Dominican order of Preachers founded in France by the Spanish priest St. Dominic, so, not the islanders as I was originally very confused about. Recall from earlier that the first instances we see of witch trials occur in a German-speaking part of Switzerland, so you can see how this thing is gaining speed. There were other texts along the way that were written in regards to witchcraft, but there was a really important invention that made this one unique—the printing press. It spread like wildfire, and there were more copies of this document than any other, and it so precisely aligned with the mounting witch-craze, the Inquisition, and the Corpus Juris Cononici, that it almost seems planned. Am I a conspiracy theorist, you ask? Maybe. After researching this project, I’m beginning to wonder, myself. Let’s indulge.

           In 1481 Pope Innocent VIII (I’m so surprised), heard about those German monks who were in the middle of writing about these witches, and they complained to him that the authorities weren’t properly looking into the accusations. This actually prompted the Pope to issue one of those papal bulls we all know and love, titled, Summus Desiderantes Affectibus, translated—Desiring with Supreme Ardor. It wastes no time getting right to the point, those who were practicing witchcraft were to be henceforth considered heretics, and doling out the full support of the Church and the Faith to inquisitors to prosecute these cases as they saw fit. Three years later, the monks published their instruction manual for other sympathizers. This document was separated into three parts. The first was addressing skeptics and assuring them of the reality of the situation and suggesting that not believing in the existence of witchcraft was another form of heresy. The second part included proof that real harm was caused by magic, and the third part was made up of guidelines for investigating, arresting, and punishing witches. It was used by Catholics and Protestants alike, and while it was never made official by the Catholic Church, it was most assuredly referenced. It was not continuously in print; however, but was re-printed and widely distributed in areas “as needed,” meaning that when prosecutions started ramping up in some areas, the press would begin to print and distribute more.

           I’m gonna delve pretty deep into this document because it’s really important that we know where some of this information comes from in reference to future prosecutions, tortures, and accusations of presumed witches. The manual directly mentions that witchcraft is found amongst women most predominantly and uses the idea that both good and evil manifests in women more powerfully than in men. It specifically singles out midwives because of their aptitude for contraception and pregnancy termination—see, you guys thought this anti-abortion culture was new…it’s not. It made wild claims that midwives ate babies, or offered them to devils, and elucidated pacts made with the Devil, sex with incubi, possession, and, I’m not quite sure how to word this, the act of vanishing penises (That’s the best I can do here. I tried some other stuff and believe me it was much worse). The part I love most is that most of the references used to substantiate these claims come from some of the great Greek philosophers and writers like Homer and Socrates, who were big, giant, probably gay,[7] pagans. I can’t love that more, guys…it really doesn’t get better than two homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant religious zealots getting their entire bibliography from some gay pagans. Finally, what the document describes as “quarrelsome women” could not be considered witnesses to witchcraft, and it excuses this by alleging that this is to prevent friends, families, and neighbors from bitter fights.

           To determine whether or not someone was a witch, they could be examined physically. Any corporeal evidence might include marks on the body, physical objects that were concealed on the body, or not weeping while being tortured or when presented in front of a judge. When checking for these “marks,” women were stripped of their clothing (by other women), their hair was shaved—this could be a small amount or all of it depending on where that pesky devil’s mark was going to be found. Often, this mark could be a mole, a flea or insect bite, a birth mark, or a speck of dirt. Anything passed, really, and once these marks were found they needed to make sure that there were no other instruments of witchcraft on a person in order to execute them. The manuscript mentions that if these items are not removed, there would be an inability to burn or drown the witch, and the same goes for if she was still under the protection of other witches. The practice of drowning or burning an accused witch to prove her innocence began, and although the accused was never around to celebrate her liberation afterwards the practice persisted, nonetheless. While determining the guilt of these witches, a confession was paramount in determining the outcome of a person’s wellbeing after the trial.

           Accused witches could only be executed by the inquisitors or authorities of the church if they confessed themselves, but, remember that the church had already authorized torture as an acceptable method of questioning at this point and could be persuaded into confessing by any means necessary. Often, they would confess quickly under the pain of torture, and were said to have been abandoned by the Devil. Conversely, those who held out, were under the Devil’s protection and more closely bound to him, and torture was viewed as a form of exorcism. Confession under torture was not enough; however, and they had to confess again while not being tortured for it to be a valid confession. If the accused continuously denied the accusations the church was not permitted to execute her, but they could eventually turn her in to local authorities who were not beholden to the same restrictions.

After a confession, the accused could be offered the option of repenting against all prior acts of heresy and perhaps be granted the avoidance of a death sentence, but later when I pull out the statistics, you’ll see precisely how rare that option was. They were also likely to allow a witch to avoid a death sentence if they snitched on other witches, but typically the investigations into those that were implicated by the original witch were presumed to be innocent until a thorough investigation could take place. Prosecutors also did not have to reveal that the removal of a death sentence did not mean that they could not imprison them indefinitely. Judges that presided over these trials were given specific instructions on how to ward themselves from wayward spells of the spurned witches on trial, and to ensure that they had the full cooperation of those amongst the court and spectators, there were specific instructions that allowed those who were uncooperative to be excommunicated from the church or even labeled heretics themselves if their obstruction was persistent.

Pope Innocent VIII’s bull acted as a metaphorical magnifying glass over the ant that this situation was in Switzerland and Germany, but to conflagrate things further, in 1501, Pope Alexander VI[8] issued a new papal bull, the Cum Acceperimus,[9]that extended the reach of prosecutions for witches to Lombardy and officially broadening the reach into Italy. I think it’s important to point out that this particular pope was a Borgia, and for those of you who haven’t seen The Borgias on Showtime, the Borgia family is basically the Kardashian/Jenners of the Medieval world—so many scandals and orgies, one can nary keep up. Beginning in 1500 and all the way through 1560, historians consider these few decades to be the peak of trials in Europe, and in order to focus more in-depth on this aspect we’ll be ending this part here, but it may be worth mentioning that this oddly severe belief in superstition beginning with the Malleus Maleficarum, may have been one of the many sparks that stoke the flames of the Protestant Reformation in Europe.[10]

[1] See Canon Episcopi for a full quote, but this is in direct reference to a bible verse from John 1:3 that makes mention of God being the maker of all things and suggests that those who believe that other entities may have done so are “infidels.”

[2] (Traces of Non-Christian Religious Practices in Medieval Pentitentials, n.d.)

[3] Direct quote from the Canon Episcopi and shortened for clarity and pointed reference.

[4] Please don’t talk to normal people about the CCO, it’s not a real organization, and outside of this context it’s probably very offensive to modern Catholic practitioners and I am not looking to get cancelled on Twitter

[5] (encyclopedia.com, 2019)

[6] Maleficent is defined by Webster’s as, “doing evil or harm; harmfully malicious,” and the original Latin form is maleficentia.

[7] the ancient Greeks were partiers and lovers, man

[8] Not a safer name than ‘Innocent,’ it turns out.

[9] DON’T YOU DARE GIGGLE AT THAT NAME

[10] It’s important to note here that history doesn’t have a large grasp on one specific event that might have been what caused this leap, but it was more likely a combination of quite a few different things, but it is my own humble opinion that torturing people certainly wasn’t a good way to rally support for the Catholic Cause™

#witch #witches #witch trials #european witch trials #malleus maleficarum #pope alexander vi #historical texts #history #itshistoryyall #coronavirus #covid-19 #quarantine #social distancing #pandemic #2020

[miggy-figgy]

Ludovic Saint Sernin By Miguel Figueroa Photos by Alex Franco

One of the best ways to get your first foot in fashion - or any type of business for that matter - is through apprenticeship. Back when they were the new kids on the block, Yves Saint Laurent, Donna Karan and Alessandro Michele learned and paid their dues, respectively, under the tutelage of Christian Dior, Anne Klein and Tom Ford. Three years after working at Balmain with Olivier Rousting, 27-year-old Ludovic Saint Sernin struck out on his own, presenting his first collection; a gender fluid homage to late nineties minimalism. We caught up with the designer on his birthday to talk about his influences, obsessions, next steps and unusual morning routine.

Hi Ludovic, let's start with the basics. What time did you get up this morning?  I woke up at 10, I usually wake up earlier but I just got back from California and the jet lag is real. It was an amazing holiday/research trip, very inspiring! 

Do you have a routine? What did you have for breakfast? Yes, I do! It is kind of ridiculous though. I have apple juice and cereal in bed and I religiously watch an episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians or The Real Housewives, just to ease in the day. Then I start work at 11, and right now I am researching and sketching for next season.

What did you want to be when you were a child? I have always wanted to be a fashion designer for as long as I can remember. When I was just a little boy I was obsessed with The Little Mermaid, I had the Barbie, the sun lounger, everything and I would dress her etc. This obsession for her slowly transitioned into an obsession with Lindsay Lohan, when I was a teenager I would draw her everyday. Lukas Heerich who did the soundtrack for the presentation included some bits of interviews from her and mixed it with minimal music as a nod to her. 

I was probably 10 when a friend of my mom’s introduced me to Yves Saint Laurent, not literally but she had some old VHS of his most iconic shows and I remember thinking, this is it, this is what I want to do.

