#( - on school often to the exclusion of any real social engagement) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

gffa · 3 years

Note

Do you think one could follow the Jedi Code/Lifestyle in real life as a positive manner of living or do you think it only works in Star Wars? I asked this on r/Mawinstallation and the answers I got were either:

''The Jedi code is oppressive so no'' ( this was the most upvoted answer )

''The Jedi code works but only for the Jedi''

''The Jedi code requires the force to work and since the force doesn't exist in the real world, the code cannot work''

And finally, I got only a single reply that said

''Yes, the Jedi code does work in real life, that's the entire point of Star Wars''.

What is your take on this?

This is going to be sort of a long, roundabout answer, but the short version is: In the finer details, we're not space psychics, but as a general idea? Yes. First of all, what even IS the Jedi Code? Are we talking about the whole “there is no emotion, there is peace”/”emotion, yet peace” meditation mantra, which we should point out is nowhere in the movies or TV shows, but is entirely in the novels and comics supplementary material? Are we talking about a more generalized idea of Jedi philosophy? And what, precisely, does that mean? I mean, what’s oppressive about it and what scene evidences that that’s what the Jedi taught? Second, there are two talks that George Lucas gave that I think really illustrate this view of emotional navigation and how that impacts Star Wars and the Force: There’s the writers meeting of The Clone Wars where he talks about the light side and the dark side and there’s an Academy of Achievement Speech from 2013 where he talks about joy vs pleasure: “Happiness is pleasure and happiness is joy. It can be either one, you add them up and it can be the uber category of happiness. “Pleasure is short lived. It lasts an hour, it lasts a minute, it lasts a month. It peaks and then it goes down–it peaks very high, but the next time you want to get that same peak you have to do it twice as much. It’s like drugs, you have to keep doing it because it insulates itself. No matter what it is, whether you’re shopping or you’re engaged in any other kind of pleasure. It all has the same quality about it. “On the other hand is joy and joy is the thing that doesn’t go as high as pleasure, in terms of your emotional reaction. But it stays with you. Joy is something you can recall, pleasure you can’t. So the secret is that, even though it’s not as intense as pleasure, the joy will last you a lot longer. “People who get the pleasure they keep saying, ‘Well, if I can just get richer and get more cars–!’ You’ll never relive the moment you got your first car, that’s it, that’s the highest peak. Yes, you could get three Ferraris and a new gulf stream jet and maybe you’ll get close. But you have to keep going and eventually you’ll run out. You just can’t do it, it doesn’t work. “If you’re trying to sustain that level of peak pleasure, you’re doomed. It’s a very American idea, but it just can’t happen. You just let it go. Peak. Break. Pleasure is fun it’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever. “Just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe again it’ll come back and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure, it’s about you. It’s a selfish self-centered emotion, that’s created by self-centered motive of greed. “Joy is compassion, joy is giving yourself to somebody else or something else. And it’s the kind of thing that is in it’s subtlty and lowness more powerful than pleasure. If you get hung up on pleasure you’re doomed. If you pursue joy you will find everlasting happiness.” –George Lucas And how I like to compare that to The Hijacking of the American Mind by Robert Lustig, MD, MSL, which is a book about how corporations have hijacked our pleasure centers to make us focused on reward over pleasure. It talks about the exact same concepts, with only slight word adjustments, but otherwise might as well be verbatim: “At this point it’s essential to define and clarify what I mean by these two words—pleasure and happiness—which can mean different things to different people. “Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines “pleasure” as “enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one’s liking”; or “gratification”; or “reward.” While “pleasure” has a multitude of synonyms, it is this phenomenon of reward that we will explore, as scientists have elaborated a specific “reward pathway” in the brain, and we now understand the neuroscience of its regulation. Conversely, “happiness” is defined as “the quality or state of being happy”; or “joy”; or “contentment.” While there are many synonyms for “happiness,” it is the phenomenon that Aristotle originally referred to as eudemonia, or the internal experience of contentment, that we will parse in this book. Contentment is the lowest baseline level of happiness, the state in which it’s not necessary to seek more. In the movie Lovers and Other Strangers (1970), middle-aged married couple Beatrice Arthur and Richard Castellano were asked the question “Are you happy?”—to which they responded, “Happy? Who’s happy? We’re content.” Scientists now understand that there is a specific “contentment pathway” that is completely separate from the pleasure or reward pathway in the brain and under completely different regulation. Pleasure (reward) is the emotional state where your brain says, This feels good—I want more, while happiness (contentment) is the emotional state where your brain says, This feels good—I don’t want or need any more. “Reward and contentment are both positive emotions, highly valued by humans, and both reasons for initiative and personal betterment. It’s hard to be happy if you derive no pleasure for your efforts—but this is exactly what is seen in the various forms of addiction. Conversely, if you are perennially discontent, as is so often seen in patients with clinical depression, you may lose the impetus to better your social position in life, and it’s virtually impossible to derive reward for your efforts. Reward and contentment rely on the presence of the other. Nonetheless, they are decidedly different phenomena. Yet both have been slowly and mysteriously vanishing from our global ethos as the prevalence of addiction and depression continues to climb. “Drumroll … without further ado, behold the seven differences between reward and contentment: Reward is short-lived (about an hour, like a good meal). Get it, experience it, and get over it. Why do you think you can’t remember what you ate for dinner yesterday? Conversely, contentment lasts much longer (weeks to months to years). It’s what happens when you have a working marriage or watch your teenager graduate from high school. And if you experience contentment from a sense of achievement or purpose, the chances are that you will feel it for a long time to come, perhaps even the rest of your life.Reward is visceral in terms of excitement (e.g., a casino, a football game, or a strip club). It activates the body’s fight-or-flight system, which causes blood pressure and heart rate to go up. Conversely, contentment is ethereal and calming (e.g., listening to soothing music or watching the waves of the ocean). It makes your heart rate slow and your blood pressure decline. - “ Reward can be achieved with different substances (e.g., heroin, nicotine, cocaine, caffeine, alcohol, and of course sugar). Each stimulates the reward center of the brain. Some are legal, some are not. Conversely, contentment is not achievable with substance use. Rather, contentment is usually achieved with deeds (like graduating from college or having a child who can navigate his or her own path in life). - “Reward occurs with the process of taking (like from a casino). Gambling is definitely a high: when you win, it is fundamentally rewarding, both viscerally and economically. But go back to the same table the next day. Maybe you’ll feel a jolt of excitement to try again. But there’s no glow, no lasting feeling from the night before. Or go buy a nice dress at Macy’s. Then try it on again a month later. Does it generate the same enthusiasm? Conversely, contentment is often generated through giving (like giving money to a charity, or giving your time to your child, or devoting time and energy to a worthwhile project). - Reward is yours and yours alone. Your sense of reward does not immediately impact anyone else. Conversely, your contentment, or lack of it, often impacts other people directly and can impact society at large. Those who are extremely unhappy (the Columbine shooters) can take their unhappiness out on others. It should be said at this point that pleasure and happiness are by no means mutually exclusive. A dinner at the Bay Area Michelin three-star restaurant the French Laundry can likely generate simultaneous pleasure for you from the stellar food and wine but can also generate contentment from the shared experience with spouse, family, or friends, and then possibly a bit of unhappiness when the bill arrives. - Reward when unchecked can lead us into misery, like addiction. Too much substance use (food, drugs, nicotine, alcohol) or compulsive behaviors (gambling, shopping, surfing the internet, sex) will overload the reward pathway and lead not just to dejection, destitution, and disease but not uncommonly death as well. Conversely, walking in the woods or playing with your grandchildren or pets (as long as you don’t have to clean up after them) could bring contentment and keep you from being miserable in the first place. - Last and most important, reward is driven by dopamine, and contentment by serotonin. Each is a neurotransmitter—a biochemical manufactured in the brain that drives feelings and emotions—but the two couldn’t be more different. Although dopamine and serotonin drive separate brain processes, it is where they overlap and how they influence each other that generates the action in this story. Two separate chemicals, two separate brain pathways, two separate regulatory schemes, and two separate physiological and psychological outcomes. How and where these two chemicals work, and how they work either in concert or in opposition to each other, is the holy grail in the ultimate quest for both pleasure and happiness.” – Robert Lustig, MD, MSL And then lets add in what Dave Filoni has said about the Force and the core themes of Star Wars: "In the end, it’s about fundamentally becoming selfless moreso than selfish. It seems so simple, but it’s so hard to do. And when you’re tempted by the dark side, you don’t overcome it once in life and then you’re good. It’s a constant. And that’s what, really, Star Wars is about and what I think George wanted people to know. That to be a good person and to really feel better about your life and experience life fully you have to let go of everything you fear to lose. Because then you can’t be controlled. “But when you fear, fear is the path to the dark side, it’s also the shadow of greed, because greed makes you covet things, greed makes you surround yourself with all these things that make you feel comfortable in the moment, but they don’t really make you happy. And then, when you’re afraid of something, it makes you angry, when you get angry, you start to hate something, sometimes you don’t even know why. When you hate, do you often know why you hate? No, you direct it at things and then you hate it. And it’s hard because anger can be a strength at times, but you can’t use it in such a selfish way, it can be a destroyer then. “These are the core things of Star Wars.“ –Dave Filoni So, the core things of Star Wars and the Jedi teachings (because Jedi teachings are basically almost word for word how GL described how the Force works) can very much be a reflection of real world teachings and ways to live by, because all of the above are about how GL viewed the world and what he wanted to put into his movies. Further, Jedi teachings are basically just reworded Buddhism + Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. And both of those are very livable by our real world standards, if you so choose. GL was very much about how SW had themes that were meant to be picked up on by the audience and even DF has said this: “ Jedi have the ability to turn the tide, to make a significant moment, to give hope where there’s none. That’s their ultimate role to play, to be this example of selflessness. And that’s what makes them a hero, when no one else can match that heroic thing. And then our job is to emulate that, to use that example, and further our own lives.” --Dave Filoni Ultimately, the Jedi are specifically focused on disciplining themselves (which GL has said is the only way to overcome the dark side, in that TCW writers’ meeting), probably to a degree most of us wouldn’t have the room to devote to, but that doesn’t mean that the broader strokes aren’t meant to be applicable to our lives or don’t echo real world teachings.

#jedi order #meta #long post

125 notes · View notes

folkdances · 2 years

Text

fran taking the bullet for all of you 😏 ok get ready because i've been oggling these guys for years and years and have a lot of thoughts and opinions on them:

studyblr is the name given to the subculture devoted to glorifying academics and you can find them on other delightful tags such as #studyspo #dark academia etc. though it's definitely not just a tumblr thing, it's gained a significant foothold here. you can find entire blogs dedicated to posting and reposting ~aesthetic~ photos of journals and notion pages and pens and desks on virtually any social media platform, and while it's definitely not entertaining for everyone, many people do, in fact, find solace in it, given that it is a subculture dedicated to the act of studying and falls into the broader topic of academia, which a lot of people find the aesthetics of appealing.

there's nothing technically wrong with the act of engaging with or being a part of these subcultures, and i'm definitely not here to preach (that would be hypocrisy). they can in fact be helpful for some people! it's an incentive to do schoolwork which is usually a tedious task at best and fosters a semblance of real community given that it revolves around real-life events and not media.

however, there are definite problems with the community at large and i think one of the biggest ones is within the concept itself — studyblr sort of branches off from the wider umbrella of dark academia which is notorious for being exclusive, elitist, and racist alongside a plethora of other things. "but margot!" you say to me "it's a tag filled with teenagers who like bad poetry and wearing turtlenecks! what's so wrong with that!"

well, intrepid reader, i say to you the concept of dark academia (assume i am referring to studyblr as well when i say this) quite literally stems from the real life field of institutional academics. go to school of course, but there is a very large amount of rhetoric that still needs to be hashed out about the elitism of real life academia and the consequences thereof. historically, academic institutions have always favoured a specific subset of person and that subset is white wealthy cishet abled men. this reflects on the online subculture. while many online spaces are very queer-inclusive there isn't that much room made for people of colour and if you go in any affiliated tag you can (and will) be accosted by a slew of quote unquote aesthetic photography of skinny white people in tweed jackets. people of colour are purposefully, as well as subconsciously, excluded from the community on a regular basis. (not that this is the only one in which this is the case.) there's also the wider argument that the reason is because statistically speaking people that aren't white wealthy cishet men are less likely to have access to the means of pursuing higher education and would therefore not be interested in the culture, and here's where i remind you that we're talking about tumblr and not oxford university.

alright, so we've established that the social media subculture of academics is deeply flawed from a moralist standpoint. moving onto my next observation: the glorification of study isn't always a good thing and very often instead promotes grind/hustle culture and all manner of delightful capitalist bootlicking.

disclaimer: i am well aware that we live in a society that values work above all else. most things you consume in real life were made by exploiting someone else. this isn't meant to guilt-trip you; it's a statement of fact. subsequently, many things you do in your real-life, many of the goals you hold and are asked to obtain, have the end-vision of a prosperous, successful life in mind. what defines a successful life? wealth. materialism. how high, how fast, and how far you can go? who set that standard?

again, this is not a personal failing, it's just how we've been programmed to believe in our present-day society. the work culture perpetuated by studyblr hinges on also acknowledging the hustle — 100 days of study challenges, perfectly poised journal entries to better enable work — which exists because we live in a society that worships the act of work. it's well known that hustle culture kills creativity, destroys morals and ethics, and, in fact, lowers productivity rather than increasing it, all while breeding on and perpetuating a truly toxic environment of 'if you're not working in some way at all hours you are Wasting Your Time'. there is a threshold to cross where just going 'teehee look i finished all the tasks on my list' becomes dangerous for a person's mental and moral wellbeing, and instead encourages a perfectionist, overworked mindset instead. i am not the only person who holds this opinion (if it can even just be called an opinion).

finally, there is something so truly exploitive and pervasive about posting daily check-ins and desk photography to an audience of thousands and millions of people on a regular basis. at some point the question instead becomes: are you really doing this for yourself? or for the validation you get from the likes? on a small-scale there's nothing wrong with posting a photo of your bullet journal to the internet. if anything, it might be a reason to get you more into the habit, if it's something you want to get into, or encourage you to get that project you've been procrastinating done. on a wider scale, however, it actually diminishes the value of any art you might have gotten out of it. again, why are you posting it, really, honestly?

additionally, the plagiarism/blatant theft culture of academia subcultures is hardly even a dark underbelly, it's a thriving and very open craft. look at any image of a daily spread on pinterest and you'll be almost sure to find a repost of it somewhere else, and somewhere else, and somewhere else. why credit the artist when it barely qualifies as art to begin with, right? and then it becomes, if you're posting your art to a place where you know it'll be stolen, is it really your art anymore? there's nothing you can do about it except let go or ask politely, and when has that ever worked for anybody?

