#Gender Inequality Works Both Ways

[i-is-surrounded-by-idjits]

Barbie: An Essay

Introduction:

Having watched Barbie, directed by Greta Gerwig and staring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling, which was released in Cinemas 21st July 2023, although enjoyed initially, it became apparent that it contained very damaging views and messages regarding social structure and social norms which many in the audience may have misinterpreted as cheap jokes. In this essay, we shall discuss and evaluate these messages and the potential damage they can cause to the audiences.

Chapter 1: The Patriarchy

A key plot during the film is that of Ken (Ryan Gosling) follows Barbie (Margot Robbie) to the real world only to be enlightened to the sociological concept of Patriarchy. Having existed until now in a Matriarchal society, it not entirely surprising that the superfluous doll was drawn to the idea of an alternative method of societal structure whereby they would have purpose and meaning based on their own gender rather than their relationship with a person of the opposite sex. He then returns to enlighten the other Kens regarding this newfound power balance structure, and within hours, sews chaos into the land of Barbie. However, a key point is made as soon as both Barbie and Ken enter the real world; it is the opposite of Barbieland.

Western European culture (I will not speak for cultures that are not my own, nor have I extensively studied history outside of western European cultures), has been led by a patriarchal society system. Be it monarchy, empire, or republic. So, if Barbieland is the opposite and always maintained a matriarchy, then Barbies represent the dominant male governance, and the Kens represent the oppressed women within our world. This is exemplified when Barbie meets the Board of Mattel, who govern and shape Barbieland from behind the scenes in the real world, which only has men on the board.

Therefore, Barbie world equals patriarchy, Kendom equals matriarchy as this is our reality reversed.

This makes the jokes much more troublesome. As Ken is made a laughingstock for attempting overthrow the oppressing social system which has no men in power… or profession at all beyond lifeguard and cheerleader. However, we are supposed to laugh as it is the men of that world, and we are meant to view this as laughing at the patriarchy of our world as they are the male characters; rather than realising that this is a reverse of our social systems. This is not how this works as matriarchy and patriarchy are both the same system, with simply the genders reversed. If one can be oppressive and abused, then both can, as governance and social structure should not be valued on one’s genitals or gender identification.

Once one understands that Ken’s actions reflect the feminist struggle to establish a matriarchy, then the downfall of Ken’s endeavours become that more troubling. As Ken’s plan is unravelled simply by pitting the Kens against one another only to distract them from what is important. Furthermore, the way they established this control is by brainwashing the Barbies to become obedient and docile in accordance with extreme patriarchal ideals; women becoming sexy maids and docile girlfriends without a personality. If one views is as a straightforward reflection of reality, this becomes the patriarchy brainwashing women into docility, but with the established reversal of social structure, they are actually perpetuating that matriarchy is a form of brainwashing. Either way, this shows that both patriarchy and matriarchy are unequal and oppressive social structure with which to use as a foundation for society.

Additionally, Ken’s motivations are made a mockery of as well, as it is played out that he is simply trying to gain Barbie’s attentions and is upset that after trying and failing, she remains asexual and thus uninterested in a romantic relationship for which is Ken’s entire purpose; the doll “Ken” was simply invented to be Barbie’s boyfriend and nothing more.

Chapter 2: Tha Matriarchy

We now move into the worrisome matriarchy of Barbieland which is far more severe than most 21st century patriarchal societies. They focus on the key roles of society being filled only with women, which matches the dolls released; president, doctor, author, Nobel prize winner, veterinarian, astronaut, pilot, builder, etc. However, to see abuse of power, one must always look to the oppressed.

The Kens in Barbieland do not appear to have jobs, this is event as Ken is a Beach Ken and believes that this is somehow a job. Additionally, the Kens do not own property and it becomes apparent later that they do not have a vote within their society. This is further extenuated as by the Barbies re-establishing their order to society, they quickly pit the Kens against one another so that they are fighting on the beach while missing their chance to vote, at which point all the Barbies (and Allen) vote to return to their previously oppressive society and thus denying the Kens rights to careers and home ownership. Although this has been historically true during the suffragette movements of the early 20th century, this reversal and representation makes an overt mockery of these struggles in society divisions.

Allen within the Barbie World could represent the women of reality who support the patriarchy, after all, society has always been this way and as they do not view this as an issue, this should not change.

Once the Mattel board finally catch up, the President Barbie states that things are wrong in their society, however, proposes nothing to change it. When the Kens ask for high ranking positions such as senator, the President Barbie overtly states that only low-ranking jobs within the government will be open to them. Although, this could be interpreted to allow for growth, after all, none of the Kens are educated for high-ranking roles. This would most likely become the foundation for their societies ‘glass ceiling’ whereby they are told that they can achieve high positions but will never be able to obtain them.

While Ken in the real world suddenly assumed he could do anything because he was male, including becoming a high-ranking businessman, doctor, or lifeguard, the same can be said of Barbie who assumed that the Mattel Board would be headed by a woman. Bothe Barbie and Ken in these instances make the same assumption based on their ideal social structure type, however, both are viewed very differently. The audience is to laugh at Ken who is demanding high-ranking jobs (or even mundane jobs) without the appropriate qualifications. However, Barbie’s scene with the Mattel board is far more sombre as she realises the brutal reality of a patriarchal society… despite Ken suffering the same issue the entire time while back in Barbieland.

Chapter 3: Social Roles, Values, and Inclusion

The most obvious social role reversal is with the Barbies who are woman in power and respectable jobs. As mentioned before, the Kens are seen as only working as a lifeguard and being cheerleaders. However, a more poignant issue is the gender view reversal of the individuals. Although the Barbies still have the trademark outfits including the high heels and short skirts, the Kens seem to exit only for eye candy to the Barbies; laying about with exposed chests hoping a Barbie will show them any attention. This is ironic as the moment Barbie is in the real world, she is instantly objectified and dislikes it. While Ken (Ryan Gosling), who has only craved Barbie’s (Margot Robbie) attention has also always felt outshined by Ken (Simu Liu) and thus relishes the undivided attention caused by his own insecurities and lack of objectified validation. In other words, Barbie is unaccustomed to objectification, while Ken up until this scene has always felt like a wallflower and thinks he lacks value due to a lack of objectification which his has been indoctrinated to believe is his purpose in existing.

To think of this in terms of reality; a man will almost always feel uncomfortable once objectified, but a woman who has always bought into fashion ideals but has always been surrounded by apparently “prettier” friends will suddenly feel validation. Ken’s reaction is the result of social stereotyping from his world, while for Barbie as someone naturally respected simply for being a woman is unaccustomed to such primitive behaviour; despite perpetuating or ignoring this behaviour herself and from her peers.

To add a small morsal regarding inclusion, a small aspect which has likely been missed is that the “inclusion” of disabled, transgender, and non-cis individuals are reserved only for the Barbies of Barbieland. Their only wheelchair user is female, they only represent transwomen with one character (Hari Nef), and Barbie (Margot Robbie) is presumably asexual due to her uninterest in a romantic relationship. This is made apparent with Mermaid Barbie (John Cena) which is an overt mockery of transvestites and non-passing trans individuals. There are no transmen in the movie and all men, with the exception of Allen, are depicted at modern metrosexual males who only care about their appearance and how they are viewed.

Chapter 4: Missing the Big Problem

Interestingly, the pain plot of the movie is almost forgotten as soon as it is discovered. The Film begins with Barbie (Margot Robbie) experiencing unusual thoughts such as anxiety and depression which are uncharacteristic in the smiling blonde. Therefore, Barbie must travel to the “real world” to find the child who is suffering and make their life better; very typical children’s toy movie plot. However, it later becomes clear that it is not the child, Sasha (Ariana Greenblatt), but the mother, Gloria (America Ferrera), who is experiencing these emotions due to work-life pressure, a distancing tween daughter, and an apparently unhappy love-life.