Who were or still are your fashion icons? Alaïa has always been a model for me. He's built something so unique and special. I recently watched the documentary by Joe McKenna who I'm obsessed with and it was so fascinating to see how he works. There's no one else like him he's such a perfectionist. Helmut Lang is obviously a big reference as is Rei Kawakubo and Issey Miyake. Kirtsen Owen, I don't think there's a single image that she's in that doesn't inspire me, she's a huge inspiration. I posted a picture of her from Steven Meisel the other day and the caption simply said : mom.

You broke from working at Balmain - which is the antithesis of your style - and created a beautiful, minimal first collection. What were your biggest lessons working there? Balmain was my first fashion family, they have been amazing to me and I am very grateful for everything I have learnt there. I was working on embellishment and textiles which was so exciting to do there because you can really propose stuff and create amazing pieces. And their approach was very artisanal which I really appreciate.

Have you always played with gender bending? What do you consider to be the most masculine feature in a woman and the most feminine trait in a man? I actually only had done womenswear up until that first presentation and initially I thought it was going to be women’s. I was doing a project on Instagram where I would recreate pictures of me with boys I knew from Instagram and make them pose in my clothes. I created some really cool relationships with some of these boys and one of them became my fitting model/muse. 

So even tough the clothes were originally women's, turns out as we were trying them they looked really good on a boy too. And I decided that it wasn’t really relevant anymore to try and categorize my pieces to one sex only. I myself don't really look whether it's women's or men's when I'm shopping. As long as you feel good in it and it fits your body why restrain yourself. I knew I wanted to show it on guys though. I worked with this really talented casting director and friend, Piotr Chamier, we share the same aesthetic when it comes to casting and he did an amazing job finding boys. What I really appreciate is that even though it was presented during Men's after the show we received loads of press requests for women’s shootings. It’s been about equal with that of the men’s. I am looking forward to seeing how they work in both contexts. 

With regards to the second part of the question, I am struggling to answer that. Truth is I don’t really think in that way. I have long hair so you might say that is the most feminine thing about me but others might find it quite masculine. Likewise the neck of my fit model is long and thin but I don’t think it looks particularly feminine. I really don’t think that way and interestingly I think a lot of people my age and younger are not categorizing through sex or sexuality. 

Who would be your ultimate person to dress? Yesterday I watched Basketball Diaries for the first time and Leonardo DiCaprio is just beautiful and so good in it, he was just twenty years old but looks sixteen. I wish I could have dressed him back in the days, he had that special something about him and also this androgyny that I love. But to answer your question, I love the idea of dressing sons or little brothers of celebrities: for instance Uma Thurman's son is gorgeous, looks just like her but in a boy. Or Pamela Anderson's son is actually really hot too. I recently met up with Niels Schneider's little brother Vassili, and I'd love to dress him for a special project. 

What is your favorite scent? For the presentation I used Potpourri from Santa Maria Novella, it smells amazing and looks really beautiful. It was displayed all over the conservatory where I had the presentation on little ceramics plates I brought back from Kyoto. I wanted the scent to blend in with the natural smell of the boys in the presentation, it was a really hot day, and they were walking around between plants in a manner that evoked cruising. The scent of the potpourri, the boys sweat and the plants just all worked really well together.

Hot! Which are your favorite hide-outs in Paris? I spend most of my free time in London, so I am going to give you my favorite hide-outs there: breakfast at the Towpath in de Beauvoir, their grilled cheese sandwich is to die for, I love walking along the canal, brunch at Rawduck, Epping forest, in the fall the colors are splendid, the British library is the best place to read a book, you need to make an appointment for the reading room and it's great to hide away from the crowd. Then back at the Towpath for drinks and dinner at Gujurati Rasoi, they have my favorite dish on earth there, I always order the same thing.

What turns you on?  A Wolfgang Tillmans picture. I went to see his exhibition at the Tate in London it was simply breathtaking. 

What turns you off?   Being unthoughtful or unconscious. I'm quoting Jake Gyllenhaal, I had to google this answer, I couldn't think of anything that turns me off. 

Can you share with us your latest obsessions? I have discovered this beautiful bookstore in Paris, where they have an amazing selection of queer literature and art. I recently read L’Age d’or by Pierre Herbart which I highly recommend. And I am in the middle of reading Call me by your Name by André Aciman which is the story of a sudden and powerful romance that blossoms between an adolescent boy and a summer guest at his parents villa on the Italian Riviera. It is being released as a film next year and I cannot wait to see how they will translate this beautiful book.

Where would you like to take your brand to next? I have some very exciting projects and collaborations coming up but it is a bit too early to reveal. It is amazing how quickly things can move these days but most of the time it’s just me and I’d like to do things slowly and well rather than rush them. 

What are you doing after this? It's my birthday today [28th of August], so I am going to eat some cake and enjoy a lovely dinner with my family! Originally published in the Fall & Winter 2017/18-Spring 2018 issue of Hercules Universal, Neon Dreams. Out now. 

[kiefercat]

30 Day Trans-Challenge except not really bc my memory is too bad for that so you get it all now Little intro and context for new followers and also for me when I look back at this; I'm a 22 year old trans guy from Canada. I've been out since I was 16 and have been on T for 5 years in October. My top surgery is scheduled for 2019 with Dr McLean in Mississauga, Ontario. 1) When did you realize the term transgender referred to you? In grade 10 one of my best friends started transitioning to male. It was my first exposure to anything trans and everything just fell into place after that. I talked to my partner at the time about it a lot and how my identity suddenly started making sense. After around half a year i started going by male pronouns with my friends and I came out publicly a year later. 2) How did you choose your name, and what names were you thinking about using and why? Contrary to popular belief I didn't choose Cooper because of my high school obsession with Alice Cooper. I ripped it off of a cartoon character that had no discernible gender to me. I was also debating going by Kiefer but after some research found out it connects to Cooper like Bob to Robert and just rolled with it. At some point before transition I asked mom what she would have named me if I was born a boy and she said fucking Wayney (dad's name is Wayne) and yeah no I did not want that name at all 3) Have you ever been outed? Quite often. Surprisingly from the people closest to me. My mom and stepdad out me all the time and my best friend/ex gf used to do it a lot too. She stopped thankfully but my mom keeps insisting on making me a discussion topic 4) How did your family take it when you came out/ if you are not out why aren't you? I came out in stages to my family. Mom was first. I fucked up though and forgot I had a stepbrother and basically walked up to her one day and said “you only have a son” and then ran out of the room? She thought I was running away????? Woops. She was kind of ignorant about some stuff for a while but changed a lot of her views pretty quick. She wasn't initially going to let me medically transition before I was 18 but turned around over time and I started t at 17. Stepdad was awkward but supportive. I didn't come out to my dad. My mom had to for me a year after I'd been out to everyone else. I was terrified of rejection bc yay abandonment issues but it went over well! Right after I came out my dad started dating my step mom and she really helped things bc she wasn't afraid to ask the questions that he was too weird about to do himself. She actually administered my tshots for me for a while. Fast forward to last year and suddenly family I hadn't seen for 9 years wanted to get back in contact with me and mom. I was expecting my grandparents and uncle to be really weird about it but they've always been chill. They used to call me a dyke and tell mom she was a failure bc I wore boy clothes when I was a kid so obviously I was worried. 5) Are you active in the trans community or LGBT community? Not nearly as much as I'd like to be. My local active trans community is 80% 40-60 year old trans ladies. Like I love them to bits and I appreciate them sharing their experiences as older queer people but I feel very out of place there. I've been invited to a gay dude cafe meet a few times but am too nervous to go. That being said, my entire friend circle is trans sans a few sprinkled cis people. So I guess we're all just an informal support group lmao 6) Who was the first person you told about being trans? My first partner. She was super queer (was identifying as a bi male at the time we dated) and very understanding and supported me through a lot of the mental gymnastics of realizing I was a dude. 7) Who do you look up to? My friends, honestly. Like I don't know what else to say here lmao 8) How do you deal with being misgendered in the beginning of transitioning by people? Told them politely to only use he/him with me. If they were malicious about it I would try to explain how ignorant that was and if they still didn't get the hint I'd ignore them. 9) What is something positive about being trans? I don't have to hide awkward boners. 10) What are some of your fears in regards to being trans? I'm super afraid of top surgery ending in a result im unhappy with. Like I don't care about the pectoral scarring at all, but I'm worried about proportional problems or dog earring. Basically anything that would require a revision. I'm also super insecure about not having a bio dick. It limits me a lot sexually even with strap ons. No harnesses stay where they need to on me to get anything good happening and my dick always slowly drifts downward. Its frustrating. 11) How do you manage dysphoria? Hahahaahhaa ice cream And usually taking nudes. 12) What are you doing to stay healthy for transitioning mentally and physically? I'm working out every day now. Nothing too intense, but it feels nice. I want to drop about 30-40 pounds before top surgery so am slowly amping up the workouts. Mentally I'm a disaster and am frantically looking for a psychiatrist but can't find any open that have experience with a trans patient. 13) Bathrooms I haven't used a women's bathroom since before I was in testosterone. I'm not anxious about them at all unless there's a lot of drunk dudes or the locks on the stalls don't work. 14) What are some of your passing tips or things you do to pass? Confidence. Fake it till you make it. Being a walking masc alt stereotype got me through high school. 15) How have you embraced your trans identity? Tbh coming out and living life as trans is one of the few times I've been able to do one very important thing consistently: do something for myself no matter what people think. Its something that I've been trying to spread into other aspects of my life. If anything, my trans identity embraced me. 16) What's your rock anthem and why? I think this is the only answer that hasn't changed since last time I did this. I Am, I'm Me from Twisted Sister. 17) What's your binding choice and why? I use a GC2B binder. They're comfy, last long, don't roll, don't have prominent seams, and don't smell funky like my old underworks ones. If I swim publicly or want to slim out my hips for special occasions I wear a full length underworks swim binder. Fun fact: I didn't bind for a year and half bc I gained a fuckwad of weight and my tits passed as moobs. 18) How do you feel about the trans laws where you live? They're getting better. I live in Ontario, Canada so am pretty protected all around. I wish the technical side of transition (name, gender marker) was more streamlined. 19) If you're religious how do your views effect being trans? if you're not religious what about your family religions? I'm in no way religious. My mom had to jump through a bunch of hoops in her head to legitimize my transition through her religion/spirituality. Its a little disturbing to me for details I will not share publicly. 20) Do you want to be a parent? why or why not? I hate children. Keep them away from me. 21) Your views on the cis-gendered community? ??¿¿ they exist. I believe education about trans people and other queer identities should be taught in schools to help cis society not be as blissfully ignorant. I don't believe all cis people hate trans people, but they do have a lot of misconceptions about the community. 22) Do you feel being trans holds you back from your career choice? Fuck no. Honestly I haven't felt nervous about transition affecting my work since my first job. I was just coming out when I worked the museum and was scared they might kick me from the position. Nowadays, I do not disclose my trans status to potential employers until they're hiring me. I thankfully live in a place and time where I'm protected as a trans person in the workplace by the law so haven't felt held back at all. 23) What stereotypes are put on trans people? Undercuts Tbh The stereotypes that stick out to me are the fucking weight ones. Where the fuck are my chunky trans men and ladies at? As a trans guy I am pressured a lot by the representation in the community to aspire to be a buff/cut beefcake or stick thin. Hell, a few of my already very small trans girl friends think they're not as valid bc their bust/waist/hip ratio doesn't make them look like a model. There's literally nothing wrong with being any weight but I find the pressure to be small is even higher within the trans and queer community to fit the stereotype/preconception that we have to be conventionally beautiful to be valid in our identity. 24) Who is your favorite LGBT actor/musician/director/artist etc and why? Uhhhhhhh Tbh I don't even know 25) Doctor visits? I hate them. They make everything about my trans status even if I'm there for something completely unrelated. There is FREE training on trans care for doctors in our part of the province but none seem to opt for it and instead decide its appropriate to ask me transition questions when I'm there for something as unrelated as an impacted nail. 26) Do you feel comfortable answering questions about being trans if say your teacher/friend/stranger asked you? If I'm not paying for their time, if I'm not busy doing something else, and if they are polite, yes. I don't mind answering questions at all! But there's a time and a place and some people just don't understand that. 27) What goals do you have? Lose weight and tone up a bit in time for top surgery. Be aggressively body positive. Continually try to normalize trans bodies. Find a local community to be a part of. 28) What is something you have to do everyday or else you feel like your whole day is off if you don't do it? Shower. If I go out or if people outside of friend circle are near me I have to have my packer and binder. If I'm alone I need music or something on at all times. 29) Write out something positive about yourself using the letters of your name. Ex. Your name is Bob so B-Beautiful O-Outstanding B-Boy Um. I don't have a good name for this uhhh C-Creative O-Open hearted O-Okay P-Phenomenon E-Eager R-Rad I had to Google positive words to do that lmao 30) Write a haiku about being trans I hate writing these Please just cut off my titties Throw them in the fire