(there is something to be said here about likes and social media and happiness levels being linked to online engagement; but i won't get into that.)

am i reading too far into this? not at all (ok maybe a little) — i fully believe in all of it and it's based on my own personal observations. i acknowledge my view may be skewed but this is my perspective. also bookending this with i am really not preaching to anyone and am just pointing out that these online cultures come from a very bigoted place and need to work on adjusting themselves to being more inclusive and more critical of their own behaviour. obviously there is more to be said about elitism/exclusionism/validation/etc. but this is what i could cover in a tumblr post that's already WAY too long lol

#txt #whoo ee that got out of hand #SORRY FOR SERIOUSPOSTING BTW #this is not . revolutionary or even that extensive its just what was on my mind

9 notes · View notes

filmmakerdreamst · 3 years

Text

How Xena: Warrior Princess Allowed Me To Accept Myself

I was living in a city all alone and these two characters showed me that it was ok for two women to love each other.

In order to understand the following story, there’s something you need to know about me. I have always loved fiction. From the age of about 5 to 11, I loved books more than I loved people. I was a shy child who found it easier to emotionally engage with fictional worlds than the real one around me.

See, fictional worlds are created for your brain’s enjoyment. Their rules make sense. Events happen for a reason. The narrator tells you why characters behave the way they do, allowing you to empathize with them on a deep emotional level. Easy to understand, easy to identify with, easy to love.

But real people are complicated. The real world is complicated. And things are seldom laid out nicely in a coherent narrative format for you. Real things are much harder to love.

This emotional disengagement continued from the age of 11 onwards, although it was no longer as pronounced. My habit of retreating into fiction would fade during good times and come back in force during difficult or stressful periods. During the stressful periods of college, the rise of Netflix allowed me to become certifiably obsessed with my favorite TV shows. And naturally, I joined Tumblr in order to more easily fangirl with people who shared my interests.

Only for some peculiar reason that I didn’t care to examine, my interests were slowly gravitating towards girl-girl couples. Soon I was shipping, reblogging, and reading fanfiction almost exclusively about female couples. But I, who had always considered myself straight despite lacking interest in the boys around me, didn’t think this meant that I was gay. I probably just found female couples more emotionally satisfying. I was friends with mostly women, I was a woman myself, so it was natural that I just understood them better. Yeah, that was probably it.

Fast-forward to nine months ago. I was living in Boston and incredibly depressed about it. My job and my boss were making my life miserable and I had very few people to socialize with. I was making the rough transition from the constant socialization of college to the isolating pressure of a city where I had few connections. My days and nights were some of the loneliest I had ever experienced. I looked for something, anything, to lift the heart-crushing emotional silence.

My solution was the same one I always chose when I was dissatisfied with the real world; obsession with a new TV show. And thanks to my femslash-focused tumblr community, I knew just what my next feel-good show was going to be.

My tumblr friends had told me this: Xena: Warrior Princess is an action-fantasy show that enjoys a cult status, much like Buffy: The Vampire Slayer (which I watched and loved). The two shows were made in the same mid-to-late 90's era, with similar bad special effects and endearing campiness. But XWP is much… MUCH… more gay.

That was about all I knew about the show going in. And amazingly, that was all I needed to know to be excited about watching it. You’d think that fact would have told me something about myself, but no. The mental walls of denial were years in the building and needed more force than that to be shattered.

For anyone unfamiliar with the show’s premise, Xena: Warrior Princess is about the title character and her quest for redemption. You see, Xena did some bad things in her previous life on another show (Hercules: The Legendary Journeys). In her storied career as a warlord, she committed such petty crimes as genocide, the slaughter of innocents, that kind of thing. But now she has seen the light and wants to atone for her crimes. Except she can never undo the terrible things she did. All Xena can do now is help people on a day-to-day basis and hope that it’s enough for someone to show her mercy.

Which is already fantastic from a character standpoint. But there is a secret mirror to Xena’s journey that is not reflected in the show’s title, and that is Gabrielle and her character arc.

Oh! Gabrielle! When I met her in the very first episode, I loved her straightaway. She is a feisty, naive, talkative small-town girl who accompanies Xena on all her adventures. Her character quickly assumes paramount importance in the narrative. Gabrielle is Xena’s only friend. She comes to know her better than anyone else and love her for who she is, all the while believing Xena can reach redemption. Yet Gabrielle is not just a support system for Xena; she goes on her own heroic journey. The two character arcs intertwine and co-develop in a way I have never seen in any show before or since.

As each episode rolled by and their relationship grew in complexity, I found myself more and more engrossed. And I came to realize: this was something I wanted. The day I accepted my own desire was the day I accepted myself. What could be more strangling than denying the existence of your own feelings? Yet I had been doing this to myself for years — cutting off the possibility of being attracted to other women — without even realizing.

Before beginning the show, I thought the fandom had read in between the lines to construct a romantic relationship between the two characters, the same way as femslash shippers do in all other TV shows. Except not this time. This one is mind-blowingly different.

Not only does the narrative place utmost importance on the relationship between Xena and Gabrielle, but the actresses bring such multi-dimensional love to their parts. When I saw Lucy Lawless (Xena) and Renee O’Connor (Gabrielle) interact, I could so easily believe that these two women loved each other beyond friendship. Xena and Gabrielle display every kind of love you can think of. They protect and sacrifice for each other. They tease and flirt. They cuddle and console. They have inside jokes with each other. They dance sexily. They play pranks and drive each other crazy. They sweetly kiss. They come back from the dead together. They bathe together. They raise each other’s children. They meet in alternate timelines and fall in love all over again.

I could have left my mental walls of denial in place. I could have said to myself “oh yes, I want this. But with a guy.” But no. Lawless and O’Connor’s incredibly attractive faces and bodies broke down the door of my mental closet. Precisely because they were fictional, I felt safe to admit my attraction to them. One of the key mental blocks I had always had towards accepting any attraction towards other women was the thought that I was being creepy. That since they could not possibly feel the same way about me, it was wrong to feel the way I did. But in my mind, that barrier didn’t exist with fictional characters. They couldn’t feel anything for me. Therefore, it was fine to feel whatever I want about them.

The walls cracked. The water came rushing in. Oh my god. I am attracted to other women. Like, every day of my life. Those flickers in my stomach when I talk to an attractive female coworker suddenly make a whole lot of sense now. I now saw my historical awkwardness when talking to beautiful girls, which I always dismissed as “me being weird”, for what it was. All those short-term girl crushes on older girls throughout high school. How was I so sure they were platonic? That heart-aching infatuation I had with my best friend that lasted for years? Yeah, add that to the ‘definitely gay’ list.

Since then I’ve realized that my feelings are valid regardless of what others feel for me. Just because feelings are unrequited doesn’t mean they aren’t real. That’s what Xena and Gabrielle taught me. Their fictional example was the final blow to my rapidly-crumbling resistance to the idea of homosexuality.

In our culture today, so many forms of media reinforce heteronormativity. How many commercials have you seen that assume attraction between a man and a woman? How many billboards tell women that they need to look sexy for the men in their lives? How many times has a movie ended with the guy getting the girl? It’s the combined action of a thousand small rocks shifting to make a cultural avalanche. You can’t move against it. All you can do is stand still and try to maintain your footing against the current, to maintain your identity in the face of a world where you and people like you are often swept away by the mainstream.

Xena: Warrior Princess is one of those rare stories that dares to go against the grain. It celebrates a romantic relationship between two women as the most natural thing in the world. And in doing so, it provides a mirror for me and people like me to recognize themselves in. There we are. Look at us fly.

This story isn’t over yet. I still have a lot of work to do to accept myself, but thanks to Xena and Gabrielle I’ve taken one huge step towards living the open life I want to live. I moved on from that horrible job and lonely city, but in the end I’m grateful. Grateful that circumstances pushed me to the depths of loneliness necessary to bring down the prison I had built in my own mind.

- How Xena: Warrior Princess Allowed Me To Accept Myself by Lyra Hall

75 notes · View notes

zeldasayer · 4 years

Text

I transcribed and translated Pedro’s interview from GQ Germany for all of us. I tried translating as good as possible but bear with me, English is not my mother tongue. By @sixties-loser

Pedro Pascal, the star from “Game of Thrones”, “Wonder Woman” and “The Mandalorian” talks about becoming an adult, film, fashion, corona – and a painful surgery in the exclusive GQ interview.

It seems almost eerie how empty the streets of LA are in the sunshine. Meanwhile a new normality seems to be coming to Europe, most people in L.A. are still cutting their own hair. Many have not seen their friends for half a year. The pandemic is out of control. The reaction towards it too. Inviting someone into their garden for a “distance drink” can cause the same distress as suggesting to switch spouses.

Therefore, it was particularly surprising that Pedro Pascal immediately accepted. He accepted the drink, not to switch spouses. He is one of the rising stars and newcomers this year – if it wasn’t for corona sending the whole film industry into a forced vacation, there would most likely not have been time for said drink. After having his skull crushed in “Game of Thrones” followed the lead role as a DEA agent hunting Pablo Escobar in “Narcos” in 2015 and now he is stepping towards big Hollywood films. From the 1st of October onwards the Chilean-born actor will be starring in the blockbuster “Wonder Woman 1984”. Moreover, the second season of the “Star Wars”-series “The Mandalorian” on Disney+ starring him as the lead is going to air in October this year – but he will be underneath a helmet. Well, we all are under a helmet in 2020 in one way or another. We want to meet the man who a few years ago still worked as a waiter in New York, whose parents were political refugees who found asylum in Denmark and settled in Texas and whose son one day signed up for a theatre group in High School.

Then, the cancellation! While we were in the middle of fixing up the house and the garden for the drink with Pedro and organizing the fashion shoot, which was not easy considering the safety measures in L.A., his management called with an unfortunate message: Pedro – no, not sick with corona – had to get emergency surgery because of a damaged tooth and was lying in bed with a swollen face that was hindering him from speaking and taking pictures. The sun is shining onto empty streets. And our empty garden.

A few days later he nonetheless arrived at our front door without a swollen face but still with threads in his mouth. He was not chauffeured by a limo-service but he came with his own car – he even picked up his make-up artist. He is helping her carrying all of her utensils into the house and declares: “I’ve got time today!”. What a celebrity! It seemed like we did not want to ask him how he made it to the A-List of Hollywood but he wanted to ask us how we made it to the A-list. Pedro Pascal! Yes, what kind of a celebrity?

Pedro Pascal: Sorry for messing with your plans. The surgery was an emergency.

GQ: Really? We were wondering whether the swelling wasn’t the product of a secret visit to the plastic-surgeon. Apparently, they are drowning in work because of the quarantine in Hollywood.

PP: I have to disappoint you. A few days before our appointment I was rushing to the hospital with a fractured tooth and the worst pain in my entire life – a hospital in which treats people with severe cases of corona. I was unable to reach any dentist! Right in front of the parking lot a specialist called me back. The pain was hell despite the ten injections I got. The doctor said I was not an exception because a lot of people are grinding their teeth because of all the stress.

GQ: What are you most afraid of at the moment?

PP: How the government is handling the pandemic is worrying me more than the virus itself. This shortage of intelligent management of the crisis is a moral shame. The leadership crisis in this country is turning us all into orphans – destitute and abandoned.

GQ: How did you spend your time over the last few months?

PP: I spent it with frozen pizza and sweatpants in Venice Beach. I live in a rear house that’s in a family’s garden. Actually, there are a lot of good takeout places nearby but for some reason I just love pepperoni pizza from the supermarket.

GQ: That does not really sound like movie star-lifestyle. What does it feel like being suddenly stopped from top speed to zero?

PP: Regarding what is going on around the world one should hold back one’s own mental turmoil. I would be lying if I was saying that I am not disappointed. The whole team put a lot of heart and work into the production of “Wonder Woman 1984”. We had a lot of fun on set. I wished to travel around the world and introduce the film with the same lively energy.

GQ: You come from a politically engaged, socialist family that fled from the Pinochet-regime in Chile. What do you remember from that time?

PP: My sister and I were born in Chile but I was only nine months old when we first found asylum in Denmark. From there we quickly came to San Antonio in Texas where my dad started working as a doctor at the university clinic.

GQ: Texas is not known as a socialist utopia. How did you assimilate?

PP: San Antonio is not a Cowboy-town but very diverse with big Asian, black and Latino communities. I remember it as a romantic place, culturally open. The culture shock only came as we later moved to range county in California. There the atmosphere was suddenly white, preppy and conservative.

GQ: How were you received in California?

PP: I’m still ashamed of the fact that I did not correct my classmates when they kept on calling me Peter. I am Pedro. Even if I didn’t grow up in Chile the country and the language are still a part of me. I was very unhappy in that environment. However, I was fortunately able to go to another school close to Long Beach where I felt more comfortable. Through the theater group at that school I found my way.

GQ: Were you able to visit Chile as a child?

PP: Yes, when my parents made it to the list of expatriates that were able to travel to Chile without consequences. First, there was a big family reunion and then my sister and I stayed there for a few months with relatives while my parents went back to Texas. They likely needed a break from us. They got us when they were very young, had a buzzing social life and my mother was obtaining a PhD in psychology.

GQ: Was your mother a typical young psychologist who wanted to apply her theoretical knowledge at home?

PP: You mean, whether I was her guinea pig? For sure! I remember strange tests and sittings that were disguised as games where someone was watching me react to different toys. I cannot have been older than six but I was already aware of the dynamic. My favourite thing was being questioned about my dreams. That was a wonderful opportunity to come up with fantastic stories.

GQ: Was that your first performance?

PP: Of course! My mother worried about my strong imagination because I was living in my own fantasy world rather than reality. I hated going to school. I was always categorized as the troublemaker. At one point, the topics at school became more interesting and my grades also went up. There are so many kids that are unnecessarily diagnosed with learning disabilities without considering that school can be abhorrent. Why is it so accepted to be bored in class when there are so many stimulating ways to convey knowledge?

GQ: Considering al that has happened this summer around the world: Do you believe that we can seriously demand social change now?

PP: I Hope so. After lockdown, the first time I went out was to protest for “Black Lives Matter” on the streets. The energy was peaceful and hopeful until the police provoked severe conflicts. Nevertheless, we cannot run from problems like we used to this time and we cannot distract ourselves from them either. It seems like the pressure of the pandemic led to a new clarity: We cannot go on this way.

GQ: The “Wonder Woman 1984” Trailer revives the optimism of the 1980’s. From today’s point of view, it seems almost nostalgic.

PP: That’s right. You really are happy for two hours. The director Patty Jenkins created a film full of positive messages. We shot in Washington D.C., then in London and Spain – this sounds like I am talking of a past time.

GQ: Do you miss traveling?