To over come this, she and daughter travel to Barbieland, restore an oppressive regime and somehow go back to their everyday life… without directly addressing anxiety and depression. In fact, the mother spends the last part of the movie removing patriarchal brainwashing from the other Barbies but brutally telling them how hard life can be. This therefore negates the need for psychiatric support and the need to adjust societies unrealistic expectations on a work-life balance which is almost impossible to maintain without suffering effects such as anxiety and depression as very broad terms.

The unrealistic representation of a struggling woman in an oppressive patriarchal society. Sure, Gloria is in a stereotypical job as a receptionist, however, this is a high-ranking position as the receptionist to the CEO of Mattel Inc which is clearly well paid given her expensive car. Her issues seem to include a dead-end job (that pays well) and an apparently useless husband; who is only shown as useless as he struggles to learn a foreign language in later life. Meanwhile actual problems women face are issues such as assault, abuse, abandonment from a spouse, racial/class/gender/sexuality divides. When it comes to Gloria’s issues that somehow break the fabric of reality, her issues are not only mundane, but offensive to persons who have suffered abuse and trauma throughout their lives.

Additionally, although statistically speaking, woman are more likely to be diagnosed with depression and anxiety, men are twice as likely to commit suicide suggesting a fault in the gender divide of diagnosis. Which could have something to do with society creating emotional male characters, such as Ken, for comedic entertainment.

Furthermore, the movie ends with Barbie (Margot Robbie) becoming human and living a mundane life in the real world. All issues regarding social inequalities and mental health are forgotten.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Barbie movie does bring to light the issue of social inequality based on gender, however, it completely fails to address that this is a problem that requires amending within society. Gender divisions in the home, work, or greater sociological structure is wrong and this is amplified by reversing the gender roles to show that a matriarchal society as depicted in Barbieland is just as damaging as a patriarchy as seen in the real world, yet the film fails to focus on the oppression caused, instead, it seeks laughs from the audience as our apparent “superior gender” is reduced to the oppressed. Gender oppression is not a joke and needs to be irradicated, not simply reversed.

Finally, the main premise of the plot, the inequalities and suffering of women in society leading to depression and anxiety, is utterly ignored and made out to be something one must accept rather than something society as a whole needs to address. Once one realises that the societal views depicted are simply a reversal of our current societal structure, the lack of attention granted to challenging these views becomes dangerously apparent. As these messages will likely be ignored for the sake of entertainment, so shall the issues within our own society be ignored and oppression shall continue. Especially as the audiences will neither realise these messages are there while subconsciously being told that this is normal and somehow ideal.

The concluding messages of this movie are that “life sucks” and that society should remain as it is. Two very dangerous statements, which if ignored will only perpetuate the continuation of a society divided by gender.

#Barbie #Greta Gerwig #Margot Robbie #Ryan Gosling #Matriarchy #Patriarchy #Egalitarianism #Gender Inequality #Gender Inequality Works Both Ways #Inequality #Social Stereotypes #Glass Ceiling

[txttletale]

can you explain family abolition in a few words?

sure. there is no one unitary 'family abolitionist' perspective so be aware that i'm explaining this as a marxist and not as an anarchist or a radical feminist.

basically, "the family" is a social construct rather than a fixed self-evident truth. the family has been created and can be shaped, altered, or--indeed--abolished. this is evinced by the broad anthropological and historical record of radical transformations in what constitutes 'the family' (cf. clans, the extended family, the nuclear family). viewing the family as such opens it up to critique and also to the concept that it could be replaced with something better (in much the same way that, for communist and anarchist, refusing to accept the timelessness / naturalization of the bourgeois state opens up new horizons of political thought outside of engagement with electoral politics.)

among these critiques of the family are:

that it is a tool of patriarchal control over women and children by creating an economic dependence upon spouses / parents

ergo, that it enables and causes 'abuse' -- that child abuse, spousal abuse, and intimate partner violence are not abberations of 'the family' but in fact a natural consequence of its base premises re: power and control

that it serves as a site of invisiblised economic labour (e.g. housework)

that it is a tool of the capitalist (formerly the feudal) economy's reproduction of inequality via e.g. inheritance laws

that it serves as a site of normalization and reproduction of hegemonic ideology--i.e. that it is the site where heteronormativity, cisnormativity, gender roles, class positionality, & more are ingrained in children

among solutions family abolitionists propose to remedy it are:

the total dissolution of any legal privilege conferred by romantic or blood relationship in favour of total freedom for any group of people to form a household and cohabitate

the recognition of housework, the work of childrearing, & the general tasks of social reproduction as 'real' labour to be distributed fairly and not according to formal or informal (feminized) hierarchies

the economic and legal freedom of children--(i.e., allowing children unconditional access to food and shelter outside 'the family', allowing children the legal right to informed consent and self-determination)

similarly, the emancipation of women from economic dependence on their partners--both of these can only really be achieved via socialism (as marx put it, 'women in the workplace' only trade patriarchal dependence upon a husband for patriarchal dependence upon an employer)

communal caretaking of children, the sick, & the elderly

yeah. i know. this is a lot of words. its not few words. sorry. it's a complex topic innit. this is a few words For Me consideri ng that i've got a long-ass google doc open where i'm writing up a whole damn essay on this exact topic.

tldr: the family is not inevitable, it is constructed & can be replaced with something better. full economic freedom from dependence on interpersonal familial relationships for everybody now. check out cuba's 2022 family code for an idea of what this could look like as practical legislation.

#ask

[russellsppttemplates]

It's like we won't even be there (Lewis Hamilton)

Mercedes has three power couples

Note: english is not my first language. After a long time, I'm finally posting this request.

Thank you so much to everyone who likes and reblogs, your feedback is appreciated 🤍 and I'm taking requests so if you have any ideas or concepts you want to share, feel free to do so as I'll try to get to them the best I can!

my masterlist

Tw: mentions gender inequality, misogynistic ideals

Tag list: @myloverjk-blog

"Everyone on social media has an inkling that you're bringing someone to the race. Is it your belle, Mr. Hamilton?", you teased your boyfriend as he got ready for bed.

You had arrived in Abu Dhabi a few hours earlier, caught a cab to the hotel where your boyfriend had been resting before media day.

"Is that so?", he wondered, "I haven't told anyone outside the team. And even them, I told them you would be joining as my guest, only a few people actually know about us", he assured.

"I don't mind it, we'll have to be public at some time. Three years dating outside of the public eye, plus another year of what the kids call soft launching, whatever happens this weekend, happens", you tranquilized him.

This had been an ongoing conversation for you for as long as you've dated. His lifestyle came with many implications, particularly not always being home and public eye. You also spent a lot of time focused on your job, building the company now associated to your name to the people in the finance business, so the latter question was the biggest one. While you were successful, it hardly impacted your life when it came to the public eye or social media. You had your accounts, sure, but they were private and they never got in the way of your job.

"I just don't want people to lash out on you", he replied, sitting next to you on the bed, his fingers tracing shapes in your hand, "I've seen how brutal they can be, I've felt how brutal they can be, and I don't want that for you. They'll gossip because that's how things work, but I don't want them breaking the respect line.", Lewis stated.

"Lew, I understand and appreciate your concern, but I'll be fine. I have you, our families, our friends, I'm going to be just fine. I don't know how they'll react, so I'll work with whatever happens", you smiled, snuggling into him as he caressed your face.

.

"Good morning, Y/N! How have you been? I haven't seen you in so long!", Carmen said as she hugged you once you arrived in the hospitality, Lewis kissing your cheek briefly before he headed for his meeting.

"Hello, gorgeous girl! I've been good, and you?", you greeted her with a kiss on each cheek after saying goodbye to Lewis.