#ftm #transgender #trans #transition #afab #30daytranschallenge

[evilelitest2]

Debunking Stupid Christopher Hitchen’s Quote

     I don’t think this is going to be like a reoccuring thing, but may be every so often I should take a statement made by somebody and just delve into how wrong it is.  Today’s offering comes from @datablossom in defense of Christopher Hitchens.  Only context you need, I was saying that reductionist views towards your opposition leads to extremely stupid decision making, like Christoper self describing himself as a single issue voter in regards to the War on Terror and how dumb it is, and this quote is suppose to debunk my claim.  Now for a bit of context. Christopher Hitchens was an atheist Philosphy of the “New Atheist” movement, one of the supposed Four Horsemen, and cards on the table I just can’t stand the New Atheist philosophy at all, I find it trite, smug, and extremely intellectually vapid, its Voltaire without the humor. But beyond that, I find it very much like the Free Speech Warriors, where they start out as a group using questionable methods to oppose an actual right wing evil force (The Religious Right and the Fox News culture Warriors) only to immediately ally with those exact same people and support their world view in a moment’s notices.  Its like a LOTRS thing, they use the methods of the Enemy and almost instantly become the enemy.  Cause remember, Christophen Hitchen started out as an opponent to Fundamentalist Christianity, and then once you introduce Islam into the mix, he quickly winds up supporting those same people 

So here is the quote, as well as the commentary of @datablossom which will be marked in Italics 

Here’s Hitchens’ actual words, not some truncated quote that explains nothing, it’ll just boil my guts if I don’t bring them to the forefront:

“There is a widespread view that the war against jihadism and totalitarianism involves only differences of emphasis. In other words, one might object to the intervention in Iraq on the grounds that it drew resources away from Afghanistan - you know the argument. It’s important to understand that this apparent agreement does not cover or include everybody. A very large element of the Left and of the isolationist Right is openly sympathetic to the other side in this war, and wants it to win. This was made very plain by the leadership of the “anti-war” movement, and also by Michael Moore when he shamefully compared the Iraqi fascist “insurgency” to the American Founding Fathers.”

Ok right off the back, we have Hitchens utterly failing at his supposed goal to be rational and engaging in the type of hyperbole simplistic thinking that he himself smugly mocks in his other books (I had the misfortune of raeding Hitch 22.  Lets break this down 

1) Ok so firstly, Hitchen is doing a really classically stupid thing of buying into simplistic black and white paradigm created by the duplicity  and believed by their ignorant, because in case you haven't noticed, the War on Terror isn’t a war with a single force.  Jihadists and Totalitarianism aren’t like...singular things.  Hell they are actually two very different entities and it is really evident that Hitchens hasn’t read Arendt.  The War on Terror isn’t with a singular opponent, that is why it is such a clusterfuck.  Here let me use an example of a normal war as a contrast.      WWII was a battle against the Axis powers, who were three countries and their associated Vassal States.  They had capital cities, heads of states, armies, forms of goverment and a physical location that they occupied.  Nazi German controlled this land mass 