PP: I’m just now realizing the privilege of just packing up one’s stuff and being able to fly anywhere. An American passport used to guarantee unlimited travel. And that’s why it the small radius of our lives is actually unimaginable. Over the last years I often retreated for a break after shootings because I was constantly on the move and overstimulated. My friends were already complaining I had become too comfortable. We all took social contact for granted and are only realizing now how dependent we actually are on human contact. Over the last weeks I often longingly thought about all the parties and dinner invitations I declined.

GQ: In L.A. people spend more time at home or nature than in other metropolises that are more geared towards public life. Could this city become your second home after New York?

PP: My Real Home are my friends. I have been a nomad since I was little and I do not have a place where I have put down roots. Up until not long ago my physical home was a place in between departure and arrival. Therefore, it was something I did not want to complicate through the accumulation of stuff. On the contrary: Without having read Marie Kondo’s book I have freed myself from excess baggage over the last few years and I lived relatively minimally.

GQ: Is there nothing you collect or something you just can’t throw away?

PP: Books! I even still have the literature I read when I was a teenager and when I was in college. Recently, I stumbled upon a box full of old theatre manuscripts and materials from my time at the New York University. I also cannot part from art easily, just like I cannot part from lamps or old photos. On the other hand, I can easily get rid of furniture and clothes.

GQ: Do you remember roles that were really only completely defined through the costume?

PP: Yes, I am particularly thinking about “Game of Thrones”. At that time I understood for the first time what it meant to be supported by a look. This is thanks to the costume designer Michele Clapton. She created very feminine robes and brocade coats for my character that nevertheless looked masculine when worn and I felt very sexy in them. Of course, Lindy Hemmings power-suits and Jan Swells bleached hairstyle for the tycoon-villain in “Wonder Woman 1984” were very important as well. At first I did not really see myself in the role because the cuts and colors of the 80s do not really fit my body. I’m more the 70s type.

GQ: Do you incorporate those inspirations into your personal wardrobe?

PP: In my free time I choose comfort over a cool look these days. Sometimes I miss the times when I expressed myself through a certain style. It is hard to imagine that I went to Raves as a teenage in the 90s; I was a real club kid with ridiculous outfits: overalls, balloon pants, football shirts and a top hat, like in Dr.Seuss’s “Cat in a Hat”. Later in New York I was hanging out with a group of people that felt it was very important to have a certain style. The fact that I am basically only wearing sweatpants everyday is actually tragic.

GQ: whoever plays roles in comic book adaptations becomes a bodybuilder and eats ten chicken breasts a day. You don’t?

PP:My body would not agree with that. It is hard enough to stay in shape normally. When you’re in your mid-forties you have to live with a lot more discipline. Up until before my tooth-incident I worked out with a trainer in my garden multiple times a week to keep the quarantine body in check.

GQ: Apart from the personal trainer, are you in a steady relationship?

PP: I am not ready for that yet. Maybe at some point I will be but until then I’ll let it be. I can’t even offer you absurd corona dating stories.

GQ: What would annoy you the most if you were your own roommate?

PP: I can be quite controlling. I have to conjure all my humanity to prevent myself from going through my entire film collection. When I don’t want something I cannot keep it to myself or be passive-aggressive, I always have to take it to the frontlines. Other than that, I tend to have tunnel view: when I am not feeling well I cannot imagine to ever feel better again. I have trouble relativizing my emotions or to wave off problems. Method-acting would really not be for me. This is why I try to only work on projects that feel good, where there is mutual support and encouragement.

GQ: When we were trying on the clothes earlier you spoke of a lack of self-confidence. How does that get along with a career like yours?

PP: Isn’t it interesting how these characteristics and circumstamces relate? Self-worth comes from inside but it is also influenced by what society values because we often internalise the public gaze. I have lived in New York for 20 years, I studied there and made a living by working as a waiter until my mid-thirties because the theatre and film jobs I got did not pay the bills. There were so many times I was almost there. The disappointment of having missed the perfect role or opportunity by a hair’s width can be crushing. When should you give up and what is plan B? That is a question that is not only on many actors‘s minds but also on many others minds who struggle for a living – no matter how much potential they have or how close they seem to be to the top. We are seeing now how our narrow definition of success destroys society. At the same time, we are realizing that where we come from and the color of our skin still decide whether we can exist with dignity.

GQ: What are the positive aspects of a relatively late success as leading-man?

PP: I feel like I can decide over my own life without the pressure of having to accept projects or to have to present a certain identity on social media. This is for sure also because I am a man. Regardless of age, Women have to try harder to stand out.

GQ: Life always consists of risk management – now more than usual. For what would you risk losing something?

PP: Generally, when you never risk something you might never get ahead. That is for friendship, love, work and creativity. I have to be ready to take risks for the things that really matter to you.

#pedro pascal #THANK YOU MY LOVE!#submission

263 notes · View notes

howwelldoyouknowyourmoon · 3 years

Text

Cracking the Cult Code for Therapists: What Every Cult Victim Wants Their Therapist to Know

by Bonnie Zieman

June 16, 2017 paperback 142 pages ISBN-13: 978-1546894681

After being born into and raised in a cult that masquerades as a religion, Bonnie Zieman left the cult and obtained the education she'd been denied while in it. Training in two schools of psychotherapy (Gestalt and Psychosynthesis) and obtaining a master's degree in education, Bonnie then became a licensed psychotherapist. She worked in private practice for over twenty years. Once learning about this new phenomenon of the constant stream of people now exiting high-control groups and cults, and understanding the toll the cult abuses take on lives (isolation, rampant depression, PTSD, and suicide) she wanted to apply her education and experience to help. Writing cult-recovery-related books seemed like the obvious course. Bonnie has written: “Exiting the JW Cult: A Healing Handbook”; “The Challenge to Heal After Leaving A High-Control Group” and its accompanying volume “The Challenge to Heal Workbook & Journal”; as well as “Fading Out of the JW Cult: A Memoir” about her thirty years in the cult, the struggle to leave it, and the challenges faced trying to create a new life once out. You can learn more about Bonnie Zieman and her work at her website, https://bonniezieman.com/

Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Chapter 1 Cult — Definition & Description

Chapter 2 Why People Join a Cult

Chapter 3 How Cults Recruit, Control & Retain Members

Chapter 4 Working with Cult Victims

Chapter 5 Love-Bombing & Belonging

Chapter 6 Indoctrination

Chapter 7 Isolation

Chapter 8 Personal Reality & Personal Identity

Chapter 9 Doubts & Questions

Chapter 10 Learned Helplessness

Chapter 11 Individual Freedoms

Chapter 12 Control & Automatic Compliance

Chapter 13 Elitism & Exclusivity

Chapter 14 Higher Education & Careers

Chapter 15 Threats & Punishments

Chapter 16 Fears & Phobias

Chapter 17 Overview of Most-Used Cult Controls

Chapter 18 Repression of Basic Human Needs

Chapter 19 Challenges of Being Born & Raised in a Cult

Chapter 20 Dissociation

Conclusion

Cult Strategies Used to Control Members – 1

After-Effects of Cult Strategies on Members – 2

Recommended Reading

Educational websites

Cult Victims’ First-Hand Accounts of Control & Abuse are from the Following Groups & Extremist Religions

About the Author

Note to former cult members: While some of you may dislike seeing yourself referred to as a ‘victim’, the reality is that while in the cult we were ‘victimized’. The goal for any of us who were members of a cult is to move from ‘victim’ to survivor to ‘thriver’. If you feel you have already moved beyond being classified as a victim, I applaud and support you. That is evidence of your hard work on the path to recovery. I use the word ‘victim’ throughout the book in part to accentuate to therapists not yet familiar with cults, how damaging and destructive membership in a cult can be. You know where you are on the road to recovery. Please do not let a word define or disturb you.

Conclusion to the ‘Cracking the Cult Code’ book

Part of the purpose of the mixed cocktail of control and indoctrination in any cult is to convince members that while being psychologically and spiritually captive, they are actually free – free because they are among the few on the planet who are in possession of the truth, free because only they have been liberated from the delusions, depravity and immorality of the rest of the world, free because only they would be exempt from the fate of the world of non-believers, etc. These are, surely, the ultimate cult deceptions.

Once an individual does leave the cult they may wonder how they could ever have allowed to themselves to buy into such blatant lies, and perhaps then doubt their ability to make rational assessments and decisions. There may also be self recriminations – anger at the self, disgust at allowing oneself to be duped, outrage at having wasted so much time – which can result in despair, demoralization and depression.

The ex-cult member may wonder if they can trust themselves going forward and, therefore, proceed gingerly to make choices or decisions while trying to rebuild their values, worldview, life, and relationships outside of the cult. It may be challenging for friends, family and social workers to help motivate someone fresh out of a cult. The after-effects of so many deceptions make it hard for the ex-cult member to trust anyone – including social services or mental health professionals – for a time.

While believing they were free and exclusively chosen to engage in work that would better the world, cult members forfeited their real self, their values, their autonomy, their agency, their family and any support system outside of the cult. Cult victims forfeited their financial future, a sense of competence, their self esteem, their well-being – their life. Listen to the following recollections and reflections of two ex-cult members:

“When your own thoughts are forbidden, when your questions are not allowed and our doubts punished, when contacts with friendships outside of the organization are censored, we are being abused, for the ends never justify the means. When our heart aches knowing we are we have made friendships and secret attachments that will be forever forbidden if we leave, we are in danger. When we consider staying in a group because we cannot bear the loss, disappointment and sorrow our leaving will cause for ourselves and those we have come to love, we are in a cult… If there is any lesson to be learned it is that an ideal can never be brought about by fear, abuse, and the threat of retribution. When family and friends are used as a weapon in order to force us to stay in an organization, something has gone terribly wrong” – Deborah Layton

“I could not undo overnight the damage that had been done to my psyche over many years. The only way over was through – I knew that – but it was still debilitating and stressful. All I could do was face the fear and keep going.” – Carolyn Jessop

Cult expert, Madeleine Landau Tobias, in the book, “Captive Hearts, Captive Minds” says: “More often than not, leaving a cult environment requires an adjustment period, not only to reintegrate into ‘normal’ society, but also to put the pieces of yourself back together in a way that makes sense to you. When you first leave a cult situation, you may not recognize yourself. You may not know how to identify the problems you are about to face. You may not have the slightest idea who you want to be. The question we often ask children, ‘What do you want to be when you grow up?’ suddenly takes on a new meaning for adult ex-cult members.”

After reading this book it should be clear that people leave cults or any high-control group have been traumatized by multiple losses, betrayal, thought control, deception, coercion, exploitation and abuse. Once out of the cult, victims have a long road ahead to reclaim their suppressed identity and to build a new, self-directed life. They need help and support and many hope to find it with a prepared, competent, understanding, non-judgmental therapist.

After taking the daunting step of finding a therapist, ex-cult victims need to sit across from a clinician who has “cracked the cult code” and understands what the ex-member endured in the group and what they will face trying to reclaim the self and the life they had to abandon to be in the cult.

I hope that after reading this book, clinicians will now have a better handle on what cult victims want their therapist to know, so that their work together can be more open, collaborative and productive.

The therapist who has cracked the cult code will surely be enriched by the privilege of viewing the determination, courage and resilience that manifests before them as they work with cult victims to release the beautiful human being unduly encased in the cold, unyielding stone of cult constraints.

“The long day wanes: The slow moon climbs; The deep Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends, Tis not too late to seek a newer world.”

– Tennyson, Ulysses

#Bonnie Zieman #cult recovery

5 notes · View notes

strangertheory · 3 years

Note

I'd love for Will to be able to have the power of reality alteration because him being the most powerful one would be a very nice plot twist. But. Do you really believe they make him more powerful than El? I keep finding crazy comments on social media, suggesting it's the "El show" 😪 *sigh*. And I know some people who say it'd be anti feminist since Will is a boy. Thx

That’s a lot of interesting questions to think about.

I’ll attempt to address each thought that you’ve shared one at a time and provide you with my own opinions and theories about each:

You said: “I'd love for Will to be able to have the power of reality alteration because him being the most powerful one would be a very nice plot twist. But. Do you really believe they would make him more powerful than El?”

I have a lot of conflicted feelings about the way that the fandom often talks about characters’ powers and supernatural abilities in Stranger Things. (I also really dislike the way that the fandom has decided that they can’t appreciate and support both El and Will’s happiness and that their happy endings and successes are somehow mutually exclusive, but I’ll address the topic of their powers first.)

Fans often focus on the abilities and superpowers of characters as something desirable and cool but fans rarely spend time considering what it cost those characters to develop their abilities in the first place. Neither El nor Will suddenly woke up one day and had superpowers that they had conscious control over.

Certain impressive skills that people have in the real world might also be developed under extremely traumatic and undesirable circumstances and not because they wanted them: the powers represented so far in Stranger Things are very much like that variety of skillset.

El’s powers and her ability to control them are canonically shown to have manifested during her imprisonment, abuse, isolation, and manipulation at the Lab. As Kali says “They stole your life, Jane!” Due to El’s isolation from society and from love and affection and from having a family and from everything else in the world beyond the Lab she has a significant amount of early childhood social and psychological development that was stolen from her that she can never truly get back. A healthy, loving, safe environment for development and self-actualization that children deserve to have was not provided to El and she has suffered so much and she has had significant delays in her opportunity to grow and become her own person because of what was done to her. So yes, El has psychic powers that give her a variety of unique abilities that are very useful. But at what cost? If El were given the choice to abandon all of her powers in exchange for a loving family, a community of friends that she’d had the opportunity to know and spend time with since early childhood, a variety of passions and hobbies that she chose for herself over the years as she was growing up and engaging with the world, an extensive understanding of the world outside of the Lab based on her own exploration of the world and not only what people tell her or what she sees on television, and most importantly a sense that she is treated kindly because people truly love her and not because they want to exploit her and her powers for their own purposes: wouldn’t she make that trade?

Do I currently agree with the theory that Will’s subconscious mind created the Upside Down, the Mindflayer, the demogorgon, and even most probably created many other characters and fantastical plotlines that exist in the story? Yes. But I believe it has (so far) been unintentional, entirely subconscious, and is a mental coping mechanism in response to extremely traumatic circumstances that Will has faced throughout his life. Would Will’s subconscious mind creating significant parts of the Stranger Things universe represent a certain level of “power” that is greater than El’s? I don’t personally think they’re comparable. There are things that Will can probably do that El cannot, and vice versa. They will surely each have their own strengths and weaknesses and their own limitations that we may or may not always be shown in the series.