"Same old, busy but managed to come and support G this weekend. You, however, seem to finally let it out", she smirked, walking with you to the coffee station and serving yourselves, sitting in the balcony as you overlooked the track.

"There's no point in keeping it a secret, I guess. We did it for a while, and this past year we both realised that we want to be able to go out and not be worried someone will see us and whatever consequences it could bring. We're adults who hope other adults will behave like such", you smiled.

"A hard thing to do sometimes, for them at least", you heard a female voice coming closer to you, "I don't believe we've met before, but Toto said you were hanging out here", the blonde woman said.

Suzie Wolff had been someone you looked up to since you were little, so this was a proper fangirl moment, "sit, sit! This is Y/N!", Carmen introduced after giving her a brief introduction.

"I keep missing you whenever you join us for the races!", she said, "the pandemic didn't help, and lately I've been so busy with the F1 Academy that I've hardly been to races myself", she reasoned, beginning the start of a conversation that was only interrupted for lunchtime.

"Press usually have a field day with powerful women related to this sport. You should be able to get away with it because you don't work for racing, but they love going on and on about how we got to where we are because of who we date", Suzie shook her head.

"Absolutely, because George is very interested in Family Offices and he got me my job", Carmen rolled her eyes, "you try and give that guy math stuff and you see how it turns out! Besides, not many people actually knew who he was, they're not very into motorsport, only a couple of them!", she teased.

"Agreed! The only way I was able to have my own company was because I name dropped Lewis, who I didn't know at the time. He doesn't know his numbers all that well. It's so easy for them to point fingers, but it's really just because they hate to see a powerful woman get the job done", you offered, seeing your partners arrive to the table along Laura.

"Social media is going crazy about you, Y/N!", Laura, one of the team's social media managers said while you had lunch, "there's people who spent the whole morning trying to find out who you were and they were faling to find your accounts. Apparently, they were looking in model agencies and such until someone pointed out you studied at the same university as them, and it's pointed them in the right direction I'd say?", she shrugged her shoulders, showing you her phone as she scrolled through media, "they're still trying to find out more, but they only have a few articles from your company and a picture of you when you graduated that is on the university's Wall of Fame!", she made you giggle, fondly looking at the wall of pictures you saw everyday on your way to lectures.

"Are you on the Wall of Fame and didn't tell us, Y/N?", Carmen exclaimed at the new information, "it's barely anything, I'm still there probably because someone forgot to remove the picture", you blushed, suddenly feeling like the table's attention was on you.

"Why would they take out the picture of the most beautiful woman with the most achievements?", Lewis charmed, holding your hand in his as he smiled.

.

"Are you guys ready for the race? If all goes well, we can get back to the points!", Suzie cheered as she handed you and Carmen your bottles of water.

"Lew has been beating himself up a lot lately, hopefully everything works in their favour", you held your hands together after setting the water bottle on the counter.

It was very touch and go, but the boys ended up with good results given the position they started in.

"Congrats, my love!", you said in Lewis' ear as he squeezed your torso over the barrier, delighting the sight of everyone who was watching and seeing the happy couple, "couldn't have done it without you, gorgeous girl", he yelled back, stealing a kiss before running to the mechanics.

"I'm just going to check where Suzie is and then we can go for dinner, guys", Toto stated, squeezing George's and Lewis' shoulders before checking is phone to see if his wife had seen the text he sent about said dinner.

"The F1 Academy paddock is closed, you can see it from here that nobody is there", George pointed out as his boss frowned.

"I would help you, but I have to go and look for Carmen, too", George scratched his cheek as they walked along the corridor, seeing Lewis open his driver's room door and slumping his shoulders slightly, "Y/N is not here either".

"Where have the Mercedes missus gone...?", Toto muttered.

It didn't take then long to hear the mix of your three giggles coming from the lounging area, the three of you sat in the smaller sofas around a coffee table, hot drinks in your hands as you discussed something avidly but in a relaxing way still.

"Are the three of you willing to have dinner with the three of us? We'll still let you speak between yourselves, okay? It's like we won't even be there!", Toto joked.

#lewis hamilton imagine #lewis hamilton x reader #lewis hamilton fanfic #lewis hamilton fluff #f1 x reader #f1 imagine #f1 fanfic

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Fighting junk fees is "woke"

“Populism” isn’t intrinsically left or right. The distinction between the two is often obscured by jargon, but there’s a simple litmus test (courtesy of Steven Brust): “ask what’s more important: human rights, or property rights. If they say ‘property rights are human rights,’ they’re on the right.”

Which is to say, both the left and the right can be populist, but the populist left seeks to improve peoples’ lives, no matter what that takes, while the populist right is only willing to make the world better when that doesn’t interfere with the interests of property owners.

This is how you get the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire equating publicly produced, free insulin with forcing enslaved Black people to pick cotton in the fields:

https://newrepublic.com/post/174485/libertarian-party-suggests-former-black-lawmaker-pick-crops-free

For right populists, the property rights of pharma giants are human rights, so anything that interferes with those rights is equivalent to any other human rights violation.

This is not only wrong, but it’s also a huge vulnerability in the right populist mindset. It’s a button that, when pushed, produces a reliable and reflexive outrage.

This is essential for the creation, maintenance and expansion of plutocracy. In a plutocracy, a small minority owns most of the property (we live in a plutocracy). By definition, plutocracy isn’t popular, since it’s a system that benefits a small minority at everyone else’s expense. In its natural state, plutocracy is only popular with its winners, and not the vast majority of losers it creates.

So plutocrats need to find ways to get turkeys to vote for Christmas. One important trick is to convince us all that the system is fair, guided by an invisible hand that performs mystic passes over our heads at birth and locates the very best of us and elevates us to the apex of the social pyramid.

But there’s a problem with this: plutocracy is self-sustaining. The story that we’re all just “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” who can rise to the top with hard work and smarts falls flat in the face of the reality that nearly everyone at the top was born there. If the system selects rulers based on merit, and if everyone the system selects was born rich, then the rich must have some genetic trait that makes them destined to rule.

This is why plutocracy always turns into aristocracy: the idea that some people are suited to rule because they have “good blood.” Eugenics is, above all, a way to excuse inequality. Fitness to rule is determined primarily by whose orifice you emerge from, and only secondarily by any obvious competence or skill.

So right wing footsoldiers are mired in a terrible and shameful swamp of self-loathing. By definition, their lack of wealth and power is their own fault, and not merely their fault, but the fault of their genes. Being on the bottom is proof that you deserve to be there. Your failure to rise proves that you don’t deserve to rise.

No wonder the right is so irony-poisoned. Remember 2020, when gun-nuts got “revenge” on gun safety scolds by photographing themselves pointing loaded guns at their own penises? The participants insisted that they were just trolling, and they were…by pointing loaded guns at their dicks:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/05/28/holographic-nano-layer-catalyser/#musketfuckers

Plutocrats understand that there are limits to irony, and that at a certain point, irony poisoning becomes so acute that your rank-and-file literally start blowing their balls off. To relieve the pressure, plutes scapegoat other people based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, or nationality.

This provides an important resolution to the cognitive dissonance of meritocracy. The reason you’re doing so badly isn’t that you lack merit, it’s that affirmative action has elevated unworthy people to the positions that you deserve. You are a temporarily embarrassed millionaire — but the riches you deserve have been snaffled up by welfare queens and DEI consultants.

Cruelty isn’t the point of culture war bullshit: the point is power. Cruelty is merely the tactic:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/09/turkeys-voting-for-christmas/#culture-wars

Culture war bullshit is a very reliable way to get turkeys to vote for Christmas. Take the campaign against junk fees, which have ticketmastered every part of your life with “fees” for things like “paying your rent by check” and “not paying your rent by check”:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/30/military-industrial-park-service/#booz-allen

There is no broad constituency for junk fees. Scam artists (including scam artists in the C-suites of Fortune 100 companies) love them, sure, but junk fees make everyone else furious.