So if you send an army in and take over the territory in red, guess what, you’ve won, you have eliminated Nazism.  Which we you know...did.  There is a clear war end with a clear victory condition.      But Terror isn’t like...a nation.  There is no Terrorstan with its capital city of terovania ruled by the King of Terrorism who we can go in and kill, because this isn’t a conventional war.  Like what is the end goal of the War on Teror, how do we win?  Are we fighting to eliminate Bin Laden and Al-Quedi?  Well in that case, then why invade Iraq, because if anybody actually understood anything about the period they would know the two men detested each other and opposed each other politically.  Is the goal to wipe out islam?  Well that means that you are talking about the largest genocide in all of human history.  Is it to try to eliminate Fundamentalist militant Islam? Well then the best way to do that historically has never been through war which only strengthens Islamic extremism (you know how since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq we have seen Islamic fundamentalist get only more powerful?)  The thing about the War on Terror and the War on Drugs is that they are these huge international utterly mismanaged fuck ups which not only cost an inordinate amount of blood and treasure, but also can’t really be won because they are by their nature unwinnable, how do you fight a fucking concept? And Hitchens is just sort of accepting this premise that the War on Terror is like a thing, he is just kinda unquestioningly going ‘Well this paradigm totally exists and lets run with it”  Terms like “The Enemy” or “The other side”.  What is the Other Side Exxactly?   2) I mean going off the mindless Assumptions that HItchens is making, who are we fighting exactly?  LIke ok, if you aren’t 4 years old, you should know that the Middle East isn’t a singular faction of unified peoples who all agree on stuff.  I mean lets do a quick list of factions in the middle east The Saudi Royal Family The Saudi Wahhabist Clerics The Pakistani Goverment The Pakistani Military Saadamn Hussein’s Iraq (at the time of this writing) Al-Queda Hamas Hezbollah The Theocracy of Iran The Goverment of Turkey The Kudishistan Fighters The Government in Egypt The Muslim Brotherhood The Dictatorship of Syria The Goverment of Lebenon The Monarchy of Jordon The Palestinian Leadership The nation of Israel (with all of the factions contained there in) The various sub states that make up the UAE The goverment of Qutar The Dictatorship of Kuwait The Dictatorship of Libya The Dictatorship of Tunisia The Dictatorship of Yemen The Dictatorship of Oman The Governments of the US, France, Britain, Russia, India, and their Allies The various exiles and rebels from all of those countries And that is just a short list.  None of those groups are unified with the others, they might be allies or share common interest, but they aren’t the same thing, I mean the Sunni Shia division is just one big part of this.   Again its one of those things that if you are you know....stupid it seems simple but the moment you try to understand the details, the whole thing falls apart, and as evident from this and other writings by him, Chris really doesn’t actually know anything about middle eastern politics like...at all.   3)  Speaking of unquestioning assumptions HItchens is oh so fond off, even if we are going to fight against radical Islam, he just kinda accepts that direct military intervention is going to work, because...look its gonna work ok, it just is.  And this is one of those things that if you actually you know...studied the history of the region and the politics or just occupation in general, you’d immediately know how stupid that is, but again, Hitchens is basically going with military approach because it feels emotionally correct, but because it feels emotionally correct and seems simple.  ‘argg, goes guys are bad, lets send troops in and stop them’ which of course...no, that doesn’t work.  Because when you bomb somebody’s house, they aren’t inclined to listen to you, and imposing democracy at Gun point doesn’t have a history of working.  LIke if he knew anything about the history of the region he could have studied the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan or the fall of the Ottoman Empire and maybe conclude ‘oh wait, just going in their guns blazing just doesn’t work”   4) Now mr. Rational here supported the Iraq War, and thought that was a capital idea, only for it to fail disastrously.  And his argument was “Well its a Muslim dictatorship, lets get ride of it”  And no where in his article does he go “Oh lets also invade Saudi Arabia, you know, the Muslim Theocracy which provides most of the funding for Islamic fundamentalism?”  But again, that just goes unquestioned cause you know...he doesn’t actually know anything about the region beyond some vague stereotypes 5) Also Jihadism and Totalitarianism are different concepts, Christopher you fucking idiot.  If we are fighting against Totalitarianism, then we should be invading China, Russia, North Korea, Totalitarianism is a sytem of goverment, Jihaadism is a militant practice, they are sometimes linked but they aren’t always the same thing.   6) So when Hitchen says “Oh the Left wants the Other Side” to win, what does he even mean? Again, this isn’t a two sided conflict, is like...39 sided conflict and some of them keep switching sides.  So which “other side” does the left want to win?  Do his think that Moore wants Bin Laden to create a new caliphate because you know...that never happened.  or does he mean like leftists wanting Palestine to get its own state, because yeah, a lot of leftists do want that. but he doesn’t really argue how that helps “The Enemy” or how the one state situation helps weaken Islamic fundamentalism.  But no, this is just the same Red Scare bullshit of “Oh if we don’t even try to understand why people are trying to kill us, that means we win the war right?” bullshit that didn’t work then, and isn’t working now.  For example, if Hitchen understood like...anything about the region he’d know about the 1953 Iranian Coup and how that didn’t weaken Muslim extremism but only made it worse.   7) Also, I hate defending Michael Moore of all people, but no, he didn’t say he wants Muslim extremism to win, he said that the war is immoral, unjust and doesn’t work, creating more problems than it solved.  The point of the founding father’s comparison is that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and to the Iraqis the insurgents, they are trying to get foreign invaders out of their country.

Ok next quote 

“To many of these people, any “anti-globalization” movement is better than none. With the Right-wingers it’s easier to diagnose: they are still Lindberghians in essence and they think war is a Jewish-sponsored racket. With the Left, which is supposed to care about secularism and humanism, it’s a bit harder to explain an alliance with woman-stoning, gay-burning, Jew-hating medieval theocrats. However, it can be done, once you assume that American imperialism is the main enemy. Even for those who won’t go quite that far, the admission that the US Marine Corps might be doing the right thing is a little further than they are prepared to go - because what would then be left of their opposition credentials, which are so dear to them?…….” 

Lets switch to letters for this one 

A) Yes it is true there is a racist America First anti War Right wing element, but...the left never really embraced them.  In contrast, it was the right who really came to love them and then elected one of these Lindberghians president, good job 

B) Evidently it is really rational to assume that there are only a few sides in very argument, it doesn’t seem to occur to Hitchens that you might oppose Islamic fundamentalism and also not think that invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 are both wrong because nuanced thinking is rejected by the new atheists evidently.  You see why I am never impressed  by the so called New Atheist Rationalists, because they are really shitty about being rational, they take the rhetoric and shallow trappings of rationalism and use it to cover opinions that are coming from anti intellectual reductionist bigoted places and say “look its rational”...actually very similar to how muslim fundamentalists acts towards Islam.    

Reading Hitch 22 for me was a lot like watching Citizens Kane but without awareness, because every single thing he condemned he inevitably wound up doing himself.  

C) Also if you are talking about getting into bed with people they should oppose, lets talk about the fact that Hitch here became a surrogate for a Right Wing movement led by a Fundamentalist Christian who opposed Stem Cell Research, denied Global Warming and has a mixed record on evolution...and Hitch gets into bed with them.  And for all of his talk of Human rights, democracy, and feminism, he winds up working with people who hate feminism, who violate human rights regularly (you know...torture), and who support dictatorships abroad.  Again, the only way the rationality of Hitchens seems remotely consistent is if you are...stupid and don’t know any of the details.

This is why the New Atheist almost always wind up working with the religious Right, and why the people who opposed Republican attempts to demonize video games winded up part of the Right Wing machine, because if your core intellectual methodology is simplistic, then you are going to always be attracted to simplistic people.  

“………And this is the religion that exhibits the horrible trio of self-hatred, self-righteousness and self-pity. I am talking about militant Islam. Globally it’s a gigantic power. It controls an enormous amount of oil wealth, several large countries and states, with an enormous fortune it’s pumping the ideologies of wahhabism and salafism around the world, poisoning societies where it goes, ruining the minds of children, stultifying the young in its madrassas, training people in violence, making a cult of death and suicide and murder. That’s what it does globally, it’s quite strong. In our societies it poses as a cringing minority, whose faith you might offend, who deserves all the protection that a small and vulnerable group might need. Now, it makes quite large claims for itself, doesn’t it? It says it’s the Final Revelation.”

Lets go Roman Nummerials this time 

I) Globally its a giantaic power, I love this bit, because Hitch just spilled his hand and revealed to the world that he honestly thinks the Muslim powers are all one thing.  Cause....no....no they aren’t.  Three of the largest oil producing countries are Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and guess what, they all hate each other.  Iran is Shia, Iraq was secular, and Saudi Arabia was a Sunni Fundamentalist State.  

II) OK he is talking about the mass funding of madrassases with Whahabism and yeah, thats a problem...How is invading Iraq solving that problem Hitch? Cause while Saadam Hussein was an evil terrible person, he wasn’t really big with Muslim fundamentalism, he was more secular, and into nation building.  Wouldn’t Hitch want to like, invade Saudi Arabia instead?  It honestly feels like he doesn’t know the difference between Iraq and Saudi Arabia 

III) Which makes his alliance with the Bush administration all the more ironic because you know who has massive ties to Saudi Arabia?  Oh right, the oil industry which is in bed with the Bushes and the Republicans party

IV) So you are just kinda left with a man who will abandon all of his principles (again he voted for Bush) if they appeal to his single issue

“I'm a single-issue voter, to get straight to the point. I'm really only interested in the candidate who's toughest and least apologetic when it comes to the confrontation with Islamic Jihadism.”

So you know...a moron 

Hitchens’ single issue was the fight against totality. Whether it comes from the madmen of jihad, the brutal fascist conservative windbags of the world, or the stilted leftist wignuts that pretend video games turn normal boys and girls into women hating sociopaths.

It seems like Hitchen’s point is “I don’t actually understand these issues, but I am going to rely upon broad generalizations to make it seem like my opinion on the matter actually is important.”  And that is generally what you get from Hitchen’s work, self important preening and fertilization of intellectual standards that he will never hold and will abandon in an instant if something appeals to his bigotry or xenophobia.  But I see why he is so popular with teenage boys, because the childish inflated sense of self worth is very telling, and I still think he hasn’t actually read Orwell.

“Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.”

Good Advice, would be nice if the man actually followed it for once.  

#christopher hitchens #War on Terror #New Atheist #Iraq #Iran #Saudi Arabia #Iraq War #cult of rationality

[prosperopedia]

Homeschooling: Applying Essentialism to Educating Children

Several years ago when my wife and I were preparing for our oldest child to go to school, we handpicked a nice K-12 private school that provided a great learning environment where moral and religious values aligned with ours were instilled right alongside a solid secular education. So that we’d have better access the school, we even moved a half hour north to a home that was only ten minutes away from the location where we were pretty sure we’d spend a ton of time with not just our first child, but the other children that would follow.

My daughter enjoyed three years of going to that school (American Heritage School in American Fork, Utah) from kindergarten through second grade. Her younger brother joined her there for kindergarten and also loved his experience at the school.

However, after our third year of having kids attend the school, we took them both out and decided to start homeschooling.

Why would we do that?

When we made the decision in 2013, we didn’t really think about whether there was an official label or a particular movement associated with our choice to educate our kids at home rather than in the school system. Our decision essentially boiled down to this: we simply didn’t have time for school.

Don’t have time for school? What kind of reasoning is that?

My wife and I thought the same thing at the time, but it felt like the best decision.

I’ll give you more context about how we made the decision and some details that may help us seem a little bit more rational, although I’ll admit that when we tell this story to a lot of people they still don’t understand the reasoning.