But what does "more powerful” really mean to us, and why does that question even matter? It was not El’s choice to have powers and it was not Will’s choice to have powers. Much of what I believe Will has incidentally created is creating a lot of confusion and suffering for him and for others that he cares about. If the story were about real people I’d be offended at the question of who’s more powerful and feel as though that question and debate is the sort that Dr. Brenner and his colleagues would have: “How useful is this child to me? Which child is more powerful?” I dislike the question because it feels like asking a parent which child is their favorite. I care about them both, and I don’t care about them because they happen to have superpowers: I care about them because they are nuanced characters that are very well-written and that I can empathize with as if they were real people. I respect why it’s a popular thing for fans to debate over which X-Men is the most powerful, for example, but that’s never been what draws me into scifi and fantasy stories. What characters choose to do under unusual circumstances and with unique resources (such as superpowers) is far more important to me than the nature and intensity of the powers themselves. I believe that the Stranger Things fandom does these beautifully written characters a disservice by focusing too heavily on their abilities and not enough on their feelings, choices, relationships, dreams, goals, and experiences that humanize them.

I love Stranger Things because of the humanity of each of the characters and not because some of them can throw cars through walls.

You said: “I keep finding crazy comments on social media, suggesting it's the "El show"”

El is definitely an important character in the story at this point in the show and she has some really fascinating abilities in the Stranger Things universe that often give her iconic moments and provide her an opportunity to be in the spotlight.

I believe that there is a reason that the writers have decided to develop many characters in the story and in my opinion it can seem hard to pin-point a “main” character at times. I think this is absolutely intentional on the part of the writers, and I predict that we will learn how Will’s, Hopper’s, and El’s storylines intersect in season 4. I think we will learn something new about each of the characters.

I do not personally believe that it is the “El show” any more than it could be argued that this is the “Steve show” or the “Hopper show.” But I do appreciate that fans have grown to love El’s character.

I strongly disagree with anyone in the fandom that insists that Will is not important. I can tell that the way that he was quieter in season 3 inspired some fans to dismiss his role in the series entirely, but I think they’re mistaken. Quiet and less assertive doesn’t mean irrelevant in a story like this one. I believe that much of what Will has been through is at the heart of the entire series, and I think that he will play a very critical role in future seasons. If some fans passionately dislike Will then they might need to steel themselves for some severe disappointment.

You said: “And I know some people who say it'd be anti feminist [for Will to be more powerful than El] since Will is a boy."

I would argue that El embodies many traits that are often presumed to be stereotypically masculine by certain incorrect and outdated schools of thought: assertiveness, the ability to win in combat, determination, resilience, and bravery (among others.) There were eras in which these traits were not always valued and respected in women, and arguably there are still many circumstances under which they still aren’t. El is a complex character who is not written as a gender stereotype and I think that is powerful and important.

We need more characters of many different genders that are written as people. Complex, multi-faceted, and capable of many different things regardless of their gender.

Yes. Will is a boy.

Will is a young boy who has been bullied for having certain traits that are very often stereotypically seen by society as feminine. As being “womanly.”

I believe that feminism needs to be intersectional and seek to address the ways that all people and all genders are harmed by a society that devalues women and devalues traits, work, and skillsets that are associated with femininity.

Feminism should not be reduced and oversimplified to “girl power.” Anyone that reduces feminism to that does not, in my opinion, understand feminism.

“Feminism is the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes.”

Devaluing admirable traits when someone of one gender expresses them but then deciding to value those exact same traits when they are expressed by a person of a different gender is prejudiced and anti-feminist because it maintains the false idea that certain traits only have value in people if they are a specific gender.

El is a wonderful, empowering character and I appreciate that she is very well written and admired by many fans. But I worry when certain fans are more willing to appreciate a kick-ass fictional young woman that defies outdated and incorrect gender stereotypes but are not also willing to embrace gentler, more sensitive, less stereotypically masculine young men like Will with similar enthusiasm and affection.

Will is bullied and devalued by his small-town community for having traits and interests that are perceived as feminine and therefore, according to closeminded bigots like his dad, not allowed and are deserving of abuse and bullying. Will is arguably also devalued and dismissed by the Stranger Things fandom because he has traits that are perceived as feminine and undesirable in a young teen guy in the eyes of certain fans, too.

The devaluing and dismissal of gentle, kind, emotional young men is a feminist issue.

A character doesn’t have to be a girl in order to represent feminist ideals within a story. I know that there are probably plenty of feminists that will disagree with me (because there will always be people with their own opinions) but I strongly believe that Will's story is feminist as it has been explored so far (just as El's is.)

Anyone in the fandom that considers themselves a “Feminist” but that spends significant amounts of time criticizing Will Byers by dismissing him as “boring” and criticizing him for being quiet, sensitive, gentle, and emotional should take a good look in the mirror and reflect on what their personal brand of feminism stands for and whether their goal truly is “the equality of the sexes” or if their goal is simply hating men and only valuing and promoting stereotypically masculine traits in our society.

Feminism’s goal is not to make women more powerful than men or to make men less powerful than women, it is about the promotion of the “equality of the sexes.”

Stereotypes are constructs our society has built and that impact the way we all currently relate to each other. Until society stops treating traits associated with society's currently constructed idea of femininity as something weak or bad then it is important to appreciate these traits in characters of many different genders and to value these traits in men (both in real life and in fictional stories) too. Anyone of any gender can be sensitive and sensitivity should not be seen as a weakness but rather as a strength and as something that's a valuable aspect of our humanity, and the same can be said for many other beautiful traits that society has wrongly decided to put into boxes and assign gender stereotypes to.

This complicated topic is incredibly important to me as a fan of both El and Will. I believe that both El and Will are feminist characters and that the series is very empowering and is challenging society’s gender biases through both of their stories. I hope that my response to your question was successful in communicating how I feel and resonates with you and with perhaps other fans who also care about El and Will and feel their own experiences, feelings, and identities validated by their story arcs.

Will some fans still whine and cry “sexism” and attempt to brand Stranger Things as “anti-feminist” if their hope that El will be the solo main character of the story and not have to share the spotlight with a boy is dashed? Sure. But I think they’re wrong, that their concept of feminism and sexism is incorrect, and that their priorities and their understanding of El’s value as a character is unfortunate. El is more than her superpowers. El doesn’t need to be “the strongest” or “the most powerful” in order to be an inspiring, complex, well-written, relatable, and empowering character.

Thank you for your Ask! I hope you don’t mind how long this response is. You mentioned a few things that I have some very complicated opinions about.

#will byers #el hopper #stranger things #stranger things analysis #stranger things theories #will byers is a feminist character #el hopper is a feminist character #feminism is for everyone

39 notes · View notes

sugar-petals · 4 years

Note

Hi, I was wondering do you have any ideas on how exo biases reflect in us the same way our bts bias does?

ok so, this goes after the same “how we pick our bias based on our struggles” / “what gift of ours they reflect” format.

kyungsoo

what you believe you lack: ability to maneuver throught the trials and utter chaos of life. you find it hard to keep cool, set bounaries, and do things precisely your way. you long for being a compelling, subtle, and collected character who handles everything thrown at them. you often wish human nature would confuse and faze you less. you wish that everyone just does their job and won’t cause upheaval. you wish all was better regulated and things taken care of.

your potential and gifts: you’re a devoted family person and aspire for peaceful living. meanwhile, a part of you is highly logical and assertive. you are extremely efficent and always the one to arrive at the finish line first because you’re so focused and single-minded. your smile is innocent. people think you’re cool for liking RnB. you’re great with animals and a genuinely good friend. you’re loyal.

jongdae

what you believe you lack: you assume you’re naturally unintelligent and don’t fit in, have nothing valuable to say even when you try very hard. you think others will exclude or step on you and not consider your opinion. you’re anxious that you end up silenced and scorned at, made a sheep. you fear that you’re not outstanding or interesting at all in any regard, or live up to high expectations.

your potential and gifts: a meme machine, someone who truly pursues what they want. you are humankind at its most brave when you realize that you can direct circumstances to your wishes more than your former powerless self thought. you can go against any outdated norm you want and get away with it. people like you for being a renegade, not for taming yourself and biting your tongue. people support you when and because (!) you speak the truth.

yixing

what you believe you lack: a shield to protect you from how invasive reality is, all while you’re afraid to lose touch completely. you feel left out or squarely pushed to be on our own devices. you feel discriminated against or entirely underestimated. you feel like you could never achieve a sense of pride or show your true colors. you want harmony and fairness but are proven otherwise everywhere you look.

your potential and gifts: you are dignified, sexy, cool, smooth, and talented. show stopper potential right here. you cannot be overlooked because you are a royal. you have a sense of justice and treat everyone with the same base line of respect. you’re deep. you are cute and the least likely to annoy an introvert or sensitive person which you can interpret as a certificate for a sound character. you work hard and take things seriously.

suho

what you believe you lack: the skill to make everything happen the way it should. in fact, “shoulds” govern your life. life made you disappointed and a misanthrope. you know that you can still be frustrated and overworked if you have everything others wish they had. the dark side of responsibility or your attempt to seize it is eating you alive. you wish you had real support and encouragement.

your potential and gifts: that patience is something only surpassed by water washing down a stone. you believe in etiquette, you’re the old school and you’re damn right, manners are there for a reason. also, yes, you are attractive and look very elegant to others. you are welcome in every household. other people may disappoint you, but you are no disappointment to others.

baekhyun

what you believe you lack: you’re emotionally, sexually, romantically, and socially deprived to extreme degrees. you often feel a sense of numbness, coldness, loneliness, demotivation, unimportance and lack of purpose in the greater scheme. your worldview is cynical bordering nihilistic. you find it hard to connect meaningfully and never feel you know the right thing to say/do. you are conventionally attractive but got left behind in the dating race. you isolate yourself. you have severe body image issues. you depend on others valuing you more than the average person and feel bad because you think it’s a bottomless pit that nobody can fill, not even you.

your potential and gifts: you’re the determining factor in a social setting. others admire you. in fact, they are obsessed. your ambition is boundless. you know how to protect yourself. you’re a professional, invoking jealousy and awe wherever you go. other people do love and respect you, you’re just way out of their league for them to word it your way. you have the midas touch, all you pick up as a project turns to gold.

minseok

what you believe you lack: organization and sweetness in life, something to stir things up. you’re feeling like you are caught in eternal boredom and chores and it’s driving you insane. hell, you are against this entire system, the rat cage is turning you into a hypervigilant. you wish for more diversion in your life. you want to really raise the roof but are haunted by a terrifying restraint from within yourself.

your potential and gifts: you can bring order to things and speak frankly. people see that you are a dark horse, understated but still always to be reckoned with. people like you for your curiosity, constructiveness, and ease to be around. they feel safe and comforted around you. you don’t seem to age since years. you are great at all leisure and ever-pleasant.

jongin

what you believe you lack: what you beat yourself up for is that you feel like a slob who can’t engage others no matter what you do. you feel isolated, un-dateable, weak, always pushed to the fringes. you think you need to be nicer, fitter, sexier, fiercer, and more popular and adapted to be accepted. you wish you had more pizzazz and appeal. you never thought you could cause a stir or get any attention. you retreat from the world a lot and rein in your energy.

your potential and gifts: even if you’re not actively athletic, you do have it in you. your body is in better shape than you accuse yourself for day by day. you get one with music and naturally stand up for yourself. others can’t do you no wrong. despite what you say to yourself, you have nice skin. you’re always the most passionate person in the room.

sehun

what you believe you lack: excellence — you assume you’re always meh in everything. or vice versa, you have unacknowledged expertise, something you can’t make a reality. you feel like you’d have to take life more seriously but you’re just floating on, closed up, annoyed, overlooked, even cast out. you wish you knew the balance of speaking your mind and acting with compassion.

your potential and gifts: people think you’re cute no matter what you do. nor do they criticize your moral standards unlike you assume they do. they think you are nice and forthcoming all while being what you are, a badass bitch. you are universally envied and well-known in your circle, believe it or not. people would kill for your silhouette.

chanyeol

what you believe you lack: you think your life has been going down the drain ever since. everything feels dull. deep down, there’s nothing else but sadness and exclusion from all the important things. you wish you had more overview and a bigger emotional and physical presence. you wish more people would love and support and hype you. you hardly find excitement these days, it’s all dragging you down

your potential and gifts: even if you might feel lost in social situations, you still have your aims and you should very well stick to your motives. you are fine-tuned to people and help others out. you can safely leave the rocket science in florida: you don’t have to be a born sunshine, superman, or a model to get by. a good heart and a dose of charm is enough down the line. the secret to a happy life is not in looks nor attitude but how you uplift others.

#anon #cub mail 🐅#exo #bias theory #chanyeol #sehun #baekhyun #kai #jongin #kyungsoo #jongdae #chen #minseok #xiumin #suho #yixing #lay

82 notes · View notes

wiiinged · 3 years

Text

it’s an ungodly hour of the night/morning again and u know what that means 🥲 time to finally write my second intro!! this one will probably be comparatively short n sweet but we’ll see. after this i’ll finally finish up sending/responding to plotting dms sdlkjg so sorry i’ve been MIA the past couple days!! smooth sailing from here on out besties? fingers crossed 🤞🏼 cw for: alcohol & i think that’s it

* ( jennie kim , 24 , cis female , she/her ) did you see the new picture of ( jia moon ) in the tabloids ? the ( fashion designer ) is getting pretty famous these days , and being ( charismatic ) is the talk of their social media . but will being ( self-centered ) cause their downfall ? they're known by shine weekly as the ( jerk with a heart of gold ) , and it sounds like the ( 50m ) fans they have agree . however , ( moon landing: intoxicated design mogul takes a spill outside exclusive club ) is all over the internet this morning , lets hope it doesn't tarnish their reputation .

✧ ⋆ 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬.

name: jia moon.

birthdate: june 18th.

hometown: LA.

zodiac: gemini sun, virgo moon, virgo rising.

gender: cis female.

orientation: bisexual.

height: 5′4.

✧ ⋆ 𝐛𝐢𝐨.

former juvenile delinquent turned regular delinquent after high school & a budding alcoholic ; the result of rich helicopter parents who inspired rebellion with their attempts to exercise control and pressure to succeed. she started sneaking out and attending keg parties in her early teens, sometimes vanishing from home for entire weekends and steadily turning her parents’ hair gray. could never be bothered with school, and on the occasions when she actually showed up, she’d spend most of her time in class doodling designs and trying to perfect her ‘portfolio.’

she spent the next few years after graduation in a drunken haze, couch surfing among friends for weeks at a time and putting a sizeable dent in her trust fund. she’d return home with semi-regularity, her parents worried sick and regarding her as the prodigal son joyfully returned to them every time. after allowing them to dote on her for one to two weeks, she’d disappear again ( typically when they started questioning her about her future ), and the cycle would repeat.

her mother was a prominent figure in the fashion industry and eventually secured an internship for her at ralph lauren, figuring her interest in the field might be enough to make her show up for once. with enough time and effort put into dropping her mother’s name in the right places, she managed to get noticed by the most advantageous people and given a chance to showcase her best designs for consideration. by 22, she’d begun work on her own line. now, two years later, she’s been featured on forbes’ 30 under 30 & her career continues to skyrocket.

her old habits die hard, and she can often be found in clubs getting blackout drunk any night of the week ; why not, when she can just skip work if she needs to without any real consequences? she’s rumored to be something of a challenge to work with, not only because of her lackadaisical approach to punctuality, but also due to her noted chilly demeanor. she’s not what you’d call arrogant, or aggressive, or antagonistic. she’s simply... uninterested, for the most part. in most things that aren’t herself or closely related. of course, this changes dramatically when she’s under the influence and/or when she particularly likes someone.

regardless, she’s also known as quite the philanthropist, donating considerable portions of her proceeds every year to various charities with a primary focus on children in need and homeless outreach. she may not be willing to engage in small talk with you, but she’d give you the shirt off her back if you truly needed it and cover you up if you pass out drunk on her lawn. those who work under her are notably fond of her ; even if they rarely see her, she somehow always seems to remember their birthdays and show up to their little office parties, and once in a blue moon she’ll decide to take everyone out to lunch on her.