What’s a plutocrat to do? Well, it turns out that culture war bullshit can make right wingers point (metaphorical) guns at their own junk — all plutocrats need to do is put the word out that getting rid of junk fees is “woke” and low-information right-wing thumbsuckers will demand the right to be charged junk fees.

Here’s an example: one especially pernicious form of junk fee is the “swipe fees” that credit-card companies charge merchants. In an increasingly cashless age, these companies — dominated by the Visa/Mastercard duopoly — have figured out how to scrape 3–5% out of every single retail transaction in the entire fucking economy.

Every merchant you patronize has to charge more — or reduce quality, or both — in order to pay this Danegeld to two of the largest, most profitable companies in the world. Visa/Mastercard have hiked their fees by 40 percent since the pandemic’s start. Forty. Fucking. Percent. Tell me again how greedflation isn’t real?

A bipartisan legislative coalition, led by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) have proposed the Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA), which will force competition into credit-card routing, putting pressure on the Visa/Mastercard duopoly:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1838/text?s=1&r=3

This should be a no-brainer, but plute spin-doctors have plenty of no-brains to fill up with culture war bullshit. Writing in The American Prospect, Luke Goldstein unpacks an astroturf campaign to save the endangered swipe fee from woke competition advocates:

https://prospect.org/power/2023-08-04-wall-street-culture-war-swipe-fee-reform/

Now, this campaign isn’t particularly sophisticated. It goes like this: Target is a big business that runs a lot of transactions through Visa/Mastercard, so it stands to benefit from competition in payment routing. And Target did a mean woke by selling Pride merch, which makes them groomers. So by fighting swipe fees, Congress is giving woke groomers a government bailout!

It’s literally that stupid. It’s being pushed by a dark money group based in Kansas, which is targeting Senator Marshall’s constituents with mailers that warns voters they’ll “lose their credit card points” because he’s thrown his lot in with “liberal politicians”:

https://punchbowl.news/caf-marshall-mailer-kansas/

The fliers also warn that competition could result in “your financial data could be processed by partners of the Chinese Communist Party” (the bill bans foreign companies from routing transactions, and bans China UnionPay by name).

The fliers are anonymous. The only ghoul shameless enough to put his name on the campaign is Grover Norquist, whose Americans for Tax Reform tells its Christmas-voting-turkeys to “side with consumers, not woke retailers.”

The dark money org pushing this line have placed op-eds in newspapers across red states, comparing transaction routing competition to your kids’ data being snaffled up by Tiktok:

https://www.theflstandard.com/senators-rubio-and-scott-must-protect-the-personal-financial-data-of-floridians/

This nonsense was peddled by League of Southeastern Credit Unions president Samantha Beeler, whose org has spent $20,000 fighting the CCCA, claiming that a “cheaper” system would be “less secure”:

https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2023/Q2/301493985.xml

But that’s small potatoes. Millions are being spent, right now, lobbying against CCCA — $5m from the American Bankers’ Association, $2m from the Credit Union National Association, another $400k from Mastercard.

For these rentiers, corrupting our government with millions is a stellar bargain if it lets them continue to collect rent every time we spend money. And millions of people who’ll end up paying that will demand the right to do so, provided they’re told that they’re fighting “woke capitalism” and China.

I'm kickstarting the audiobook for "The Internet Con: How To Seize the Means of Computation," a Big Tech disassembly manual to disenshittify the web and bring back the old, good internet. It's a DRM-free book, which means Audible won't carry it, so this crowdfunder is essential. Back now to get the audio, Verso hardcover and ebook:

http://seizethemeansofcomputation.org

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/04/owning-the-libs/#swiper-no-swiping

[Image ID: A mechanical credit card imprinter (AKA 'zipzap') emblazoned with a US flag Punisher logo. It is imprinting a blank credit-card slip with a red Visa card bearing the GOP logo. It sits on a weathered wooden plank table, stained a dark brown.]

#pluralistic #finance #junk fees #ripoffs #turkeys voting for christmas #culture war bullshit #useful idiots #visa #mastercard #swipe fees

[robertreich]

Think Tipping Is Out of Control? Watch This.

TWO DOLLARS AND THIRTEEN CENTS AN HOUR.

That’s how much millions of American workers are paid under the federal subminimum wage — which was set all the way back in 1991.

While many think tipping for services has gotten out of control, arguing over who deserves a tip and how much they should get distracts from what we should really be angry about: business models that depend on not paying workers a living wage.

It’s bad enough that the federal minimum wage is a measly $7.25 an hour. But employers are allowed to pay tipped workers just $2.13 an hour because supposedly the workers will be able to make up for it in tips.

Saru Jayaraman of One Fair Wage has been advocating to change this absurd and exploitative law. I asked her to share with us FOUR big reasons why we need to get rid of the subminimum wage and pay service workers a full living wage with tips on top.

Number 1: Workers who earn a subminimum wage often end up making less than the minimum wage

43 states currently allow certain workers to be paid a subminimum wage. Employers in these states are legally required to make up the difference if a worker’s combined wage and tips don’t reach the full minimum wage. But over a third of tipped workers report that their bosses regularly fail to do this.

That’s because enforcement of wage laws is lax, and it makes it easier for employers to get away with shortchanging staff.

Number 2: The subminimum wage perpetuates gender discrimination and harassment on the job

More than two-thirds of tipped workers — 70% — in the U.S. are women. And one in six women that work a tipped job are living in poverty — that’s nearly 2.5 times the rate for workers overall.

Since workers earning the subminimum wage are so dependent on tips to make a living, they are put in situations where they have to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior. A staggering 76 percent — that’s more than three-quarters of tipped workers — have reported experiencing sexual harassment on the job. And that only got worse during the pandemic.

Number 3: Tipping is actually a relic of slavery

Tipped workers are disproportionately people of color. And Black service workers in particular consistently earn less, including tips, than their white counterparts for doing the same job.

Look, this inequity of the subminimum wage is tied to America’s history of structural racism.

Following the Civil War, tipping was used as a racist solution by employers who didn’t want to pay formerly enslaved Black workers. So by allowing them to pay their workers just in tips rather than a wage, employers were able to avoid directly paying these workers.

Number 4: Paying workers a living wage plus tips is actually better for business — and our economy.

Corporate lobbyists, particularly for the restaurant industry, warn that paying workers a full minimum wage with tips on top will be devastating to businesses. But research shows these fears are completely overblown.

So far, seven states have replaced their subminimum wage for tipped workers with a higher minimum wage that still allows for tips on top. These seven states are actually faring better than the 43 states with subminimum wages for tipped workers — both in the number of restaurants and number of people employed by restaurants. And take home pay for restaurant servers and bartenders in these states was 24% higher than in states with a wage of just $2.13 an hour.

Workers at restaurants that have scrapped their subminimum wages in favor of higher minimum wages with tips on top are more productive, happier, and less likely to quit their jobs. This alone helps business owners cut employee turnover nearly in half. This is especially important following the pandemic, when restaurants are facing historic staffing shortages because over 1 million workers have left the industry due to low pay.

So not only have higher wage states been able to maintain their industries, but workers are more productive, getting paid more, and less likely to live in poverty.  

And when workers have more money, they spend more money — stimulating their local economies in the process.

And for the first time in 30 years, workers are winning on this issue, like in DC and Chicago and a dozen other states.

The bottom line is that ending the subminimum wage for tipped workers is better for workers, it’s better for business, it’s better for our economy — and it’s the right thing to do.