My wife and I tend to be very assertive people, especially when it comes to parenting, a role that we prioritize above pretty much any other outside of our relationship with each other and our relationships with God. That assertiveness tends to cause us to regularly take a look at how we’re doing things with our family and evaluate whether we need to make any changes.

Although my kids both loved going to school, we noticed a pattern that was concerning for us in regards to our family dynamic. We’d get our daughter and son off to school around 8am. We’d pick up my son, who was doing half-day kindergarten, around noon. My daughter didn’t get home until after 3pm. Ultimately, it began to feel like the school day was longer than it needed to be, especially when we considered everything else that we felt needed to be done during the day.

My wife and I decided early on in our marriage that we wanted our kids to have a range of experiences that included things that were highly physical, such as sports and athletic competition, as well as things that were more cultural and academic, including music and personalized study opportunities. We wanted them to have experiences that would help them develop their personalities and understand how things work in various real world environments. We also wanted our kids to learn how to be responsible by doing at least one or two chores each day that would teach them self-reliance. Most importantly, we also wanted to make sure that we spent valuable time with each of our kids.

During the third year of having our kids in the traditional environment for school, we started having discussions about how difficult it was for us to find opportunities to spend quality one-on-one time with each of them on a regular basis. After school, they would typically have some homework. Then they had a half hour of music practice. Later they’d often have soccer practice or some other sports activity planned. When we added in having them do a chore and a few other daily necessities, it was getting close to time for them to go to bed to start the process over again the next day.

A 2018 study that researched how much time families spent together put the figure at just 37 minutes per day. In an age when even younger kids often have their own smartphones, the amount of focused interaction between parents and children is even more limited, since spending time physically in the same space doesn’t necessarily mean actually spending time together. We didn’t want that to be our situation. We didn’t want to find ourselves down the road being parents to teenagers who really didn’t have a connection with us.

We needed more time interacting with our children than was available, considering the few other things we considered critical and also worth spending time on, when we enrolled our kids into school (even one that we considered a great school) for the bulk of the day. For us, needing more time with our kids meant that we had to make a choice, so we chose to switch to homeschooling.

Over the next several years, as our next two children turned four, we put them into a local preschool that lasted three hours each day. The following year, we’d put them into the same LDS private school for a half day of kindergarten to give them the experience of being independent and associating with peers in a school environment.

After kindergarten, it was time to get down to business, so we brought them back home for school. Although we started our daughter on learning an instrument (the violin) just before she was two years old (she was mature beyond what we could have anticipated and ready for music lessons even before we were), our boys are typically not ready to handle a 30-minute or more lesson and daily practices until they are about six years old. That timing fits with their graduation from kindergarten and their introduction to homeschool, which involves practicing a piano, guitar, cello, or other musical instrument.

My Introduction to Essentialism

For the past year or more, my wife and daughter have had a regular habit of stopping by my basement office and mentioning something they’ve learned from the latest self-improvement book they’re reading or listening to. One of the books that kept being brought to my attention was one by a fellow named Greg McKeown called Essentialism. Ironically, because of all the stuff I’ve always got keeping my attention, I never had time to read the book.

However, on a recent trip across the country, my wife brought with us the audiobook version of Essentialism. I learned a ton from the book, and I was convinced (although I’m still not disciplined to practice it religiously) about the merit of the German idea of “weniger aber besser”, which means “less, but better” in English.

In his book Essentialism, McKeown gives lifestyle advice based upon his experience training executives to be more successful, more fulfilled in their lives. He compares “the undisciplined pursuit of more” with the “way of the essentialist”, which involves establishing a pathway that focuses on “the disciplined pursuit of less, but better.”

Essentialism, as presented by McKeown, involves intentionally and purposefully removing things from your life that are not in line with your highest purpose so that you can focus on the most critical, vital things. Essentialism involves not being afraid of telling people no, with the full understanding that there are opportunity costs involved when you commit to something.

Applying the concept of essentialism to our approach to educating our children, we at least subconsciously added up the value that our kids would receive by going to school (subtracting from that amount negatives such as picking up bad habits, exposure to bullying – yes, even from kids going to a religiously-based private school – and similar issues that we often had to correct at home) and compared it against the value we felt they’d receive by being able to receive musical training and learn an instrument, play on sports teams, and also spend quality time with their parents almost every single day.

Although we hadn’t been exposed to the concept of essentialism and “less, but better” at the time, the decision we had made to say no to getting on the conveyor belt that everyone in the neighborhood used to set their schedules was based on that exact concept.

As I listened to the audiobook while traveling across the country with my family, I mentioned to my wife, “I’d be very surprised if this guy doesn’t homeschool his kids.”

That comment led to a discussion of how our decision to break from the stream of what’s considered normal and most acceptable by society (although homeschooling is becoming much more popular than it was when I was growing up) with the purpose of being more efficient, more intentional about how our children receive their education felt very much in line with the idea of Essentialism. My wife and I discussed whether anyone who believes in the concept of Essentialism would ever put their kids into a regular public or private school versus choosing one of the alternatives, including homeschooling, that give them much more control over how they spend their time.

I’d guess that you don’t find many children of Essentialist leaning parents in public schools, except in situations where parents do feel like that setting is the best option for their children to learn and for their family dynamics generally.

Wasted Time, Wasted Opportunity

The New Teacher Project (TNTP) published a statistic in its research entitled, “The Opportunity Myth”, in which it estimates that high school students spend three-fourths of their time on assignments that are not grade-appropriate. The result of such wasted time is a lack of preparation for college, which also contributes to the difficulty high school graduates are having completing college in a timely manner. That situation has contributed to a student debt crisis.

My response to that statistic, thinking from an Essentialist perspective, is, “Why stop at the grade level when considering whether assignments are appropriate?”

Each child is so unique that even the grade-appropriate work they are doing is oftentimes not person-appropriate or interest-appropriate. Having come across the concept of Essentialism and the research that went into creating that sort of an epiphany about living a more proactive life reinforces the decision we made to homeschool.

The post Homeschooling: Applying Essentialism to Educating Children appeared first on The Handbook for Happiness, and Success, and Prosperity Prosperopedia.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2u8jjQj via IFTTT

#Prosperity #Wealth #Riches

[karpedayam]

Day 29: INDIAN WEDDING!!! - July 19 Buckle UP because today was a day for the books. Anger and I went to yoga this morning; we’re amping up for international day of yoga on Thursday and apparently were gonna be on TV??? Stay tuned 😎. 

Classes were subpar today. That man who was teaching gender yesterday was there again today and being kinda ignorant and anti-Islamic. He was mentioning some of the women’s issues in India and FGC (female genital cutting) was one of them. It’s not a monolithic practice but basically involves cutting female genitals in some way for various traditional purposes, in some cases ensuring virginity and as a rite of passage. He said it was mostly muslims who did this and described the practice as disgusting and really painted a poor picture of it. Upon first glance at this topic from a Western lens this would definitely be an initial reaction. But you really have to be intentional and critical when discussing such things (especially as a professor!!!) because there is so much at stake (traditions, identities etc.) and saying it’s a horrible practice only associated with Islam is inaccurate, superficial, meaningless, and damaging. I called him out for it in class saying that it in reality has nothing to to with Islam but rather local traditions. It happens in many African countries and isn’t bound in religious doctrine. I studied this last year and actually Anger and I talked about before class as she’s from Sudan and this practice happens there. This practice is bound in tradition and therefore forms community identity and status. It’s not gross to them it’s a rite of passage, it’s identity. The kind of negative mindset that our professor was perpetuating is not productive as it is ignorant to all of what I just said and informs a desire to ban the practice which would be so damaging because this practice is vital in communities. The women who do the cutting are held in high regard and banning this would leave them disenfranchised and it would still happen anyway. We all know laws don’t necessarily change culture. It’s banned in the USA but Anger said she knows many places where it happens. In my MtA classes we read about implementing other practices that serve similar functions for the community and stuff which is cool but doesn’t always work (ie where the cutter is taught about sexual health and her role is teaching the community rather than cutting).However, there are many underlying issues at stake here because this is often seen by traditional communities as “westernizing” and given the horrible colonial histories in many of these areas one can understand that they might not want to feel like they are further being westernized and colonized and therefore a safeguarding of the tradition may ensue rather than a progression that’s healthier for these young girls. These are such difficult politics to navigate, I certainly don’t think there is one right answer but that these situations always have to be examined individually and in context. Anyway he completely dismissed my comments and said religion and tradition are the same and didn’t address my comment about it being damaging to associate it with Islam. It’s not an inherently Islamic practice. I talked to Anger more about it after class and she agreed with the issues I had with him so that was reassuring. 

Anyway. 

Tea time was awesome because guess what: WE GOT INVITED TO AN INDIAN WEDDING! GOAL ACHIEVED! Our friends, the masters students have a friend whose sister was getting married TONIGHT and they invited US! Isn’t that crazy???? I never would’ve thought. 

But before the wedding reception, another wonderful thing happened!