✧ ⋆ 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.

soon... i promise. i nap now ♡

#shines.intro #❪ ⠀ * ⠀ ─── ⠀ [ 𝐀 𝐃𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐎𝐍 𝐌𝐀𝐃𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐌𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐒 ] ⠀﹕ ⠀about jia. ⠀ ❫#when i said this one would pale in comparison ..... LSKJDGD

6 notes · View notes

cardentist · 3 years

Text

this isn’t a proper discourse post, I Agree with a lot of what the op said but there’s specific things about it that get under my skin in a way that makes me want to talk about it, but I don’t want to engage with that post both because I don’t want to speak over the point that’s being made and frankly because I don’t want to be misinterpreted because of the point that’s being made in it.

so for context, I’ll just say that it was a long post about how a lack of engagement with women characters in fandom spaces is tied to misogyny. just be aware that I’m responding to something specific and not criticisms of this in general. (feel free to dm me if you want to see the post for yourself)

the rest of this is going to be rambly and a bit unfocused, so I want to get this out the door right at the top: it is not actually someone’s moral obligation to engage with or create fan content. all other points aside, what this amounts to is labeling people as bigoted for either not creating or engaging with content that you want to see, and while the individual may or may not be a bigot it’s not actually anyone’s job to tailor their fandom experience to cater to you.

fandom is not activism. it’s not Wrong to point out that a lack of content about women in fandom is likely indicative of the influence of our misogynistic society. and suggesting that people examine their internalized biases isn’t just fine, it’s something that everyone should be doing all the time. but saying that it is literally someone’s “responsibility” to “make an effort” by consuming content about women or they’re bigoted is presenting the consumption of fan content as a moral litmus test that you pass and fail not by how you engage with content but by not engaging with all of the Correct content.

judging people’s morality based on what characters they read meta for or look at fanart for is, a mistake. it Can Be Indicative of internalized biases but it is not, in and of itself, a moral failing that has to be corrected.

if you want more content to be created about women in fandom then you do it by spreading content about women in fandom, not by guilting people into engaging with it by saying that they’re bigots if they don’t. you encourage creation Through creation.

okay, now to address what Mainly set me off to inspire this post.

this post specifically went out of it’s way to present misogyny as the only answer for why this problem exists in fandom spaces. and while I absolutely agree that it’s a Factor, they left absolutely no room for nuance which included debunking “common excuses.” which, as you can probably guess, contained the things that ticked me off.

first off, you can’t judge that someone is disconnected from women in general based on their fandom consumption because the sum total of their being is not available on tumblr.

people don’t always bear their souls in fandom spaces. just because they don’t actively post about a character or Characters doesn’t mean that they see them as lesser or that they don’t think about them. the idea that you can tell what a person’s moral beliefs are not based on what they’ve said or done but based on whether they engage with specific characters in a specific way in a specific space can Only work on the assumption that they engage with that space in a way that expresses the entirety of who they are or even their engagement with that specific media.

what I engage with on ao3 is different from what I engage with on tumblr, youtube, twitter, my friend’s dms, and my own head. people are going to engage with social media and fandom spaces specifically differently for different reasons. you can’t assume what the other parts of their lives look like based on this alone.

second off, there can be other factors at play that influence people’s specific engagement with a fandom.

they specifically brought up the magnus archives as an example of a show with well written women. which while absolutely true, does Not mean that misogyny is the only option for why people wouldn’t engage with content about them as often. for me personally? a lot of fan content is soured because of how it presents jon. I relate to him very heavily as a neurodivergent and traumatized person, and he faces a Lot of victim blaming and dehumanization in the writing. sasha and martin are more or less the only main characters that Aren’t guilty of this, and sasha was out of the picture after season 1.

while this affects my enjoyment of fan content for these characters To Some Extent on it’s own (I love georgie, I love her a lot, but I can’t forget that she looked at someone and told them that they were better off dead because they couldn’t “choose” to not be abused), the bigger issue is fan content that Specifically doesn’t address the victim blaming and ableism as what it is, even presenting it as just Correct.

this isn’t exclusive to the women in the show by any means, this is exactly why I avoid a lot of content about tim, but it affects a lot of the women who are main characters. that isn’t the Only reason, there’s more casual ableism and things that tear him down for other reasons (the prevalent theory that elias passed up on sasha because he’s afraid of how she’s More Competent In Jon In Every Single way. which comes with the unfortunate implications of jon being responsible for his own trauma because he just wasn’t competent enough to avoid it) but that’s the main one that squicks me out.

of course not all fan content does this, and I Do engage with content about these characters, but sometimes it’s easier to just stick with content that centers on my comfort character because it’s more likely to look at his character with the nuance required to see that it is victim blaming and ableism.

it’s not enough to say that the characters are well rounded or well written and conclude that if someone isn’t consuming or creating content about them then it has to be due to misogyny and nothing else.

there’s also just like, the Obvious answer. two most prominent characters are two men that are in a canonical gay relationship, which draws in queer men/masc people on it’s own but the centering of their othering and trauma Particularly draws in traumatized queer people that are starved for content. georgie and melanie are both fleshed out characters in and of themselves, but their relationship with each other doesn’t have nearly as much direct screen time. and daisy and basira have a lot more screen time together and about each other, but their relationship is very intentionally non-canon because of its role as a commentary on cop pack mentality.

people are More Likely to create content for the more prominent relationship in the show and be drawn into the fandom through that relationship in the first place. I have no doubt that there Are misogynistic fans of the show, but focusing on the relationship and the characters that make you happy isn’t and indication that you’re one of them.

which brings us to the big one, the one that sparked me into writing this in the first place (and the last that I have time for if I’m being honest). the “common excuses” section in general is, extremely dismissive obviously but there’s only one section that genuinely upsets me.

without copying and pasting what they said directly, it essentially boils down to this: while they recognize that gay and trans men are “allowed” to relate to men, they’re still Men which makes them misogynistic. Rather than acknowledge Why gay and trans men would engage with fan-content specifically that caters to them they present it as a given that it’s 100% due to misogyny anyways. they present queer men engaging with content about themselves as them treating women like they’re “unworthy of attention,” calling it a “patriarchal tendency” that they have to unlearn.

being gay and trans does not mean that you’re immune to misogyny, being a woman doesn’t even mean that you’re immune to misogyny, but that’s engaging in bad faith in a way that really puts a bad taste in my mouth.

queer men aren’t just like, Special Men that have Extra Bonus Reasons to be relate to boys, they’re people who are more likely to Need fandom spaces to explore facets of themselves. and while you can Relate to any character, it feels good to be able to explore those aspect with characters that resemble you or how you see yourself.

when I first started actively seeking out fandom spaces in middle school I engaged with content about queer men more or less exclusively. at this point I had no concept of what trans people were, and wouldn’t begin openly considering that I might be a trans person until high school. I knew that I’d be happier as a gay man before I knew I could be a gay man, and that’s affected my relationship with fandom forever.

I engage with most things pretty casually, reblogging meta and joke posts when I see them, but what I go out of my way to engage with is largely an expression of my gender identity and sexuality. I project myself onto a comfort character and then I Consume content for them because that was how I was able to express myself before I knew that I needed to. it’s not that girl characters aren’t “worthy” of me relating to them, it’s that I specifically go to certain fandom spaces to express and work through my gender and sexuality. that’s what I use those fandom spaces For.

I imagine that I’ll need this crutch less when I’m allowed to transition and if I ever find a relationship situation that works out for me. but also like, why should I? it’s not actually hurting anyone for me to explore my gender and sexuality through fanfic until the end of time. nor does it hurt anyone for me to focus on my comfort characters.

fandom is personal comfort and entertainment, not a moral obligation. people absolutely should engage with women in media and real life with more nuance and energy than they do, but fandom spaces are not the place to police or judge that.

#discourse #I've been writing and rewriting this for 4 and a half hours instead of going to bed before 9 am #I already know that absolutely no one is going to read this so I don't know why I did this to myself #also I couldn't find a place to fit this in so I'm just gonna say it here #sometimes people just engage with fandom based on characters that they find attractive #and if that means boys then that means boys #it doesn't have to be more complicated than that

26 notes · View notes

architectuul · 4 years

Text

Demolitions

for Czechoslovakia’s architectures between 1960s–1980s is a controversial subject. The public may still regard it negatively, owing to a lack of information or an adverse experience with the country’s regime before the Velvet Revolution.

Omnipol Building by Zdeněk Kuna, Zdeněk Stupka, Milan Valenta, Josef Zdražil, Ladislav Vrátník (1974–1979) | Photo © Kamil Warta, National Gallery Prague

youtube

Erosion of Transgas (2020) by NGP/Loom on the Moon

Helena Doudová, the curator of the exhibition NO DEMOLITIONS! Forms of Brutalism in Prague, presents Brutalism buildings in Prague that prominently enter the urban scene. The nearly two hundred and fifty original architectural plans, photographs and models come mostly from the Architecture Collection of the National Gallery Prague. The examples of the most progressive architecture works feature the Kotva Department Store, the former Central Telecommunications Building at Žižkov (marked for demolition), the former Federal Assembly, Hotel Intercontinental and Barrandov Bridge and the recently demolished Transgas complex.

“No Demolitions!” is a quite straightforward title for an exhibition. What is happening in Prague and the Czech Republic, that led you to organize this exhibition and choose this title?

With the exhibition we intended to highlight the values of late modern and brutalist architecture in Prague that becomes either demolished or refurbished beyond the point of recognition. Some of the buildings ceased to exist throughout the one year since we started working on the topic. We intended to show that the buildings by the architects like Karel Prager, Karel Filsak, the husband-and-wife team Machoninovi and Šrámkovi have built edifices, which are comparable with the most prestigious architecture production of the former Western Europe and the US.

Center of Home Design by Věra Machoninová, Vladimír Machonin (1971–1981) | | Photo © Kamil Wartha, National Gallery Prague

The Trade Fair Palace is an exclusive choice for an architectural exhibition; why did you choose this location?

It is a building with strong symbolic meaning, a real jewel of functionalist architecture but at the same time it is difficult to present an exhibition due to technical parameters as light because paper plans and photography are very sensitive to it. The gallery floor plan worked quite well in a sequence, so the exhibition concept fit quite well. Ondřej Císler created vitrines with colored large plans and prints from the architecture collection of the National Gallery in Prague. Plans are contrasted with the photography of the deteriorated state of the buildings by Olja Triaška Stefanović.

In many countries of the former East Bloc, protecting Late Modern architecture creates a specific challenge, as these buildings are widely associated with the negative perception of the political era they were created in. This can very easily lead to iconoclastic gestures, as we have seen in the case of Skopje 2014. What can art history, museology and the wider profession do against this phenomenon?

The negative public opinion toward these buildings is a cluster of multiple problems. One general problem not only in the Central or Eastern Europe is the poor long term maintenance, which makes the buildings appear even more brutal than intended in the architecture design. As the exhibition shows, the architects were thinking of the public space around these buildings, inserted artworks and parks, as a number of designs show.

Secondly, the political associations are difficult, but also controversial to me. I very much think that the socialist state invested into large public buildings before 1989 and did provide socially accessible culture programs, sports, etc. So to me the brutalist buildings are valuable and authentic through their aim to belong to the community but also undercover propaganda. One can’t change people's memories or their experience with communism, but it’s not the fault of buildings that were ironically planned in the golden sixties in the time of the political détente in Czechoslovakia.

The exhibition | Photo © Katarína Hudačinová, the National Gallery Prague

In comparison, no large public building in Prague has been built since 30 years, what shows the shift of the capital flow with privatization. Nowadays, the real estate investors misuse the negative public opinion to demolish high quality buildings to acquire lucrative plots in the city centre for private investment. In many cases it would have been possible to reuse the brutalist buildings at a lower expense, like for example the Embassy of CZ in Berlin.

The National Gallery seems to be a prestigious place for the exhibition about the architecture of an era that is widely disputed and is also a strong institutional statement; how are Czech academics and professionals reacting to the events around the architecture of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s?

I very much believe in the power of the exhibition as a tool for mediation and education, but also bringing up controversial or uncomfortable topics. That is the position the National Gallery has. Its architecture collection is centred around post-1945 architecture so it is logical to present it in an innovative perspective. Brutalism has received international acclaim in architecture history since 2010s, so we have had many academic discussions, but to me it is important to bring the phenomenon to the public. It is interesting that the expression is the same in former East and West, the only difference is that in the former West the buildings like the MET Breuer are celebrated, while in the former East these buildings are admired by the professionals and despised by the wide public.

In most of our countries we see the profession and the public speaking out to protect some of these buildings, in Hungary this happened by the proposed demolition of Zoltán Gulyás�� Chemolimpx office building in the early 2010s, and more recently when the government announced the demolition of Csaba Virág’s soc-hi-tech Electric Power Distribution Center. There are similar stories in Czechia and Poland - how do you explain the public being so involved in these cases?

Yes, there is an entire movement of active architecture historians, architects and interested public. David Crowley, the head of arts department of the NCAD in Dublin, is a great observer of these shifts, which demonstrate a renewal of the consciousness for public sphere and public spaces in general. So far the protests have been unsuccessful in confrontation with the investment pressures, a culmination point was the demolition of the Transgas building, public protests accompanied the demolition of Hotel Praha, and eventually rescued railway station in Havířov. Crowley says this a unique trait in Central Europe as he has not seen such engagement in the UK or Ireland. In Germany, the heritage protection of post-war buildings is really advanced by now, but there are not such strong public initiatives to me...

Transgas Complex by Ivo Loos, Jindřich Malátek, Václav Aulický, Jiří Eisenreich, Jiří Kozák, Jan Fišer (1966–1978) | Photo © Kamil Wartha, National Gallery Prague

Why did you choose brutalism as a specific style to sum up these buildings? Strictly speaking, the term is quite well defined and confined to a specific group of mostly British and American buildings, what is brutalism in your definition?