#youtube #tipping #tips #viral #videos #video #minimum wage #economics

[ultfreakme]

Actually you know what, thinking on it, Sokka's sexism in the original was really weird and when writing fic, I had a hard time understanding where that even came from. We've been told Gran-gran left NWT because of the sexism and stayed at SWT, Hama was a fighter, Hakoda didn't condemn Katara for fighting or learning bending, there's a trivia thing where we learn Hakoda actually wanted to find a waterbending teacher for Katara. Now sure you can say fighting doesn't mean sexism wasn't present, but Sokka's conveyance of that sexism didn't work if that's the case.

Sokka specifically underestimates girls in fighting. That's how his sexism is largely expressed. Kanna wouldn't have raised Hakoda that way and in turn Hakoda wouldn't have raised Sokka like that.

He would be overprotective of Katara and stifle her as a bender, but not because he's sexist, but because Hakoda said "Hey you're our last warrior"- and this is actually the crux of his character.

One big argument people make is that Sokka's character arc with Suki apparently won't happen. But interviews state that the new focus on Sokka-Suki would be about them finding strength and solidarity as non-benders. In the original we do see Sokka trying to figure out his place and part in the war and among Gaang, he does feel insecure about his strength and ability to protect people. I think taking the new direction would connect well with the Serpent's Pass reunion.

I understand why people are hesitant but I just saw posts saying Sokka's sexism is inherent to his character as Toph's blindness is!?!?!? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU????? There's so much to unpack there I don't even know where to begin. Like this is getting ridiculous and in trying to say Sokka's sexism is good actually, you guys forget that the original was kinda fumbling its way through Sokka's sexism arc. It's not that fast or easy to make someone dismantle sexism, and the Kyoshi Warriors + Suki are playing into the idea that a woman is only equal to a man when she has combat prowess (I still kinda cringe at Suki saying "I'm a warrior....but I'm also a girl" she says that about her romantic interest in Sokka and kissing him, like why is being a girl or romantic interest associated with 'girl'?). They could've stretched out the arc and included Yue in helping Sokka learn that women aren't inferior but all talks of women's equality was restricted to combat.

I ADORE the Katara v Pakku fight and I think that was a far better discussion and showcase of misogyny and commentary on inequality. Because yes it was a fight, but it was, underneath all that, about Kanna and Yue.

It is the first time we see that actually, Kanna and Yue should get to choose because that is a fundamental right they should have. Healing was allocated entirely to women, but Katara learned it and it was never seen as an inferior form of bending. Everyone should get to pick if they wanna fight or they wanna heal or both. Katara'a fighter, a healer.

So I just wanna ask; Do you want Sokka's sexism to be there to comment on the unfairness of gender inequality? Do you want it there to give this one male character a character arc (because Sokka never talks to Katara- the one whom he hurt most with that attitude- or acknowledges his contribution in suppressing her advances in bending after this little lesson he learned from Suki)? Or do you want it there because the og did it so it has to be there? Because if it's the first, KATARA's arc does it a million times better and that's still in the show.

#atla la #natla #atla netflix #avatar the last airbender #atla live action #sokka #atla

[vigilskeep]

hiya!! I never learned much about oghren besides what I needed to because, from what I remember, he pissed me off so bad with misogynistic comments that in both my playthroughs I kicked him out of the party as soon as the game would let me😂what would you say is the appeal of his character? it seems there’s more to him if I could’ve got past that, based on the posts of yours I’ve seen

i’m not going to make an argument for pushing through if you can’t deal with how he talks because like, it sucks and as i say, they did not do anything with it or make him get better on that. that being said, i think there is something interesting to his character and what can be done with it.

maybe i’m just desperate for dwarven lore lmao. there are three, total, dwarven companions in the series, counting one from a dlc, and i will take whatever lore i can get from my beloved orzammar

oghren operates in a really fascinating space in orzammar’s caste system. he’s born warrior caste, and once, he was everything orzammar values and a great prospect for a brilliant girl from the smith caste. then when she’s less than twenty and he’s presumably around the same, she becomes a paragon, a living legend, the voice of the ancestors. they soar up to being a noble house in a role neither of them are prepared for. oghren goes from being a very desirable match socially to an uncultured hanger-on who doesn’t even have branka’s attention as she becomes obsessed with her work (and quietly seeks a lover elsewhere in her new house). when branka goes into the deep roads two years before the events of the game, she takes the whole house—except him. and she doesn’t come back. oghren’s the single leftover of a house with no head. he’s also a berserker with ptsd, and when he loses control of himself in the proving arena and kills a young man, he’s no longer allowed to fight within the city bounds. if he left it, he’d be casteless; but inside it, he’s not far from that, unable to be the warrior that orzammar’s culture has always told him it is his only role and purpose to be.

there’s a lot of orzammar caste and gender politics in all of that. the guard who tells you about oghren says that he might have been something to be afraid of before the assembly “practically gelded him” by banning him from fighting. losing your ability to perform your caste role is emasculating and oghren’s over-exaggerated masculinity in his crude jokes is a response to that perceived shame. even before the ban, orzammar has the biggest gender inequality of anywhere we’ve spent time in thedas, and there’s a lot of implied social loss in becoming the lesser partner to his wife. both because she’s a woman and was once a lesser caste than him. in his fade nightmare, he’s drunk in tapsters, as strangers berate him for being a shame to branka’s house, dragging it down. he’s openly mocked in the same way in orzammar for all of this. for him in this dream, and in his life prior to meeting the warden, it’s easier to drink than to listen

there’s a lot to get into about how orzammar treats its warriors. they’re sent against the horrors of the deep roads, taught to harness this berserker rage, to be the only thing that stands between their home and the darkspawn, and... then what? is there a system in place for taking care of those veterans? i doubt they hold the same value once they lose the ability to perform their caste role. oghren talks a little about this, but he’s not even able to conceptualise that he should have been helped, it’s more like, how could they teach me how to fight out there like that and expect me to be able to hold back in that proving fight? a warrior’s going to do what a warrior’s going to do! but i don’t think it’s a surprise that someone like oghren turns to alcohol and i sincerely doubt he’s alone in that. compare it to someone like warden brosca’s mother turning to alcohol to deaden herself to life in dust town, and you can see that the dwarven love of drink so often played for laughs is the weight of the caste system in action

#oghren #no real conclusion to these thoughts but that’s the rudimentary basics of the interest he holds for me personally

[femalethink]

Pornography is regularly used in ways that have nothing to do with sexual explicitness. Rather, pornography is commonly understood as a form of propaganda, a representational style linked with defamation and desensitization, if not destruction. Patricia J. Williams, who thinks legally, critically, and gracefully about race, sex, and injustice, calls pornography a "habit of thinking," and one that informs all manner of abusive and exploitative attitudes and relationships. Pornography, as I am using the term, is just that, a worldview, a way of thinking and acting that sexualizes and genders domination and submission, from the bedroom to the war room, making domination masculine (even when a woman plays that role) and submission feminine (even when a man plays that role), and making both the essence of sex. By wedding sexuality to inequality, pornography conditions women and men to have a substantial investment in maintaining the oppressive status quo—again, from interpersonal relationships to international politics.

Pornography kills off, and then substitutes itself for, the erotic—the life force, the earthy and ethereal force of growth, fruitfulness, exuberance, ecstasy, connectedness, and integrity. Pornography severs eroticism from intimacy and empathy and bonds it to voyeurism and objectification (of the self and of another). It incarnates pleasure in acts of hatred. It would have all of us believe, even those of us getting the "fuzzy end of the lollypop" (Sugar/Marilyn Monroe's lament in Some Like It Hot, Billy Wilder, 1959), that without a certain measure of power and powerlessness, danger, fear, pain, possession, shame, distance, and violence there wouldn't be any "sex" at all. Of course, the simultaneously pornographic, monotonous, and erotophobic culture tends to make that true. Variously damaged, alienated, and desensitized, pornography can become what we need in order to feel at all.