Our afternoon was spent on a field trip to a women’s rehabilitation centre called Shaktidhama. The poster describes all what they do and I think it’s incredible. We toured around the property and they offer free education for kids and help train and employ women and we even ate at their restaurant, they gave us delicious Gobi Manchuria. We saw all the kids coming home from school as we were leaving (and a ton of monkeys!!) and they were adorable saying hi and asking our names. The tree picture is a jackfruit tree btw! Left feeling really good, my heart is with these women they’ve been through so much and I’m just so proud and thrilled they have a chance to turn a new leaf and get away from abusive home situations. Such important work is being done by women for women and it warms my heart. I also started reading a book that’s an autobiography of a sex worker in a neighbouring state called Kerala, and many women without the support of Shaktidhama would’ve had to resort to sex work to get by. I’m excited to learn more about this in the book. 

As we got home we didn’t have much time to get ready for the wedding reception. Dakshayani, one of our cooks, helped us put on our sarees. She’s just the most lovely woman. I can’t get over how benevolent, inclusive, and caring people are here. We met up with the masters students and got Uber’s from the hostel to the wedding. The convention centre was all lit up and adorned with flowers and we were in awe. I’m still in awe. I can’t believe we got to go! These rare things keep happening to us and I’m just so grateful and humbled honestly. 

We rode in the car with Nitu, a masters student, and she said that this was the reception and that tomorrow morning was the actually marriage. It felt kind of weird going to someone’s wedding reception that we didn’t really know, but she assured us that lots of people would be there and that were welcome. She wasn’t wrong. It was incredible. We sat together in the hall for awhile just taking it all in, and then we went downstairs to eat. It was such a wild setup - rows of tables lined with paper and then banana leaves as plates. Servers went up and down the aisles just piling more and more food on and it was hard to keep up! A lovely woman named Rehka was sitting next to me and she introduced me to her family (second last pic and third last pic). We talked a lot and they were SO kind and friendly it’s hard not to feel at home. She’s a housewife and is so proud of her family, everyone is here honestly and it’s so sweet. The people here are incredible. Everyone eats in shifts so as soon as we knew it they were picking up our leaves and laying new ones for the next group. What an awesome system! No dishes!! And biodegradable! We left and got these leaves with something inside (I think it’s called paan) and you wrap up the leaf and eat it whole, as Rehka instructed. It helps with digestion so I did it and wow it was something. Tasted kinda like liquorice. Anyway I added her daughter Meghashree on Facebook and we took pictures together and hugged it was so sweet. 

We went back into the hall and hung out with the masters students and had some laughs. Then we met the couple and got a picture with them, they were really sweet and welcoming too. Can you imagine a bunch of random foreigners in kilts showing up at a Canadian wedding and us being that welcoming???? LOL. Lots of people were interested in meeting us it was pretty fun.

Anyway yeah lots of pictures and laughs and really just a night full of love. It’s midnight now; I’ve been home for a couple of hours but I still can’t believe that happened. We are so lucky.

[lexisree]

My Shit Life

Or:  I really should see a therapist but I can't so I'm going to let all of my issues out in the air

WARNING: Possible Triggers (?); Probably very TMI and personal; maybe second-hand embarrassment; depression and anxiety are very real and honestly exposed in this; honest & brutal fears

IF ANY OF THIS MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE PLEASE USE DISCRETION WHEN READING OR DON'T READ IT AT ALL

Thanks for reading, I hope it helps you maybe or just brings a stronger sense of understanding about something.

I’M REALLY ANXIOUS ABOUT POSINT THIS BUT I REALLY THINK I NEED TO BECUASE I NEED HELP AND HONESTY AND THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP - for me anyway

Okay so recently, I've had a bit of a, uh, coming out thing (ish) to my family - more specifically my dad and step-sister, seeing as my mom already knows I'm at least bisexual.  Although, it's ... more than that.  

Like, there's some background that would make it easier to understand things eventually and I ... really need to get things off my chest.  I mean, before you really get too invested or I start anything in regards to letting stuff out, you should know that my ... mental heath is really not at it's best at the moment (hasn't been for a very long time, I don't think) and it's not that I have any kind of doctor notice or anything to know that.  

But I really need therapy, I know I do.  I need someone to help and honestly just listen and fix things but I just ... I can't yet.  I just can't.

But I do have a very intelligent friend taking psychology courses (I also know how to research and look things up and think for myself) that I ... probably rely on far too much to be healthy, but she's trying to help me, but it ... just doesn't work that way, I know she's not certified and she's not objective and unbiased and it's just so hard to talk to people that aren't.

That's why I'm doing this.  This is my first step I think, to actually getting my shit together and getting therapy and honest help, so ... jeez, yeah.  I'm gonna fucking try to do this even though my brain is saying

no, no, no, no, STOP THIS DON'T, these people are going to judge you, they're going to look at this and see a sob story, they're going to think you want fucking attention that you don't actually have problems that you're a DISGRACE!

But I won't fucking let myself stop, I'll fucking do this and I'm gonna do it and fuck, I'm getting off topic again and I need to stop procrastinating.

Anyway, knowing the background is important for you to understand why everything is so confusing; just why I'm terrified and angry and also a little bit relieved and overwhelmed to know that I'm just so different.  I am not, and probably never will be, cis.  I don't feel comfortable in my own skin a lot of the time, I feel very gross and almost like an imposter some days - but others I don't.  Some days I'm very confident and strong in the knowledge that I'm biologically a female.

I'm also sometimes attracted to men, other days to women, and often enough, nonbinary as well - so you would think I'd be pansexual right?  But that doesn't feel right either.  I don't fit into any kind of mould because sometimes I don't even fell attracted to anyone - that can go on for days or weeks, and even months.  

And it's terrifying.

Why is it terrifying?  Well, read my 'backstory' first, because it will give a lot of context that would make more sense than just "lowkey control issues and apathetic tendencies."

So like, I grew up in a very religious home (until I'd hit my teens that is - everything went to shit thereafter) and both my mom and my dad were very conservative - like most of the family - and I was just always told I was going to be a certain way, live a certain life, and held to certain expectations and I never really got around to not believing it (even if it was a subconscious kind of thing).  

Growing up, I was almost always dressed in "boy's" hand-me-downs, which I never had a problem with, it was always comfortable and genuinely what I liked.  But then elementary and middle school came and both my parents and my sister (who at this point I don't even really talk much to anymore - and she's one of the 3 blood-relatives I even associate with) have started to kinda just ignore that I exist.

My sister ... went through a lot of shit during that time, and honestly, it felt like I was just left to flounder through everything on my own because I wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary.  I made A's and B's in school, I was in Art Club and Drama during elementary and Art Club and Band during middle school, and just Band during my first year of High School.  

I had like, a few acquaintances that I was stubbornly insisting were friends (they really weren't) and just overall feeling very, very alone. I didn't really know at the time that I was depressed, didn't know that I was developing bad habits and honestly probably should have asked for help at that time (especially since I was around someone going through what I could have been - what I probably would have turned into if I wasn't stubborn as fuck).

It was also just around that time - right between ages 12 and 14 - that I started to realize that I ... didn't really like people.  Not in the way all the kids around me seemed to anyway.  I didn't seem to think people were attractive in any way other than aesthetically.  Like, I'd be able to say that someone was pretty or handsome or objectively appealing ... but that was it.  It was all objective and felt very detached.  And I hated that.

At the time I'd not really yet learned how to just ... ignore everyone else (as I'd only developed my very frightening apathetic mask until after I'd turned 14).  I felt very confused and alone and constantly paranoid because what if someone found out, what if my parents figure it out, what would my sister do - I don't want to be like that.

I was always scared and constantly stressed and I'd soon developed the ... worst of my habits.  I started to bottle things - rarely letting them out, and, like, the only way I could - or really, would - let them out, was through the arts.  

I picked up poetry (and honestly, I think this was the closest to an 'emo phase' I've ever been in, but it was just ... so much more than that) right around that time as well, and it wasn't until during my 8th grade school year that I finally started to think that maybe I was depressed.  

At the time I was still 12 (it was the beginning of the school year - August/September - and my BDay is in November) and my grandmother (Memaw - she was my (step)dad's mom btw) had just passed away ... and she was literally the only person in my family at the time that paid attention to me.  She was the only one that listened and helped and just seemed to care.  

When she passed away, I was ... I was very lost, I don't deny it.  

I also started to fully develop my anxiety during that time (not that I knew what the fuck any of this shit was) and I was ... I was very confused and scared and honestly just really lost during that time.  

But then I'd started marching band (I played the flute) and felt like I had a reason and started making friends - actual friends - but come the end of my freshman year my family (that is, me, my mom, my dad, and my sister) all ended up moving half-way across the country because my dad's son (so my step-brother with literally no blood relation to me at all) had kidney failure and my dad was a possible donor.

Three years after the move (and a lot of anxiety and depression and fear on my part) the surgery finally happened.  And while I was very glad and relieved for everything working out, I was so far gone in my anxiety by this point that I ... that I couldn't even .. I coudn't fucking muster up the will and strength to visit their fucking hospital room I coudn't fucking - I couldn't curb the anxiety enough to visit my dad - one of the most important people in my life - in his hospital room after he'd selflessly given up his kidney (and there was no hesitation at all and dad is just such a good man) and was in surgery for hours.

And I felt like the scum of the earth.

I can't - I can't tell you how much I hated myself for that.  I hated that I just - I couldn't fucking get my shit together and go see my dad as he laid prone on a hospital bed after doing one of the most amazing, selfless, wonderful things ever.  