The usual association is béton brut, with the main inspiration of Le Corbusier. At the same time, I took at hand Rayner Banham, who speaks about three criteria, in short – the figure, the revealed construction and authenticity of material, which would better comply with the notion of brutalism in variety. Also brutalism has been changing from the expression of the Smithson's Hunstanton school, to let's say Paul Rudolph. In such way brutalism became an international expression with multiple specifics.

Hotel Intercontinental by Karel Filsak, Karel Bubeníček, Jiří Louda, Jaroslav Švec a kol. (1968–1974) | Photo © Kamil Wartha, National Gallery Prague

The notion of brutalism has been a subject of a dispute in the curatorial team with Petr Vorlík, Klára Brůhová (CTU Prague) and Radomíra Sedláková (NG Prague). We assumed the Czech architecture was influenced by brutalism, to a smaller or larger extent depending on every architect. Architecture of late modernism in Czech shows finer handling of material such as glass, mosaics, of wooden cladding, a variety of bright colours, that do not particularly express the notion of brutalism associated with rough concrete. The houses do in a way respect the scale of the surrounding city, are most often broken down in a composition of smaller volumes, reference bay windows of surrounding houses, etc.

PZO Centrotex Building – Václav Hilský, Otakar Jurenka (1972–1978) | Photo © Kamil Wartha, National Gallery Prague

At the same time the label brutalism is in public drawn to all kinds of buildings, which have with little or nothing to do with late modernism, actually, are clad in stone. So as architecture historians we strived to differentiate and raise public awareness on the topic.

Is there a specific Czech brutalism? Are there any national or regional characteristics in this era?

This is not an easy question. Brutalism was a global and a local phenomenon. Interestingly, in the Czechoslovak architecture we see magazines that iconic brutalist buildings were published, like La Tourette, or the architecture by Stirling in the 1960s and 1970s. So the information iron curtain was more semi-penetrable in terms of architecture knowledge and expression, like Ákos Moravánszky says. The regional specifics construction processes, the quality and variability of materials, which was lower in the former Eastern block, and also the public opinion which incorrectly associates the buildings with state socialism.

We are talking about the architectural production of an era that produced an incredible amount of buildings. How is it possible to create a canon for such a recent past and what do you think about the monumental protection regarding these buildings? What should be protected and how? Can you also name a few example, interesting buildings (and interiors) from Czechia?

A unique example is the already heritage protected Kotva Department Store by architect's team Věra and Vladimír Machoninovi.

Kotva department store in Prague. | Photo © Olja Triaška Stefanović

The former Federal Assembly is another iconic example of a daring construction originally intended for bridges. It encloses the former classical modernist stock exchange building and complements the ensemble anew. Interiors have unfortunately been refurbished and only very few items are present in the museums.

Former Federal Assembly Building Prague. | Photo © Olja Triaška Stefanović

A unique example is the Czech embassy in Berlin with intact interiors. A contested interior reconstruction is currently Hotel Thermal by Machoninovi in Karlovy Vary. At least five outstanding buildings have been demolished in Prague, countless have been refurbished. Only two above-named brutalist buildings are heritage protected, other like Hotel Intercontinental by Filsak, or Centrotex by Hiský, Motokov by Kuna should become protected as unique works of art and architecture.

___

Interview by Dániel Kovács and first published in Epiteszforum.

Photo © Jan Faukner

Helena Doudová is curator of the Architecture Collection of the National Gallery Prague. She gained curatorial and museum experience as research and curatorial fellow of the International Museum Program in the German Museum of Books and Writing in Leipzig in collaboration with the University of Erfurt and the German Federal Cultural Foundation 2016/2017, as a Robert Bosch Fellow at Architecture Museum of the TU Munich – Pinakothek der Moderne (2011–2012) and as an intern in the German Architecture Centre DAZ in Berlin (2013–2014). She initiated and curated NO DEMOLITIONS! Forms of Brutalism in Prague, Baugruppe ist super!, Image Factories: Infographics 1920-1945: Fritz Kahn, Otto Neurath. She is a PhD candidate at the Institute of Art History of the University of Zurich. She was awarded DAAD research scholarship and Aktion Österreich scholarship.

***

NO DEMOLITIONS! Forms of Brutalism in Prague

From 6.3.2020 to 22.11.2020 at the Trade Fair Palace – 3rd floor Dukelských hrdinů 47, 170 00 Praha 7 Map

Curator: Helena Doudová Collaborating experts / co-curators: Klára Brůhová (FA CTU in Prague), Radomíra Sedláková (NGP), Petr Vorlík (FA CTU in Prague)

#interview

71 notes · View notes

lastsonlost · 4 years

Text

Crossing the divide

Do men really have it easier? These transgender guys found the truth was more complex.

In the 1990s, the late Stanford neuroscientist Ben Barres transitioned from female to male. He was in his 40s, mid-career, and afterward he marveled at the stark changes in his professional life. Now that society saw him as male, his ideas were taken more seriously. He was able to complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man. A colleague who didn’t know he was transgender even praised his work as “much better than his sister’s.”

Clinics have reported an increase in people seeking medical gender transitions in recent years, and research suggests the number of people identifying as transgender has risen in the past decade. Touchstones such as Caitlyn Jenner’s transition, the bathroom controversy, and the Amazon series “Transparent” have also made the topic a bigger part of the political and cultural conversation.

But it is not always evident when someone has undergone a transition — especially if they have gone from female to male.

“The transgender guys have a relatively straightforward process — we just simply add testosterone and watch their bodies shift,” said Joshua Safer, executive director at the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System and Icahn School of Medicine in New York. “Within six months to a year they start to virilize — getting facial hair, a ruddier complexion, a change in body odor and a deepening of the voice.”

Transgender women have more difficulty “passing”; they tend to be bigger-boned and more masculine-looking, and these things are hard to reverse with hormone treatments, Safer said. “But the transgender men will go get jobs and the new boss doesn’t even know they’re trans.”

We spoke with four men who transitioned as adults to the bodies in which they feel more comfortable. Their experiences reveal that the gulf between how society treats women and men is in many ways as wide now as it was when Barres transitioned. But their diverse backgrounds provide further insight into how race and ethnicity inform the gender divide in subtle and sometimes surprising ways.

(Their words have been lightly edited for space and clarity.)

‘I’ll never call the police again’

Trystan Cotten, 50, Berkeley, Calif.

Professor of gender studies at California State University Stanislaus and editor of Transgress Press, which publishes books related to the transgender experience. Transitioned in 2008.

Life doesn’t get easier as an African American male. The way that police officers deal with me, the way that racism undermines my ability to feel safe in the world, affects my mobility, affects where I go. Other African American and Latino Americans grew up as boys and were taught to deal with that at an earlier age. I had to learn from my black and brown brothers about how to stay alive in my new body and retain some dignity while being demeaned by the cops.

One night somebody crashed a car into my neighbor’s house, and I called 911. I walk out to talk to the police officer, and he pulls a gun on me and says, “Stop! Stop! Get on the ground!” I turn around to see if there’s someone behind me, and he goes, “You! You! Get on the ground!” I’m in pajamas and barefoot. I get on the ground and he checks me, and afterward I said, “What was that all about?” He said, “You were moving kind of funny.” Later, people told me, “Man, you’re crazy. You never call the police.”

I get pulled over a lot more now. I GOT PULLED OVER MORE IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS AFTER MY TRANSITION THAN I DID THE ENTIRE 20 YEARS I WAS DRIVING BEFORE THAT.

Before, when I’d been stopped, even for real violations like driving 100 miles an hour, I got off. In fact, when it happened in Atlanta the officer and I got into a great conversation about the Braves. Now the first two questions they ask are: Do I have any weapons in the car, and am I on parole or probation?

Being a black man has changed the way I move in the world.

I used to walk quickly or run to catch a bus. Now I walk at a slower pace, and if I’m late I don’t dare rush. I am hyper-aware of making sudden or abrupt movements, especially in airports, train stations and other public places. I avoid engaging with unfamiliar white folks, especially white women. If they catch my eye, white women usually clutch their purses and cross the street. While I love urban aesthetics, I stopped wearing hoodies and traded my baggy jeans, oversized jerseys and colorful skullcaps for closefitting jeans, khakis and sweaters. These changes blunt assumptions that I’m going to snatch purses or merchandise, or jump the subway turnstile. The less visible I am, the better my chances of surviving.

But it’s not foolproof. I’m an academic sitting at a desk so I exercise where I can. I walked to the post office to mail some books and I put on this 40-pound weight vest that I walk around in. It was about 3 or 4 in the afternoon and I’m walking back and all of a sudden police officers drove up, got out of their car, and stopped. I had my earphones on so I didn’t know they were talking to me. I looked up and there’s a helicopter above. And now I can kind of see why people run, because you might live if you run, even if you haven’t done anything. This was in Emeryville, one of the wealthiest enclaves in Northern California, where there’s security galore. Someone had seen me walking to the post office and called in and said they saw a Muslim with an explosives vest. One cop, a white guy, picked it up and laughed and said, “Oh, I think I know what this is. This is a weight belt.”

It’s not only humiliating, but it creates anxiety on a daily basis. Before, I used to feel safe going up to a police officer if I was lost or needed directions. But I don’t do that anymore. I hike a lot, and if I’m out hiking and I see a dead body, I’ll keep on walking. I’ll never call the police again.

‘It now feels as though I am on my own’

Zander Keig, 52, San Diego

Coast Guard veteran. Works at Naval Medical Center San Diego as a clinical social work case manager. Editor of anthologies about transgender men. Started transition in 2005.

Prior to my transition, I was an outspoken radical feminist. I spoke up often, loudly and with confidence.

I was encouraged to speak up. I was given awards for my efforts, literally — it was like, “Oh, yeah, speak up, speak out.” When I speak up now, I am often given the direct or indirect message that I am “mansplaining,” “taking up too much space” or “asserting my white male heterosexual privilege.” Never mind that I am a first-generation Mexican American, a transsexual man, and married to the same woman I was with prior to my transition.

I find the assertion that I am now unable to speak out on issues I find important offensive and I refuse to allow anyone to silence me. My ability to empathize has grown exponentially, because I now factor men into my thinking and feeling about situations.

Prior to my transition, I rarely considered how men experienced life or what they thought, wanted or liked about their lives.

I have learned so much about the lives of men through my friendships with men, reading books and articles by and for men and through the men I serve as a licensed clinical social worker.

Social work is generally considered to be “female dominated,” with women making up about 80 percent of the profession in the United States. Currently I work exclusively with clinical nurse case managers, but in my previous position, as a medical social worker working with chronically homeless military veterans — mostly male — who were grappling with substance use disorder and severe mental illness, I was one of a few men among dozens of women.

Plenty of research shows that life events, medical conditions and family circumstances impact men and women differently. But when I would suggest that patient behavioral issues like anger or violence may be a symptom of trauma or depression, it would often get dismissed or outright challenged. The overarching theme was “men are violent” and there was “no excuse” for their actions.

I do notice that some women do expect me to acquiesce or concede to them more now: Let them speak first, let them board the bus first, let them sit down first, and so on. I also notice that in public spaces men are more collegial with me, which they express through verbal and nonverbal messages: head lifting when passing me on the sidewalk and using terms like “brother” and “boss man” to acknowledge me. As a former lesbian feminist, I was put off by the way that some women want to be treated by me, now that I am a man, because it violates a foundational belief I carry, which is that women are fully capable human beings who do not need men to acquiesce or concede to them.

What continues to strike me is the significant reduction in friendliness and kindness now extended to me in public spaces. It now feels as though I am on my own: No one, outside of family and close friends, is paying any attention to my well-being.

I can recall a moment where this difference hit home. A couple of years into my medical gender transition, I was traveling on a public bus early one weekend morning. There were six people on the bus, including me. One was a woman. She was talking on a mobile phone very loudly and remarked that “men are such a–holes.” I immediately looked up at her and then around at the other men. Not one had lifted his head to look at the woman or anyone else. The woman saw me look at her and then commented to the person she was speaking with about “some a–hole on the bus right now looking at me.” I was stunned, because I recall being in similar situations, but in the reverse, many times: A man would say or do something deemed obnoxious or offensive, and I would find solidarity with the women around me as we made eye contact, rolled our eyes and maybe even commented out loud on the situation. I’m not sure I understand why the men did not respond, but it made a lasting impression on me.

‘I took control of my career’

Chris Edwards, 49, Boston

Advertising creative director, public speaker and author of the memoir “Balls: It Takes Some to Get Some.” Transitioned in his mid-20s.

When I began my transition at age 26, a lot of my socialization came from the guys at work. For example, as a woman, I’d walk down the hall and bump into some of my female co-workers, and they’d say, “Hey, what’s up?” and I’d say, “Oh, I just got out of this client meeting. They killed all my scripts and now I have to go back and rewrite everything, blah blah blah. What’s up with you?” and then they’d tell me their stories. As a guy, I bump into a guy in the hall and he says, “What’s up?” and I launch into a story about my day and he’s already down the hall. And I’m thinking, well, that’s rude. So, I think, okay, well, I guess guys don’t really share, so next time I’ll keep it brief. By the third time, I realized you just nod.

The creative department is largely male, and the guys accepted me into the club. I learned by example and modeled my professional behavior accordingly. For example, I kept noticing that if guys wanted an assignment they’d just ask for it. If they wanted a raise or a promotion they’d ask for it. This was a foreign concept to me. As a woman, I never felt that it was polite to do that or that I had the power to do that. But after seeing it happen all around me I decided that if I felt I deserved something I was going to ask for it too. By doing that, I took control of my career. It was very empowering.

Apparently, people were only holding the door for me because I was a woman rather than out of common courtesy as I had assumed. Not just men, women too. I learned this the first time I left the house presenting as male, when a woman entered a department store in front of me and just let the door swing shut behind her. I was so caught off guard I walked into it face first.

When you’re socially transitioning, you want to blend in, not stand out, so it’s uncomfortable when little reminders pop up that you’re not like everybody else. I’m expected to know everything about sports. I like sports but I’m not in deep like a lot of guys. For example, I love watching football, but I never played the sport (wasn’t an option for girls back in my day) so there is a lot I don’t know. I remember the first time I was in a wedding as a groomsman. I was maybe three years into my transition and I was lined up for photos with all the other guys. And one of them shouted, “High school football pose!” and on cue everybody dropped down and squatted like the offensive line, and I was like, what the hell is going on? It was not instinctive to me since I never played. I tried to mirror what everyone was doing, but when you see the picture I’m kind of “offsides,” so to speak.