Some applaud pornography because it allows access to sexual imagery and language and easily offends offensive religious morality. Yet pornography is no real alternative to systemic sex-negative morality; rather it is an intrinsic part of it. Pornography and mainstream morality both stem from and continually reinforce a worldview that first makes a complex of body/low/sex/dirty/deviant/female/devil and then severs these from mind/high/spirit/pure/normal/male/god. For both, sex itself is the core taboo. Moralism systematically upholds the taboo and pornography systematically violates it. In the complex that evolves from this absurdity, taboo violation itself becomes erotically charged. Evil becomes seductive and the good mostly boring. Without patriarchal moralism's misogyny, homophobia, demand for sexual ignorance, and sin-sex-shame equation, pornography as we know it would not exist. And, together, the two work to maintain the sex and gender status quo.

—Jane Caputi, "Goddesses and Monsters: Women, Myth, Power, and Popular Culture."

#jane caputi #feminism #radical feminism #radblr #radfem #women against pornography #anti-porn #feminist film theory

[nothorses]

About that "a trans man committing a mass shooting proves trans people really are the gender they identify as" post: women have committed mass shootings too? Okay it's a lot less statistically frequent, but it happens (as the song "I Don't Like Mondays" demonstrates). It reminds me of the time TERFs on Reddit assumed the woman who shot up the YouTube HQ in 2018 was trans, and then when she turned out to be cis, someone immediately speculated she was getting justified revenge on an abusive BF who worked there (though that comment got downvoted and may have been a troll)

I took this opportunity to look more into statistics around mass shooter demographics, and interestingly, there are a lot of myths tied up in this issue.

This article looks into a few studies and databases to investigate the "90% of all mass shooters are white men" myth, and finds that in actuality, "It really depends on what type of mass shooting you’re talking about. Several of the highest-profile mass shootings in recent memory [...] were committed by white males, such as the 2017 Las Vegas attack by Stephen Paddock. But much beyond that, the stereotype breaks down; Muslim man Omar Mateen killed forty-nine people at a Florida nightclub in 2016 on behalf of a terrorism group; white male Adam Lanza killed twenty-seven people in 2012 at an elementary school, though Asian student Seung-Hui Cho killed thirty-two people on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007. And so on."

This article fact-checks the gender-specific claims as well, in the context of trans people, and finds that there have been more claims that shooters are trans than can be reasonably substantiated, and that even this number is overshadowed by the number of cis women who have committed mass shootings.

I bring this up because I think the first article in particular brings a lot of much-needed nuance into the issue:

"The whites-are-overrepresented-among-mass-shooters meme does serve a useful purpose in that it helps displace another myth about mass shootings: that they’re most often perpetrated by angry immigrants from travel-banned countries, and that nothing is more dangerous to America that the scourge of Islamic terrorism. … These are worthy ends, but we shouldn’t have to build another myth to reach them.”

What are we saying when we talk about these kinds of incidents this way?

What I find interesting is that in a lot of these conversations around crime, we recognize that crime is often the result of poverty. Indeed, this study finds that the number of mass shootings increases in countries that experience an increase of income inequality.

We can also often recognize that these numbers are skewed because they rely on media coverage, arrests, and criminal charges; all of which are influenced by societal bias. The first article on mass shootings notes that, "mass shootings with white victims tend to get more attention, both from journalists and those on social media, than those with victims who are people of color. This is a well-known pattern and explains why the public is quicker to react to a missing young blonde girl than a missing young black girl."

Are white mass shooters covered more because their targets- being overwhelmingly people and institutions they have ties to- are also usually white?

If "white men are overrepresented as mass shooters" means white men are particularly dangerous and must be feared, what does this imply about other demographics overrepresented in certain crime statistics? What does it mean when we find this isn't true- is there suddenly just is not an issue of white cis male violence? I would certainly disagree.

And I think this gleeful claim that "trans men are proving their gender" by committing acts of violence- again, far more rare than cis women doing the same- only plays into these issues.

Is crime the result of entitlement and privileged anger, or is it the result of a broken system failing its citizens? Are cis men committing acts of extreme violence because they are all- regardless of race- whiny pissbabies who take joy in hurting others, or is this the result of a system that teaches men they can only express emotion through anger and violence? That human connection is not for them, and that needing things makes them unworthy of manhood, love, or even life?

I'm not saying we need to coddle and woobify mass shooters. I'm asking: is this an issue we fix by fearing and hating and wishing death on whole demographics of people based on how represented they are in criminal statistics, or can we make systemic and cultural changes that meaningfully prevent this from happening in the first place?

Do we condemn groups as Bad because some of them have done violence, or do we examine the causes and work toward meaningful solutions?

Obviously, trans men and trans people in general are not in any way "overrepresented" as perpetrators in mass shooting statistics. But I think the people reveling in any new trans male shooter are making it very clear that they don't care about solving problems; they're just interested in looking for reasons to hate, fear, and condemn this specific group of people they already dislike.

#nashville shooting

[genderkoolaid]

"In my interviews with women coworkers, they expressed both curiosity and concern about their colleague's decision about genital surgery. One woman noted, "I've asked him about, as I like to put it, 'What is going on downstairs [with his genitalia]?'" Almost all of the women also brought up their questions about chest surgery. "I can just imagine it and think, why would I want to cut my breasts off? It just strikes me as mutilation." Another woman said, "I was kind of horrified, at first, about the chest surgery.... I think it was a similar feeling that I would have to a friend getting breast implants. You just don't want them cutting themselves up." Women also expressed hesitation about accepting transmen as men. One woman noted, [His gender] feels like a middle-of-the-road thing for me. I mean I have a lot of gay male friends, so I feel like in some way there is a similar characteristic.... At the same time, it feels like friendships I've had with women. So, it just doesn't feel the same as just a typical straight guy that I am friends with." Another woman said, "It is not like I see him as a girl. It is more just that knowing about this transition, it is a kind of an aura I pick up on." Their hesitation related to how to locate transmen in a male/female system.  Heterosexual men presented themselves as placing less emphasis on the reality of transmen's gender—though one man noted that he felt self-conscious at times when interacting with his colleague. "[I worry] if there is anything that I should or shouldn't say. But it is just kind of a small background thing for me." Men also had questions about surgeries, particularly genital surgery. However, while women's concerns were baldly inquisitive, men framed their concerns as relating to an interest in "science" or "biology"—highlighting the social strictures on a heterosexual man expressing interest in the body of another man. One man said, "I think the whole [transition] process is interesting; Just the whole biology of how it happens." Another man added, "I had some specific questions.... It was more like from a scientific approach. Transgender surgeries just fascinate me from a scientific approach." As heterosexual women have a right based on sexual desire to be interested in men's bodies, they expressed less hesitation about direct questions. Heterosexual men, in contrast, adopt a "forgetting" strategy in which they do not publicly address the transition after the initial announcement unless it is in joking interactions. Describing this strategy, one coworker gave his impression of how other men in his workplace approached his colleague's transition: "They would rather forget. The problem is they've got only two categories. They've got 'normal' and they've got 'freak.' In order to avoid having to deal with a freak, they put him in normal." As heterosexual men typically hold the most workplace power, treating transmen like "normal" on an organizational and interactional level creates the increases in authority and respect that some open transmen report.  Further highlighting this point, transmen who report being neutralized, policed, and tokenized were the most likely to work under heterosexual women and gay men. I am not suggesting that heterosexual men have fewer qualms about transmen's gender identity. Rather, I posit that when an open transition is given workplace support, heterosexual men feel more social pressures to "forget"'about the transition—as questioning another man about his body makes them potentially suspect in a way that heterosexual women; lesbian women, and gay men are not."

—  Just One Of The Guys? Transgender Men and the Persistence of Gender Inequality by Kristen Schilt (2010), pages 126-127

#m. #transandrophobia

[viviennevermillion]

Mortals and Fools — First Look #1 (Coming Soon)

Want to read a SFW coming-of-age fantasy novel with evil gods, two adult aspec protagonists and magic? Consider supporting this project!