I ... I can't even.  I cried, and still do (read: as I write this) when I think about it because - because he, he doesn't blame me for it.  He doesn't hold it against me and sometimes I think that he should.  He should feel sad or angry or something!  

It was really around that time that I decided that - that this was a problem.  

My dad - who'd taken care of me for no reason other than he cared and stayed with my mom even tho their marriage was long over by the time I could really understand.  My dad - who doesn't even have any blood relation to me, and yet still cares and lets me stay with him on the weekends, and is always there even after he and my mom split.

My dad, who I didn't even know wasn't my "father" until after I'd turned 7, never once made me feel inferior for who I was born to, what I felt, how I handled things ... the man that means so much to me.  

And yet I feel a constant irrational need to meet his expectations (even tho I know all he wants is to see me be successful and happy) and constant irrational fear that he won't want to be my dad anymore once he - once - fuck

once he realizes I'm fucked up and scared and wrong

And like, I know it's irrational and stupid and dumb because he isn't like that - I KNOW THAT - but like my anxiety and fears won't let me believe it. And that's why I have such a hard time coming to terms with who I am.  

Becuase I can't even muster up the courage to face my dad and say 'I need therapy' or 'hey, dad .. I'm queer' or even just 'dad .. I think I need some help.' because I don't want to let him down and it's just so overwhelming sometimes.

But then there's also the issue with my mom.  I love my mom, don't get me wrong - I really do.  I love her very much, but ... but I don't really - .. like her sometimes.  I don't like that she has a double standard set for me and my sibling(s) - that she expects me to be someone I'm not.  How she assumes I'm okay and honestly just have a small case of depression and/or anxiety and that can be fixed.

I don't like that, now that my sister has moved out (my biological sister that is) my mom has decided to hinder me from becoming someone - getting my life together, getting a degree, making progress ... all in a selfish attempt to 'keep her chicks in the next.' or something

I have serious issues - more than just depression and anxiety and fear.  I don't have any idea of my sexual identity, my biological identity (because I know I'm not cis, and the only thing that I can put it in is 'fluid' but it's not really that either) - I don't know a lot of things about myself and it's terrifying.

But I want to fix it.  I want - need - the help.  

I'm just at that point in my life where everything is shit, I have no idea what to do or how to do it and there's honestly there's just so much I could do, so much I have to do ... and it's daunting and scary and honestly just so stressful and probably going to give me heart failure but I want to get better.

And if there's one thing I've learned, is that you can't help someone if they don't want to be helped and that goes both ways.  You can't get help unless you admit you need it and seek it out.

I just hope that what (admittedly heavy but still little) I've shared of my fears and needs and honest issues actually goes into helping you out, because I've learned that you can glean just about anything from someone else's story that may just help you.  

#coming out #but not really #I told my mom I was bi #but I'm actually just queer #and I don't know how to go about it all #I really need help #therapy mostly #i have issues #serious issues #anxiety #fear #depression #anger #apathy #life #growing up #i don't know what I'm doing #therapy #queer #bi #nonbinary #fluid #gender identity #biological identity #what do I do #my story #coming out story #coming out but not really #it's complicated #help

[nicemango-feed]

Thoughts on Manchester Attack....& Responses that Just aren't Helping

The Manchester terror attack broke my heart, as each and every terror attack does. It chilled me to my core…again. 

Image from CNN.com

With the frequency of these attacks, it’s hard to process them all and properly mourn the loss before your attention is diverted to yet another tragedy. 

During the time I finished up this very blog post, I heard of deadly attacks in Baghdad and Kabul. It's hard, so hard to take it all in and grasp the magnitude of loss around the world. 

My thoughts are with all those who have suffered. 

----

The Manchester attack targeted children while they were out having fun, enjoying music, enjoying life... 

Image from here

It’s those very freedoms that terrorists hate, they abhor those who don’t live in the same ideological cages as them. 

I sit here and try to absorb all the fragmented commentary coming from all angles, trying to make sense of this, trying to understand how we can change it for the better. How do we stop this from happening? I don’t know.. because the terrorists motivations seem to lie in a tangled web of things, parts of which each side wants to deny. The most obvious of those is extreme blind faith in an ideology they consider to be infallible.  

I look around me, and see there’s nothing new here…

The left though well intentioned, nor the right, theists, nor atheists - no one is hitting notes (on this subject) that deeply resonate with me anymore. It’s pretty much the same tired commentary, the same motions we go through after each terror attack. 

“Islam is evil”

“”Nothing to do with Islam”

“Muslims must do more” 

“Muslims should not have to apologize for something they have nothing to do with” 

“Islam is war”

“Islam is peace” 

“Its all about foreign policy”

“Its all about religion” 

We really have to do better than this, because neither side on this issue is getting through to the other. Just screaming at each other till we’re blue in the face isn’t going to accomplish anything. 

It’s obvious this is a problem that needs to be addressed, denying links to Islam as people shout Allahu-akbar and take lives just doesn't suffice. It’s not helping anyone, least of all muslims. 

This isn’t to say that how all muslims practice Islam is hateful, divisive and dangerous...but we must acknowledge that some extreme muslims do take it this far, if we want to start solving this. Of course every community has it’s extremists..but Islam does have a lot more Westboro Baptist equivalents …and too many who are even more extreme than Westboro level.

There is a fundamentalism problem coming directly from the rigid orthodoxy that Islam commands in the 21st century. Our communities can certainly do more to promote diversity and inclusivity…we do fall short there, we’ve got to own it…only then can we begin to tackle it.

All that said though, here’s another thing thats not cutting it; Laying the blame on all Muslims collectively. 

This is like me saying portland, Quebec, NYC - white supremacist murders all by you white people. Its just not right to lump innocent people of the same demographic with violent savages who murder people. 

In this case in particular, it’s not fair to say Muslims could have, or should have done more as a community…as the bomber, Salman Abedi had been reported to authorities multiple times. There are mixed reports about him being banned from his mosque, so I'm not sure about that. But mosques can always do more to try and root out extremism. 

Full story here

With a frightening surge in white supremacist and anti-muslim attacks in this Trumpian era, the polarization amongst us is growing at such an alarming rate...I fear we’ll end up at a point where we have to pick a side between nazis and jihadis. Already people seem to think you can’t care about both…each team trying to emphasize the horrors of ‘the other side’ while trying to downplay or deny the horrors that come from people within their communities. 

Full story here

Full story here

We’ve got to do better, all of us. Looking inwards, is important for all communities, self-critique is how we improve.

——

The post terror attack scenario, is sadly our reality more and more often…around the globe. I understand its a moment of panic, anger, high emotion. People aren’t always thinking clearly on any side of the debate. But we have to do better, it’s the only way we can beat this monster. The one thing they want is to divide, disrupt and create chaos, sow hatred... in the days, weeks, months after…it’s something we should not let them have. 

There are a lot different types of counterproductive behaviour that emerge right after a terror attack, I feel we can make an already horrendous, painful situation a little more bearable if we refrain from this type of behaviour: 

'The Nothing to do with Islam’ chorus - I get it, it’s a reflex to distance either yourself (if you’re muslim) or an already persecuted minority from the worst, most violent people among them. But as all the liberal/muslim defenders of the religion will tell you, Islam is not a monolith. There are many people, majority of muslims in fact who manage to ignore or ‘re-interpret’ the same verses that drive the terrorists to kill. Why then does it all of a sudden become a monolith with boundaries that exclude terrorists when convenient? You simply cannot deny that those verses too come from the same religion. Just a different interpretation…if you start defining ISIS as ‘not real muslims’ you are playing their game. This is essentially what they do to dehumanize muslims that aren’t living up to their barbaric 7th century standards. The defensiveness and the desperation to distance terrorists from the religion that they themselves claim inspires them, makes defenders appear intellectually dishonest or in deep denial. In order to see the whole picture we cannot keep hiding from the fact that religion has a major role to play in religious extremism. There is hatred of music, hatred of women, of LGBT, of non-muslims coming from Islamic scripture, and theres no way you can modernize, reform or improve things if you at the very least don’t acknowledge that this problem exists. Fine…say this is not how you read it, but you can’t deny that the raw material exists for others to interpret in more violent ways. 

Sharing selective out of context Quran quotes guy - Nope. If you think you can share selective positive quotes, then don’t forget that people can and will rightfully share selective violent quotes to counter that too. This just looks like dishonesty or incomplete knowledge (which is also an issue, as many muslims are taught a curated version of scripture and often in a language they don't understand, I honestly didn’t know the existence of some of these verses till I did some research on my own…and hence, ‘ex-muslim’... 

I’ll make the same point for those who randomly share selective violent Quran quotes in the aftermath of a terror attack…not as a rebuttal to anyone denying violence in scripture…but just putting it out there that ..’look the scripture is violent… this scripture ALL muslims live by is dangerous” - no, this isn’t the time or place for that. I wholeheartedly agree…the scripture is vile, violent and all that. But tying ordinary muslims to these violent words when they may not fully be aware of its meanings, or even know of its existence is just in poor taste when they will likely already face a backlash of anti-muslim sentiment after an Islamic terror attack. I would say at other times, absolutely share this stuff, make muslims aware that this is what it says, and ask them to question if they’d really endorse this stuff. But RIGHT after a terror attack? Not a good idea imo. The bible has some vile violent verses too…we’ve just reached a point where many people don’t take it literally, and I hope we get there for Islam too…but if thats the goal tying *muslims in general* to violent verses in ancient scripture post-terror attack is harmful and counterproductive. 