The hormones made me more impatient. I had lots of female friends and one of the qualities they loved about me was that I was a great listener. After being on testosterone, they informed me that my listening skills weren’t what they used to be. Here’s an example: I’m driving with one of my best friends, Beth, and I ask her “Is your sister meeting us for dinner?” Ten minutes later she’s still talking and I still have no idea if her sister is coming. So finally, I couldn’t take it anymore, and I snapped and said, “IS SHE COMING OR NOT?” And Beth was like, “You know, you used to like hearing all the backstory and how I’d get around to the answer. A lot of us have noticed you’ve become very impatient lately and we think it’s that damn testosterone!” It’s definitely true that some male behavior is governed by hormones. Instead of listening to a woman’s problem and being empathetic and nodding along, I would do the stereotypical guy thing — interrupt and provide a solution to cut the conversation short and move on. I’m trying to be better about this.

People ask if being a man made me more successful in my career. My answer is yes — but not for the reason you might think. As a man, I was finally comfortable in my own skin and that made me more confident. At work I noticed I was more direct: getting to the point, not apologizing before I said anything or tiptoeing around and trying to be delicate like I used to do. In meetings, I was more outspoken. I stopped posing my thoughts as questions. I’d say what I meant and what I wanted to happen instead of dropping hints and hoping people would read between the lines and pick up on what I really wanted. I was no longer shy about stating my opinions or defending my work. When I gave presentations I was brighter, funnier, more engaging. Not because I was a man. Because I was happy.

‘People assume I know the answer’

Alex Poon, 26, Boston

Project manager for Wayfair, an online home goods company. Alex is in the process of his physical transition; he did the chest surgery after college and started taking testosterone this spring.

Traditional Chinese culture is about conforming to your elders’ wishes and staying within gender boundaries. However, I grew up in the U.S., where I could explore my individuality and my own gender identity. When I was 15 I was attending an all-girls high school where we had to wear skirts, but I felt different from my peers. Around that point we began living with my Chinese grandfather towards the end of his life. He was so traditional and deeply set in his ways. I felt like I couldn’t cut my hair or dress how I wanted because I was afraid to upset him and have our last memories of each other be ruined.

Genetics are not in my favor for growing a lumberjack-style beard. Sometimes, Chinese faces are seen as “soft” with less defined jaw lines and a lack of facial fair. I worry that some of my feminine features like my “soft face” will make it hard to present as a masculine man, which is how I see myself. Instead, when people meet me for the first time, I’m often read as an effeminate man.

My voice has started cracking and becoming lower. Recently, I’ve been noticing the difference between being perceived as a woman versus being perceived as a man. I’ve been wondering how I can strike the right balance between remembering how it feels to be silenced and talked over with the privileges that come along with being perceived as a man. Now, when I lead meetings, I purposefully create pauses and moments where I try to draw others into the conversation and make space for everyone to contribute and ask questions.

People now assume I have logic, advice and seniority. They look at me and assume I know the answer, even when I don’t. I’ve been in meetings where everyone else in the room was a woman and more senior, yet I still got asked, “Alex, what do you think? We thought you would know.” I was at an all-team meeting with 40 people, and I was recognized by name for my team’s accomplishments. Whereas next to me, there was another successful team led by a woman, but she was never mentioned by name. I went up to her afterward and said, “Wow, that was not cool; your team actually did more than my team.” The stark difference made me feel uncomfortable and brought back feelings of when I had been in the same boat and not been given credit for my work.

When people thought I was a woman, they often gave me vague or roundabout answers when I asked a question. I’ve even had someone tell me, “If you just Googled it, you would know.” But now that I’m read as a man, I’ve found people give me direct and clear answers, even if it means they have to do some research on their own before getting back to me.

A part of me regrets not sharing with my grandfather who I truly am before he passed away. I wonder how our relationship might have been different if he had known this one piece about me and had still accepted me as his grandson. Traditionally, Chinese culture sees men as more valuable than women. Before, I was the youngest granddaughter, so the least important. Now, I’m the oldest grandson. I think about how he might have had different expectations or tried to instill certain traditional Chinese principles upon me more deeply, such as caring more about my grades or taking care of my siblings and elders. Though he never viewed me as a man, I ended up doing these things anyway.

Zander Keig contributed to this article in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of the Department of Defense.

--------

Old story worth a repost SOURCE

43 notes · View notes

princessmadafu · 4 years

Text

I have the conch!!!

Good morning. Mad’s still snoozing, so I’m popping this up while it’s quiet. This is a Forbes article from March 2019 that I thought was important enough to save:

Meghan Markle: Does The British Tax Payer Know How Much 'Me-Gain' Royal Is Costing?

Roger Aitken Contributor

The Duchess of Sussex, aka Meghan Markle, is watching her popularity and acceptance sinking, possibly taking the British Royal Family with her. Apparently, the way to make the public in Britain like her is to spend tax-payers money on PR machines on both sides of the Atlantic, in addition to a generous allowance.

Being in the public eye puts a person under a degree of scrutiny – and especially when you are a Royal. Some voluntarily choose the public eye, and some are born into it.

It is also not easy to be famous in the age of social media, especially as an entertainer, sports star or actress. Royalty also endures scrutiny, as we can attest to with the lives of Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Anne, and even Prince Charles and Princess Diana.

Mixing the two, entertainer and royalty, results in a new breed of fame, which can sometimes work out. Or not.

Just last weekend (March 23) in The Express tabloid it was reported that royal expert, Anna Pasternak, ventured that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s marriage is “going to become increasingly difficult.”

The author of ‘Untitled: The Real Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor’, Pasternak claimed that Duchess is heading into a “tricky situation” – akin or similar to that faced by Wallis Simpson and Princess Diana, where the “ultimate goal is survival.” Strong stuff. Like Simpson, Markle is a divorcee.

The most famous marriage of royalty to entertainment was in 1956 when Grace Kelly, the American film actress, became Princess of Monaco after marrying Prince Rainier III in April of that same year.

One of the most famous actresses in the world at the time, armed with a stable of films for which she received high acclaim, plus an Academy Award for Best Actress (1955) tucked under her arm, retired from acting at the age of 26 and began her duties as the Princess of Monaco.

According to reports, Princess Grace was loved and accepted by the public during her lifetime, and when she died at the age of 52, according to biographer Jeffrey Robinson, “…it was like the lights went out. Monaco just stopped.”

Move forward to 2018, where another actress has married into a royal family – this time, in the United Kingdom (U.K), which has for the last three years been torn apart by ongoing Brexit trials and tribulations. The tension in the country is palpable.

Meghan Markle, a relatively small-time actress say some, married Prince Harry of Wales on May 19, 2018, at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle.

Although not so well known prior to this – her second marriage – she was best known for a small role in a series named Suits. Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and sixth in line to thrown, on the other hand, was the younger son of one of the most famous Royals in history, Princess Diana of Wales, and known throughout the world due to his Royal status. His Royal Highness spent ten years working in the Armed Forces, ending operational duties in 2015.

Meghan Markle, who grew up in a middle-class household, was looked after by her family throughout her life. When her father won the lottery when she was nine years old, he seemingly made sure that every cost was covered for Meghan, sending her to the best schools and training. Well, why not if you have it.

Of course, Prince Harry grew up as a Royal, and unlike his brother Prince William, seemed to like the partying side of life a little more. As his Royal Highness grew up he was in the papers often, normally for partying in Las Vegas or some other antics. But he knew the price of being in the public eye and putting a foot out of place. Yet he is 100% British and the public love him, still, regardless of these reports.

There was finally an announcement in November of 2017 that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were engaged, which was soon followed by an interview, which was the start of Meghan’s descent.

During this interview, Meghan proclaimed that she did not know much about Prince Harry, and because she was American, did not really understand the importance of the Royal family – although she was snapped in a photo in front of Buckingham palace when she was 15 and apparently had many books on Diana and the royal family, according to reports.

All of this gave fuel to the British public, who started to leave negative remarks in the comments sections of online publications by the hundreds, if not thousands.

At Meghan and Prince Harry’s wedding, on May 19, 2018, there were no family present from her side, except for her mother, in sharp contrast to the marriage of Catherine Middleton and Prince William of Wales, the now Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Catherine was surrounded by friends and family, with her sister acting as Maid of Honor in pictures that went viral for ‘that dress’.

Meghan’s wedding received widespread attention for the lack of family and close friends. Prince Charles gave her away, although her own father is alive and living in Mexico, and she had her own shadow as a Maid of Honor. Again, the British public were left puzzled, as seen by the comments in the media.

Of course, with their exclusion from this great event, Meghan’s own family took great exception, with the most vocal being Samantha Markle – followed by her father, uncles and cousins – who could not understand why this happened. And, they never got an answer. But they had a clue when Prince Harry went on the radio and said that the Royal family would now be the “family Meghan never had.”

Meghan’s family shot back immediately that this was all a lie, protesting and offering proof of the opposite. Samantha even explained that the father financed all of Meghan’s education, while Meghan stated at a conference she paid for her own education. Yet Samantha has receipts from the father, apparently.

At the same time, reports of the cost of this wedding, mixed with the drama of the Markle family, hit fever pitch. According to the British tabloid, the Express, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Royal wedding is said to have racked up a £32 million bill (c.$41.6 million at the current exchange rate), with the majority of that hefty sum (paid for by the British taxpayer) going towards security – a whopping £30 million (c.$39 million), to be exact.

One might argue that with all the zillions of tourists flocking to Britain with pull of Buckingham Palace, seeing the Royals and the nation’s deep and rich history, it was frankly a drop in the ocean.

Figures also show that £1.5 million (c.$1.95 million) was spent by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), a U.K. government department that has responsibility for the creative industries, tourism and leisure across the nation. Some will be more familiar with the DCMS in the pursuit of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in giving oral evidence before the committee in Parliament.

All this while wages and living standards for your average working Brit are depressed and have been so since the last financial crisis around a decade ago.

The public seems to have had enough now, with people writing on sites that they feel Meghan is embarrassing the Royal Family, and the public in turn, even “taking them for fools”, adding that “Harry is a young and naive and cannot see what is happening before him.” Prince Harry is 34 and Meghan in 37, which is very close in age.

People have seemingly too become incensed at all of the reports and apparent lies that Meghan has told, and started to turn against the Duchess of Sussex now in serious numbers, on blogs, forums and websites. Not Harry. Meghan. The Duchess of Sussex.

She has even apparently been given a nickname by royal staff at the royal household – “Me-Gain.” And, Harry quite clearly is said to be very unhappy with that.

Dicky Arbiter, a Royal insider and ex-Palace press, speaking to Nine News Australia on Harry’s reaction to these reports, was quoted as saying: “He would be angry that something like this is coming out. You have got to remember too…I mean, you were here for the wedding and you saw how the media were operating. They were putting Meghan and Harry right up on a pedestal. Since the end of summer in the autumn, they have been chipping away at those pedestals and really having a go.”

Cosmopolitan magazine stated in a report referring to “Me-Gain” comments apparently made by royal staff writing: “To be honest, there’s probably little to no truth to rumors that staff call Meghan by this nickname, but that doesn’t make the reports any less hurtful, obvs!” That said, gossip about the Royal family certainly sells newspapers.

Every day it seems, articles come online and in print about Meghan, reporting on everything from the dishes she serves guests (avocado on toast) to her wardrobe (with outfits costing up to £100,000 (c.$130,000 each), her extravagant baby showers – two to be exact and more.

The public perception of her started to sink faster than a millstone in water. They made it clear that they would not suffer another Wallis Simpson.

The palace knew they were in trouble and started to hire PR, separating the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from the Cambridges, and giving them their own household.

According to reports, even Prince William and Catherine observed the negative publicity, fearing it will outshine the work and legacy of the Royal Family as a whole, and wanted to separate themselves from what has been labelled “the Markle Effect.”

Meghan Markle’s PR chief moved positions and became the fifth aide she has lost since she married Prince Harry. According to The Sun, Jason Knauf is now a “senior adviser” for the Cambridges’ charities. In addition, the general consensus among royal reporters is that Meghan is seen as difficult and high energy and is said to “snap” at palace employees.

Following this move, and the desire to separate the Sussexs’ from the Cambridges’, according to The Daily Mail The Queen agreed to the creation of a Household for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and gave permission for it to be based at Buckingham Palace.

As part of the new order, Harry and Meghan have named Sara Latham, Hillary Clinton’s former Senior Campaign Advisor, as their new dedicated head of communications. With costs estimated and thought to be in the ball park of £500,000 to £1 million (c.$650,000 to $1.3 million), it will be paid for by the tax payer. The ultimate irony. They are spending tax-payers money to make the Duchess of Sussex likeable to the very people who are not warming to her, by spending their money.

Viscount Yves de Contades, CEO of International Excellence Magazine and luxury expert remarking on these recent matters, said: “Relating to populist media through PR experts has become indispensable, because if you are not talking to them directly, they will simply take it from any source – however unreliable.”

He added: “Unfortunately sensational stories get read substantially more than the truth. Good PR is about maintaining certain values and connecting honestly with your audience. And, it would be wise to pay those bills yourself.”

Frank Marr, CEO and owner of A Marr + Associates and a reputation management/PR expert based in London, said: “Reputation management is imperative for the monarchy. In an era of discontent, erratic political situations along with the big gap between the rich and the poor, there has never been a more important need to explain why the royalty is needed for the nation.”

He added: “Their role as pillars to society and how they can play their part to support the nation [Britain] needs to be managed in order to maintain reasoning for this existence of influence.”

Is this really the right approach?

According to inside sources, who like Meghan’s friends cannot be named, Royal Communications have a very lucrative deal with People Magazine in America. The reason? Apparently, they feel if Americans fall in love with her, then the Brits will naturally follow.

This is made clear when American actors like George Clooney have recently criticized media treatment of Meghan saying she is being “pursued and vilified”, and likening her scrutiny to that was received by Princess Diana. Like all PR for Meghan, this statement, too, seems to be doing more harm than good, with thousands of people leaving vitriolic comments.

Others have expressed the thought that “Princess Diana-style PR will backfire on Meghan Markle and it’s not worth the gamble”, as reported in The Sun. And why is that? This one is quite simple. Because she is not Princess Diana, and many people are quick to point out that she is quite the opposite.

According to Lorraine Kelly’s viewpoint, the well-known Scottish journalist and broadcaster wrote: “Meghan Markle has mishandled her relationship with her dad Thomas ever since she began dating Prince Harry and she seems intent on making it worse.”

“By all accounts the Duchess of Sussex has taken it upon herself to brief several of her “close friends” to blab to a U.S. gossip magazine about how hurtful she has found the whole saga, and that – contrary to what everyone thinks – she has been in touch with her father Thomas.”

And, according to Samantha Markle, this could not be further from the truth. And again, she has the proof.

The British public expect the Royal Family to be wholesome. Perhaps not virginal, but wholesome, and a divorcee from America who has perhaps told a little fib or two, or ten, is just not sitting well.