Author's Note: After a total of 8 years of posting fanfiction on this account, I am excited to announce that I am finally starting my first long-term original work as an author! Goal is to get this series published as an actual novel but until then, I will be uploading chapters online as I write them, hopefully building an audience in the process! Mortals and Fools will be available on Wattpad and potentially other platforms. The first 4 chapters will be uploaded to Tumblr as well. Over the next few weeks I will keep uploading promo posts with new characters and more info! Thank you so much to everyone who has supported me as a writer over the years and welcome to everyone who's new here!

Summary: In the land of Elsthess, brilliant but arrogant Dr. Immanuel Faust is doing his best to follow the teachings of the Goddess of Wisdom, live up to his late grandmother's expectations and hide the fact that he has been seeing strange, mystical apparitions all his life. When his pupil becomes afflicted with an ancient curse and the things he has seen turn out to be more than just hallucinations, Immanuel must forge a contract with Morgan, a being from another realm who's ready to humble him at every turn, and learn his religion's most despised art: magic. As he steps outside of the simple world he has grown up in, he slowly comes to realize that there is much more to learn for him still.

Themes:

The Meaning of Wisdom & Growth

Unlearning harmful narratives and prejudices

Religious Trauma

Healing from Abuse

Rebuilding trust in others

Learning to understand others

Navigating radical changes during adulthood

Elitism and class inequality

The problems with the ideal of meritocracy

Queerplatonic & Alterous Attraction

Addiction

Gender Dysphoria

What this story contains:

A variety of fun magical powers!

Evil Gods & Forces from other Realms!

Queer rep! (demisexual & aroace protagonists, a trans man and a wlw couple)

Mysteries to unravel

The coming-of-age fantasy adventures you're used to from YA novels but with characters in their 20s and struggles of adulthood

Humor

My blood, sweat and tears as an author

The Cast: Introducing 3 Characters

Here's some info on the three characters in the header, from left to right!

#1 — Dr. Immanuel Icarus Faust

❝ It wasn't supposed to be like this... I've failed... as both a doctor and a man of faith. I wanted to follow your teachings, dear Goddess, and guide those who seek wisdom and knowledge, as grandmother did... but I couldn't even save one innocent girl. Have I become godless? ❝

Raised by his grandmother, the High Priestess of Solbrynn's temple, Immanuel was taught from an early age on to aspire to be the best in everything he attempted to do and dedicate his life to wisdom, in order to make the Goddess Adira proud. Having become a renowned physician at the age of 28, Immanuel understands himself as his kingdom's ideal of a self-made man: a scholar who can achieve everything he puts his mind to, no matter the circumstances. As a result, he has put himself on a pedestal, believing that those who achieved less than him had all the chances and merely didn't use them. Fearing nothing more than failure and becoming anything like his absent, alcoholic father; Immanuel is bound for a rude awakening.

#2 — Morgan Miralaith

❝ While you were having your existential crisis in the mad scientist laboratory you call your bedroom, I took the liberty to read your grandmother's diary. The good news is, I finally understand where all the hubris comes from. ❝

Morgan, belonging to a long-lived species from the realm of Calliah, is the second-in-command for the Elsthess Resistance against the Plague Avatars. While the Resistance on Mhorunn regards her as a capable leader and a skilled fighter; using fire magic to blaze her way to victory; it is clear to most that she has many secrets and ulterior motives. She cares about others in her own way, yet hardly lets anyone close to her. With her mischievous demeanor and cynical nature, Morgan has made it her new mission to recruit Immanuel for the Resistance and, while at it, shatter his very distorted self-image and worldview. Upon forging a contract with her, Immanuel believes that he has sold his soul to a demon. It is only upon meeting others of her kind that he realizes that really is just her personality.

#3 — Mortis Grimm

❞ People reject that which is foreign to them. You of all people should know this. Still, my personal aspirations and origins are of no concern to you. Remember that. ❝

While there are several people from the Realm of Calliah in Elsthess, the realm that Mortis Grimm originated from is unknown. He seems to be the only one of his kind and there is something sinister about him. Wielding powerful magic that matches no other in recorded nature, Mortis, despite being the leader of the Resistance, is a big mystery to all of its members. Usually donning a Plague Doctor mask, Morgan is among the few to have seen his face. He is Mhorunn's greatest ally, but hardly a trusted one. Most understand that he could just as well become its greatest enemy one day.

Interested in reading more and receiving updates as they're posted? Comment on this post and tell me if you'd like to be added to the taglist! Reblogs are appreciated to spread the word! 💞

Taglist — @gwaaaaar @silveryloneliness @noxochicoztliv @justletmeon12 @averytirednerd @letsallsleepoverwork @styrofauxm @non-pressurizeddiamond @mangoinacan13 @amateurmasksmith @kenobiblue @soru-dee @pictures-of-the-stars @elf-osamu @animusicnerd @jaytherat-hometothereblog @watcherofeternalflame

#fantasy novel #aroace #ace representation #aroace representation #demisexual #indie author #webnovel #wattpad #author #writing #authorblr #writers of tumblr #writers on tumblr #indie fantasy #novel promo

[arcaneillusion]

illyrian women being given the opportunity to train while nothing is done to challenge the systems behind their oppression has similar implications to women being given greater opportunities in paid employment while capitalism, racism & patriarchy remain fully intact.

it seems ‘progressive’ on the surface but in reality it:

a) does very little to combat the systemic causes of oppression;

b) merely results in what some sociologists call the dual burden, or women’s triple shift.

essentially, in heterosexual relationships, gender roles have remained largely unchanged, with women continuing to do the vast majority of housework and child-rearing. thus, the move into employment means that women now typically have two jobs (unpaid domestic labour and paid work) to their male partner’s one (paid work). this is the dual burden that many women face under capitalism.

the triple shift is a similar concept; however, it also considers women’s role in carrying out the emotional labour necessary to maintain close bonds within the (nuclear) family unit. this notion instead suggests that women have three jobs (paid employment, unpaid domestic tasks and emotional labour) to their male partner’s one.

there’s a lot of evidence to support both theories, but that’s not the point of this post.

to relate this back to acotar: rhysand giving illyrian women the opportunity to train is about as effective in alleviating their subjugation as access to paid employment was for women.

to be clear, i’m not saying that women shouldn’t be in paid employment (obviously), nor am i suggesting that access to work has done nothing to help improve women’s lives.

perhaps a better way of framing it would be this: did patriarchy collapse when women were granted access to the workplace? did paid employment ‘solve’ gender inequality? it has been decades since women started to transition into paid work, and is misogyny (and a whole other host of issues that stem from patriarchy) any less prevalent?

rhysand granting illyrian women access to training while the roots of their subjugation remain intact simply creates a dual burden. now, instead of just doing the domestic labour, they get to learn to fight so they can go die in wars waged by a ruler that cares very little for their existence beyond their use as cannon-fodder. yay! feminism!

there is obviously room here for a much more in-depth conversation about capitalism, racism and patriarchy & whether such systems are truly any weaker than in previous decades as opposed to having just changed forms/adapted to the modern world. additionally, much more can be said about the subjugation of the illyrians in acotar and rhysand’s role in it, and parallels can be drawn between this and real world contexts. but, for the sake of brevity, i’ll leave that for another time.

my main point here is simply that illyrian women being allowed to train causes further harm and very little progress. they face oppression at the hands of illyrian males, but all illyrians are oppressed by the unequal hierarchy of power that dominates the night court - a hierarchy that rhysand sits at the very top of.

just as in our world patriarchy will continue to function so long as racism and capitalism do too, so will, in the night court, the subjugation of illyrian women continue so long as the unequal distribution of power persists.

rhysand cannot, and will not, fix a problem when said problem is merely a symptom of his power. if illyrian liberation is contingent on the abolition of unequal hierarchies of power, it is therefore contingent on the abolition of rhysand’s position as high lord. freedom for the illyrians is quite literally against his interests.

any solutions he attempts to provide (such as granting access to training) are about as helpful as sticking a plaster on a broken bone.