Reminder, for the 'but what about Islam' types, I'm not sharing this to deny or shift blame from the fact that the Quran has equally violent, abhorrent verses that do inspire such horrors. But just to demonstrate that it is not uniquely evil, it is just unique in how seriously it is still taken today by many...unfortunately. 

Being blindly narrative driven without any regard for the truth - whether on the left or right, all muslims bad or all muslims good. This can take the vicious Nazi-esque Katie Hopkins form (far more dangerous and sinister of course), or it can take a well-intentioned but dishonest form from a magazine trying to portray muslims in a good light. You might be well intentioned but if you knowingly lie about things (see Cosmo screenshots below), ultimately you’re doing more harm to Muslims than you are good, and also providing fodder to the far right…who will find it easier to dismiss positive stories about muslims because of things like this.  

So they seem to know it's a Sikh person at this point...

How then...does this dishonest headline get printed? I mean there might very well be muslim Taxi drivers doing this as well, but juxtaposing it with this picture of a Sikh man, is really misleading!

Jump to Islamophobia concerns community leader - usually a guy being interviewed on TV who actually barely says two words about the horror of this attack before turning it around and making it about him and his community. Come on dude, priorities…yes there will likely be an anti-muslim backlash…i feel you…I get your concerns, I think anyone of muslim background shares those…generally people with brown skin might be fearful, as some non muslims have been killed as well in anti-muslim attacks. So i get it, legitimate concern….but in the aftermath of an attack, the first thing on your mind shouldn’t be the impact this will have on you…have some sympathy for the victims, for the horror their families will be dealing with.  

Similarly, on the fliplside theres the 'You can only care about one thing at a time' person - To this individual if you are concerned about a woman’s hijab being violently ripped off at the same time as the attack, you clearly have no regard for the victims of this brutal attack. This seems absurd to me. You can simultaneously express concern for both…because both harm innocent people. To assume there is no real violence being committed against perceived muslims is deeply foolish or deeply sinister…this isn’t about a few mean words hurled at muslims. This is about pregnant women being kicked till they lose their babies, this is about innocent people being killed. Their lives are no less valuable than those who went to the concert. You can and should express concern about both, of course one of these is not a large scale terrorist attack so one is more pressing and urgent, but this doesn’t mean that anyone expressing concern for both cares any less about the victims of the actual bombing. It just means they are looking at the bigger picture and concerned both about longer term as well as immediate effects. Sad this has to be explained, but there are many 'skeptical takes' out this week saying the victims of the bombing take a backseat if u care about anti-muslim sentiment rising during this attack. Its not one or the other, this is tribalism, plain and simple. And until we stop making it about us vs. them…and see that it is a cyclical problem where hate feeds hate...and that far right anti-muslim hate also fans the fires of Islamism, we won’t be able to combat it. 

The niqabi who decides to wear a grenade t-shirt on TV - ok this is rather specific…but i’m referring to a real fucking person who thought it was a good idea to be on TV and be interviewed about radicalization in the muslim community while wearing a black t-shirt that spells love in fucking *weapons*. 

At first i thought it was a photoshop job.. but sadly not...See video here

What kind of a person thinks thats a fucking good idea..? I mean of course Tommy Robinson was all over that. I don’t think it necessarily says anything about her sympathies or affiliations, as it appears to be a widely available 

t-shirt, 

but I mean the optics of this on a hipster kid and on a niqabi talking about extremism on TV after an *islamic* *terror* *attack* are completely different. Of course people are going to draw conclusions about what she was thinking. It might very well be that she foolishly thought it was a good ironic msg about peace, love and being anti violence or something…but fuck...it does not come across like that. Terrible terrible idea. NOT HELPING. 

'Hashtag Terror attack you say?!...Buy my books because I generally talk about Islam & stuff' person - 

Seriously...don’t be that person…don’t plug your non-specific stuff using a terror attack that took many lives. Of course some content is genuinely helpful and some content has been created as a specific response or commentary to this attack. That’s not what i’m talking about… it’s perfectly ok and also necessary for us to have access to different commentary and viewpoints after an attack. It’s how we process and form our opinions. This very piece is that… I’m talking about unrelated things that people are plugging using the hashtag and all. Don’t do that. That’s really in poor taste. 

Projecting negative intent on anyone that’s visibly muslim - Don’t be like Molyneux, probably a good rule in general.

(This is from the London attack, but the point remains.)

Whining about how people express their grief - Im sorry but people cope in different ways... are you that miserable of a person that you cannot let people heal in the ways that suit them? Coming together in groups, singing, feeling part of a community can feel powerful....and unite us at a time we feel so helpless otherwise. It can make us feel like we're doing something at least. Expressing ourselves through music and song is one of the things jihadis hate... its why they attack concert halls ffs. Don't be the guy that piles on to that. "Liberals just sing while the terrorists bomb us" - right cuz the singing is how they specifically plan to combat bombing. Liberals would go to battle ISIS armed with Jon Lennon songs I'm sure. 

I mean can people seriously have a problem with this kind of thing?

Goosebumps! The amazing moment Manchester crowd joins in with woman singing Oasis - Don't Look Back in Anger after minutes silence http://pic.twitter.com/Cw4mOq8yde

— Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) May 25, 2017

Is this not a valid & beautiful unifying, powerful response to human suffering? I don't understand the pettiness...

But What about [Name other Tragedy] - This isn't a contest, human suffering isn't a contest, please don't try to negate one tragedy by saying another deserves more attention. Yes some things get more air time than others, sometimes because it's closer to home, other times because of some aspects of the story. I wish i knew how to insure that all tragedies got equal attention, but this doesn't happen in the real world...so please don't take away from other horrific acts because the one you're talking about got less coverage. 

----

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; color: #9e4a2f} li.li1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline ; color: #9e4a2f} span.s2 {color: #000000} span.s3 {text-decoration: underline} ol.ol1 {list-style-type: decimal}

I’m sure there’s a ton of more examples of unhelpful behaviour… feel free to add your observations too, in the comments below. But I just felt I had to put this out there after seeing so many cringeworthy takes, making an already tragic situation worse. 

----

Thanks to those who support my work. New Patrons and old. Much love to you all. If you'd like to support my work you can do so here

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

[datingadviceonreddit]

Well i need to vent this out , and I'll also take a shot at asking advice at how to solve this problem. Sorry in advance for the lenghty text, i feel that i need to give a bit of context and talk about myself before reaching the main point, so we can work it out.I'll start this by introducing myself, I'm a 25yo brazilian (therefore sorry for any eng mistakes) male and I study engineering.About my looks: I'm kinda overweight (1.67m and 87kg) but i started working out 10 months ago and it is making wonders to my confidence in myself and in my body. About my personality, I'm a kind person, currently I can socialize well both with boys and girls (I actually go to a lot of parties and meetings), my hobbies are pretty common cooking , reading, playing games and (recently) going to the gym . I'm not rich , but also not poor.I'm the youngest of three sons in a very religious family, my father is a engineer, so I've never stayed in a city enought time to create close friends or develop relationships. I've never had anyone to talk about relationships, everytime I tried to bring up the subject to my brothers , all they did was mocking me, and I've never felt close enought with my parents to talk about this. I was a very socially awkward young man with little to no knowledge about how do deal with all challanges that comes with growing up in this society, all I knew how to do was studying,and I'm still pretty good at it. Fast foward , all that studying lead me into getting in a pretty good University in a different city. In this new city i got the opportuniy to start over, and so, after 7 years away from my parents I've fixed many of my social problems, now i got some real good friends, i learned how to socialize (and how to drink too haha ), i've made part of an exchange program and got to know alot of different countrys and cultures. In general I'm pretty happy with my life now and ready to move on, but there is something that still hunts me, and that is the fact that I still dont know anything about romantic relationships and stuff. I mean ,I've spent those last years fixing those problems but I still could get that one fixed. I mean I'm actually able to engage good (sometimes lenghty) conversations with random (or not) women about different subjects, I can dance with them, but still I'm always too afraid to make the move on them, and when they make the first move on me , I dont know how to react and kinda panic or act oblivious (sometimes on purpose). Phrasing it like that makes me realise that I'm a coward lol. While reflecting on this subject I've reached the conclusion that my main problem is to kiss the girl ( shame on me , i'm 25 yo lol) , after all those year i've kissed only one random girl (3 years ago), it was her that took that initiative and i dont remember how it felt or how i did it. It sounds silly , but, I can't gather up the courage to kiss a I girl because i'm afraid of not knowing how to do , or to do it in a wrong way and end up on a unconfortable situation and rejected, and having my fragile recent built confidence shattered. That is my barrier... for many ppl it cant sound really silly, but for me is more challanging than engineering problem that i've face during my entire graduation, and just because of this problem i feel that i might end up living without knowing what love is. If you read up 'til here , thanks, i really needed to open upwith someone and ask for advice before is too late for me.td;dr :25yo with mental barrier about kissing due to a lot of reasons via /r/dating_advice

#dating #dating advice #reddit