And, the fact that the British public, again, are left paying the bill is a bridge too far for many of them as she as seen as the antithesis of what a Royal should be – loyal, demure, honest, caring, family oriented, frugal and modest.

Meghan is appearing, by her own fault, to be none of these. And to be honest, why would she want to be anything but herself? Why should she care what the people think about her? Well, again, it is simple. It is because she now represents a Royal Family, one which has outlasted most, and wants to live to see another day.

According to an article in Town and Country magazine, Meghan is worth $5 million compared to Prince Harry’s $40 million, a sum he has accumulated from funds left in trust to him by his mother, Princess Diana, an inheritance from the Queen Mother, and his former salary as a captain in the British Army.

Yet, the British public ARE paying for Meghan’s PR, and hopefully they will learn to love her, for Harry’s sake. Regardless of what opinions are about Harry’s girl, the bill for Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, is being paid for by the British tax payers, and hopefully they will get what they pay for. And, it’s certainly racking up in any currency.

Let them eat cake? You betcha!

Follow Roger, an ex-FT writer who has penned various investment stories, on Twitter @AitkenRL, LinkedIn, Forbes, Google+. He won a State Street Institutional Press award in 2015.

Roger AitkenContributor

15 notes · View notes

starcrossedjedis · 3 years

Note

all ship questions for the otp you're currently vibing with most! xo

Oof thank you <3

Gotta go with Sirius and Moira then (also in LOVE with Nora and George, but they aren’t as planned out as Nora’s parents sooo^^)

PRE-RELATIONSHIP

1. How did they first meet?

They met on their first night at Hogwarts after both being sorted into Gryffindor.

2 What was their first impression of each other?

Sirius probably didn’t even notice her, because he was so excited to have been sorted in the same house as James AND in Gryffindor no less. Moira wasn’t impressed with his boisterous ways at all. By the time he notices Moira he’s probably just wodering what her problem with him is, because she loathes him^^

3. Did any of their friends or family want them to get together?

Seeing that Sirius’s family don’t care if he lives or dies, they probably didn’t care about his relationship status. Moira’s parents kept out of that part of their daughter’s life, as they found that this wasn’t their business so long as she didn’t turn up with a Death Eater or sth. All of their friends minus Peter really want them together though - especially Lily dreams of double dates in Hogmaede, but no such luck xD

4. Who felt romantic feelings first?

Romantic is probably overstating things and for the longest time Moira would probably have hexed anyone who as much as suggested it, but she definitely had a crush on Sirius first. He made the first ever step though then took two steps back.

5. Did either of them try to resist their feelings?

Hah! Ain’t that the whole plot to this story? First Moira would rather drop dead than admit she could be feeling anything but righteous loathing for Sirius. Then her and Sirius kiss, but he learns that Peter likes her and steps back for fear of destroying the Marauders by acting on his feelings and thus hurting a friend. And then when he finally gets his act together when they are both in the Order of the Phoenix, she has just started going out with Gideon Prewett and feels obligated to see where this relationship goes and not drop him at the first sign of affection from a guy who’s broken her heart before.

6. If you had told one of them that the other would be their soulmate, what would they think?

During their Hogwarts days they would have either laughed in your face or hexed you into the next millenium for even suggesting this. Once they’re together, maybe even before that, there is no doubt.

GENERAL

1. Who initiated the relationship, and how did it go?

Well, the first kiss just kinda... happens, I guess? Then Moira kinda... dares Sirius to make a move, but he doesn’t? And then down the road he practically begs her to dump Gideon to be with him, but she shoots him down, just to appear on his doorstep on the very same night, because she did dump Gideon to be with him and... I guess it kinda depends on how you define “initiate” xD

2. Did they have an official first date? If so, what was it like?

They didn’t have a first date. By the time they are both on the same page, they pretty much just jump straight to the “established relationship” part and due to circumstances they mostly divide their time between missions for the Order, time spent with their loved ones and hiding out at home for some much needed alone time.

3. What was their first kiss like?

Unexpected? xD But enough to leave both of them like “oh.” (you know. Oh.)

4. Were they each other’s first anything (kiss, relationship, etc.)?

Sirius was Moira’s first kiss. Due to mutual dumbassery this is the only shared first in a long line of firsts. One could also argue that she is his first and only real relationship.

5. What’s their height difference? Age difference?

Moira’s birthday is March 21st 1960, which makes her just a little bit younger than Sirius. They are in the same year at Hogwarts. Their height difference is a bit more significant than that, with Sirius being around 6′1 (taken from yours truly Ben Barnes’s stats^^) and Moira coming in at 5′6. It’s not drastic, but enough that she has to stand on tippy toes to kiss him and for her to fit perfectly under his arm <3

6. What’s their relationship with each other’s families?

Moira - understandably - doesn’t have a relationship with Sirius’s family. Her parents like Sirius, but that probably takes a nose dive once he gets framed for the betrayal of James and Lily Potter.

7. Who takes the lead in social situations?

Probably Sirius, mostly due to the fact that they largely have the same friends and the Marauders... let’s say they know how to fill a room.

8. Who gets jealous easier?

Definitely Sirius. He pretty much throws a fit when Peter invites Moira to Hogsmaede and she accepts. And when she starts going out with Gideon Prewett after school, he takes it hard. Very hard.

LOVE

1. Who said “I love you” first?

Moira, on the night she comes to his door after breaking things off with Gideon.

2. What are their primary love languages?

Before they’re together, it’s mostly covert glances when the other isn’t looking. And shouting, probably. When they’re together, it’s small things like smiles and casual touches. They also hold hands pretty much wherever they are and James teases Sirius mercilessly about it.

3. How often do they cuddle/engage in PDA?

See the answer above ^^’ They’re not Percy/Penelope level disgusting about it, but no one who sees them is ever gonna doubt those idiots are in love.

4. What are their favorite things to do together?

Pretty boring, but with the war, the missions for the Order and all they mostly enjoy spending quiet time alone together. They love to sit in front of a fireplace together and either read (on occasion to each other) or just talk and... cuddle until the fire goes out.

5. Who’s better at comforting the other?

Moira has a very soft and caring side, which is probably one of the qualities that attract Sirius to her.

6. Who’s more protective?

Sirius. That man is an actual guard dog, so... It’s also the reason people are so quick to believe that he betrayed the Potters, because it made sense to them that there truly was nothing he wouldn’t have done to protect his wife and daughter.

7. Do they prefer verbal or physical affection?

They actually have a terrible track record when it comes to talking things out. They are much, much better where they allow their bodies to do the talking - that doesn’t just mean sex though. They can say so much to each other with just a look or a soft squeeze of a hand.

8. What are some songs that apply to their relationship, in-universe or otherwise?

It’s “Space” by Biffy Clyro. That’s it. That’s their song and I cannot listen to it without thinking about them <3

9. What kind of nicknames do they call each other?

They don’t really do nicknames, but until they got married they were big on the whole “calling each other exclusively by their last names, only using their first names when shit’s getting realTM”. That being said, Sirius had a habit of calling her “Freckles” just to piss her off (she almost broke his nose with a bludger during Quidditch try outs after he hollered “Nice one, Freckles!” from the stands). He might occasionally revisits this nickname to tease her.

DOMESTIC LIFE

1. If they get married, who proposes?

Sirius proposes. I already know how he proposes, but I love it so, so much that I don’t just wanna give it away in a post like this T_T

2. What’s the wedding like? Who attends?

It’s small. Really small. Like “the two and the one who officiates’ small.

3. How many kids do they have, if any? What are they like?

They have a daughter named Evanora, short “Nora”. She is the spitting image of her father, but has her maternal grandfather’s dark eyes (much to her chagrin, because both her parents have light eyes that she thinks are so much prettier). Nora is kind and fun and - considering her upbringing - surprisingly open. She is the world’s worst liar, a little bit clumsy and at times awkward. The dark cloud that was her father’s absence and supposed crimes cast a shadow over most of her childhood, no matter how hard her mother tried to shield her from it. This is probably the reason she is so fascinated by the light hearted Weasley twins.

4. Do they have any pets?

They have a Red Tabby named Posy after Nora’s favourite character from “Ballet Shoes”, who is actually descended from Moira’s cat Dot.

5. Who’s the stricter parent?

Moira, simply because she has been a single mother for most of Nora’s life =‘(

6. Who kills the bugs in the house?

Moira and Nora have a strict “No killing bugs” rule and Sirius would never dare and go against it. Bugs get evicted from the Black household via levitation xD

7. How do they celebrate holidays?

So far there were only two times that they celebrated Christmas together and there’s about thirteen years between the two, so it’s a little early to speak of traditions they made for themselves. But before Sirius comes back, Moira and Nora usually go to church with the muggle side of Moira’s family (who are for the most part blissfully unaware that Moira and Nora basically live in voluntary exile from the wizarding world) on Christmas Eve. They have a big dinner with Moira’s parents and exchange of gifts on Christmas Day. Moira and Nora then usually spend Boxing Day at home, wearing pyjamas all day, eating leftovers, baking tons of Christmas biscuits and eating them in front of the fireplace with a cup of hot chocolate. Sirius will probably try to find a way to fit into the traditions his girls made for themselves in his absence, while they try to adjust to his needs (like the need to be with his godson over the holidays) and in time there will probably be new traditions they make together,

8. Who’s more likely to convince the other to come back to sleep in the morning?

Sirius could spend all day cuddled up in bed. And he doesn’t play fair to get his way.

9. Who’s the better cook?

Moira and not only because she has over a decade on Sirius in that regard, she’s always been the better cook. But they love to be in the kitchen together.

#mer writes #reply #sirius black #moira finnigan #gravity #my ocs #it's late and I'm tired #I apologise in advance for the typos that are sure everywhere in this one

5 notes · View notes

clovershroom · 3 years

Text

For anyone who's been bullied:

Ignoring bullies never works. If people keep telling you to just ignore bullies and it'll stop, I need to tell you something right now:

IT'S A FUCKING LIE.

Here's a bunch of bullying myths below:

https://www.bullyonline.org/old/schoolbully/myths.htm

A few of my favorites being debunked below (On a side note, spellcheck doesn't recognize British-English spelling, my apologies for the edits to American spelling):

Ignore it Never ignore bullying; bullies use provocation to elicit a response from their target and if you ignore it the provocation will get worse. When people say "ignore it" they mean "don't engage and don't respond". When bullying starts, recognize it immediately, keep a log of events, do your research, and get your parents and teachers involved. Be persistent. You have a right not to be bullied, harassed, assaulted or abused.

Stand up for yourself It's funny how people who simply say "stand up for yourself" never, ever, tell you how to stand up for yourself. Even adults find it difficult to defend themselves against the onslaught of bullies, especially a serial bully.

Victims of bullying don't know how to defend themselves verbally or physically Society, parents and schools do not teach children the skills of physical, psychological, emotional and verbal self-defense. This is because most adults don't know how to do this.

Victims of bullying typically do not retaliate Children have it drummed into them from the moment they are born that they must not hit, punch, kick, bite, scratch, pull, push, poke or use any form of physical violence. Children are often punished - sometimes brutally and humiliatingly - for exhibiting any form of violent behavior. Some adults then criticize children for not using violence when faced with a thug. Child targets of bullying also know (better than adults) that if they retaliate physically, the bully will feign victimhood (often with a convincing flood of tears) and the responsible adults will be fooled into believing that the target is the bully and the bully is the target. The (real) target is then punished by the adults whilst the bully looks on, enjoying every moment. Once the adults turn their backs, the bully starts on their target again. Targets are also people with high moral integrity, a well-developed sense of moral values, and a clear understanding of the need to resolve conflict with dialogue. This is how we teach children to behave and how society demands that children behave. We should therefore not be surprised when targets of bullying display their maturity by going to great lengths to resolve the violent acts committed towards them with dialogue rather than with fists or feet. Trying to resolving conflict with dialogue is a hallmark of integrity and strength of character. Bullying is a hallmark of lack of integrity and weakness of character.

Bullying toughens you up Bullying is in the same league as harassment, discrimination, racism, violence, assault, stalking, physical abuse, sexual abuse, molestation and rape. It causes trauma and psychiatric injury and can, if untreated, cause a psychiatric injury of sufficient seriousness to blight a person for life, resulting in a lower standard of educational achievement, causing a poorer standard of health, preventing them realizing their potential and thus being able to contribute less to society than would otherwise be the case - including paying less in taxes throughout their life. The symptoms of psychiatric injury caused by bullying are consistent with Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Victims lack social skills It is bullies who lack social skills and who are emotionally immature. Only emotionally retarded people who lack social skills need to bully; no-one else needs to.

Victims are afraid to go to school This is a correct observation, but is a consequence, not a pre-existing condition. Most targets of bullying like to study but are prevented from doing so by the thuggery of bullies who enjoy causing harm to others. When a child is forced to attend school (under threat of sanction and prosecution of parents if they don't), and is forced to endure violent assault, intimidation and threat on a daily basis whilst the responsible adults repeatedly fail in their duty of care, it's hardly surprising that fear enters the equation. A child's self-protective instinct is often wrongly diagnosed as school phobia - a diagnosis which is incorrect, offensive, and tantamount to professional misconduct and collusion with the bullying.

Violence on TV makes children violent A lot of people watch violence on TV but only a handful of people are violent. Therefore, TV violence is not a cause, otherwise everybody who watched TV violence would be violent, which they are not. Claims and calls to ban violence on TV make a good soap box for gaining attention for the person making the claim but it won't solve the problem. If you ban TV violence, violent people will still commit violence; all that will happen is that they will modify their chosen expression of violence. It should be noted though that repeatedly watching scenes of violence can desensitize people, especially young people in their formative years.

Playing violent video games makes children violent A lot of kids play violent video games but only a handful of children are violent. Therefore, violent video games are not a cause, otherwise everybody who played violent video games would be violent, which they are not. Claims and calls to ban violent video games make a good soap box for gaining attention for the person making the claim but it won't solve the problem. If you ban violent video games, violent children will still be violent; all that will happen is that they will modify their chosen expression of violence. It should be noted though that repeatedly interacting with violent games can desensitize young people, ie those at whom video games are targeted.

You'll never get rid of bullying so let's concentrate on teaching victims how to assert themselves It is sensible to teach everybody strategies of self-defense, however, this must not be used as a smokescreen for encouraging bullies by failing to hold them accountable. Any anti-bullying scheme which omits accountability for the bullies is likely to have only limited success, and often no long-term success. It's likely we'll never completely get rid of harassment, discrimination, racism, abuse, molestation, pedophilia etc but we must never give up trying. Problems like bullying are solved by identifying and dealing with the cause, not by trying to hide, suppress or reduce the effects. Unfortunately, many people - and especially the responsible adults who are abdicating and denying their legal obligations - like to focus exclusively on the targets of bullying, thus distracting attention away from the source of the problem.

#bullying #self help #important #mental health #recovery

1 note · View note