#anti sjm #anti rhysand #anti acotar #acotar analysis #this has been sitting in my drafts for a while now #i’m not great at articulating my thoughts so apologies if anything is unclear

[frevandrest]

Hiii, I read your post about Olympe de Gouges and It opened me a world since everything I was told in school was basically what you say is wrong. Why was she actually executed? Do you know anything I could read to know more about the metter and her figure in general?

Okay, so de Gouges is not my expertise - if anyone knows good sources on her, please let us know.

But I do know she was executed for her political writings about the how the revolution should continue, organization of government, etc. and not for her feminist writings (yes, feminist writings are political, but I will separate them for clarity). She was targeted for things that were deemed royalist sympathizing - disagreeing with the execution of Louis XVI, supporting constitutional monarchy and I believe some things that were deemed pro-Marie Antoinette. We can say bullshit (or if true, does someone deserves to die for that?) - but it opens up wider questions about frev trials in general and political in-fighting (not just Montagnard vs Girondin). But the point is, Girondin men also died for the same reasons as de Gouges.

So, it was not about her "Declaration of the Woman and the Citizeness" or any other specifically proto-feminist writing. She was tried as a Girondin sympathizer (ironically, though morbidly, in an equal way with men)* - this was a push against Girondins, and it mostly targeted men. *She did warn about the inequality of that - a woman can be tried and executed as a man even though she doesn't have his political rights (as in, if a woman doesn't have political rights, then she shouldn't be held responsible and executed for political things).

So it wasn't about feminism (let alone abolitionism). But! - it's not like the whole thing was devoid of general 18c sexism (or, well, timeless sexism that's not just 18c). The way she was talked about or criticized, often had a sexist dimension, because she was a woman and was attacked as a woman. This speaks about general sexism in the society more than her writing or feminism (or even innocence). Marie Antoinette was often ridiculed in sexist (and homophobic) ways, which does not make her a feminist (and she was also guilty af of counter-revolutionary things). But this is something that should be said about de Gouges or, generally, about women at the time - they were subjected to sexism and sometimes dismissed in sexist ways. Madame Roland understood that really well, and she tried defending herself as a proper woman who never deviated from her domestic roles, despite of the fact that she was super influential politically (more than any other woman of the time, and more than de Gouges - Mme Roland participated in high politics even though women did not formally had equal political rights - but she participated informally, and was very influential, more than many men). Sexism, was, sadly, a convenient excuse to use whenever possible, and definitely not something that only Montagnards employed (see Condorcet - generally one of the most pro-gender equality men at the time - criticizing working class women who supported Robespierre in sexist + classist terms).

(Another example is the closure of the women's clubs, namely "The Society of Revolutionary Republican Women" - it's often said it happened because revolutionaries were sexists and did not want to allow women to participate in politics. This is not the reason: they closed the clubs because they were deemed politically dangerous at the time (and often more radical than Jacobins lol). But the explanation was, among other things, "well, women should stay at home" - which is not a true reason, but it was easy to use as an excuse, because the culture of 18c was sexist in general).

tl;dr: De Gouges was executed for royalist sympathizing (not that she necessarily was - I don't know enough about her opinions) and for associating herself with Girondins. She was not executed for being a feminist or abolitionist. (She was both, but she was not the only one - especially when it comes to abolitionism; her enemies were too. I would also say that Montagnards also fought for women's' rights although not in the same way, but that's another topic). The point is, feminism (let alone abolitionism) is not why she was put on trial and executed.

#ask #frev #oh and a few more things #i believe de gouges actually distanced herself from girondins at one point #so idk if it would be fair to call her one

[ivysenpai3]

Decided to do a Tokyo Revengers gc😂, hope you like it.

Desc: Smiley accidentally spills readers crush so now she's pissed.

Chaotic GC

Mikey: Hey everyone

Ran: Hey Mickey✨😌

Mikey: It's Mikey, not Mickey😐

Ran: I know, just wanna get on your nerves 😌

Draken: You just had to, didn't you, Haitani? 🙄

Ran: Leave me alone 😤

Smiley: Has anyone talked to Y/N-chan since my slip up? 😅

Mikey: You fucked up big time.

Emma: Fr, fucking dumbass 💀

Y/N: Guys!!! 😭

Smiley: Y/N-chan!!! 😭😭

Y/N: Don't you dare, I will end you😐

Mikey: Dayum😂

Draken: She mad, good job bro👍

Y/N: You have no idea what you made me go through 😐😐

Emma: Utter humiliation?

Ran: Total disgrace?

Y/N: Precisely, gold star for you both😗✨

Ran: I'll cherish it forever 😭

Y/N: I even lost my phone 😭

Rindou: How is that his fault? 😐

Y/N: Story time Mfs😗😌

Chifuyu: Oh oh, start with once upon a time.

Y/N: It's quite long so.... Yh.... Once upon time, there lived a blabber mouth, called Nahoya, who couldn't keep his mouth shut and blabbed an unnecessary information about girl named Y/N.

Mikey: We know this part🙄

Y/N: Hush😪. Anyway, to sum it up, I went for a walk, yada yada yada, I met Inupi and Koko having such an adorable date 😭😭✨✨✨

Mikey: Ewww😐

Y/N: Inupi terrified me, but Koko was really nice and took me shopping.

Koko: Ya welcome 😌😌

Y/N: So in the process, my phone went missing. That is the end of my story😪😪😪

Draken: So wtf are u chatting with😐?

Y/N: Turns out it was with Koko, my mum called it, he answered and he dropped it over at my house.

Ran: Hold up, he knows your house now? 😐

Koko: Indeed I do😌✨

Chifuyu: So how much you want, Koko? 👀

Mikey: Aren't you broke? 👀

Chifuyu: No😐

Mikey:But when I asked you to buy me dorayaki, you said you were broke😭😭😭😭

Chifuyu: That was then😐 besides, Y/N is a girl🙂

Smiley: Wanna get a makeover, Mikey? 👀

Mikey: Yes I do, that's gender inequality right there 😭😭😭

Taiju: Do you idiots realize how late it is🙄?

Y/N: Oh shit.....

*Y/N has left the group*

Mikey: She left? 😭😭😭

Rindou: Your fault, Smiley😒

Smiley: I apologized 😭

Emma: No you didn't 😶

Shinichiro: You're all noisy, for fucks sake go to bed😑

Taiju: Yo Shin

Shinichiro: Yo Taiju

Waka: Yo

Mikey: Why are the old people coming now😶?

Waka: Tf😑😑

Emma: Shin-nii, I'm hungry 😭😭

Mikey: I'm hungry too

Izana: Same here😪😪

Shinichiro: The fuck😶? Y'all just ate😶😶

Mikey: We did not 'just' eat....

Izana: Yeah, that was like 30 minutes ago 😐😐

Ran: I'm so glad I don't have any younger siblings 😌😌👍👍😗😗

Rindou: Excuse me😐😐😐

*Rindou is Offline*

Ran: Holy shit, what have I done😐😐😐?

Koko: So there's only 1 Haitani left, right? 😂😂

Draken: Looks that way, Rindou's probably gonna drop Ran on the streets.

Ran: Shut up.

Izana: I'm still hungry😶😶

Waka: Young Kurokawa, we say 'hangry' not 'hungry'👍👍😌😌

Taiju: Fucking dumbass

Waka: Aye, aye, don't insult your elders.

Mikey: Big deal, you turned 22, we won't have peace of mind anymore 😐😐😐

Ran: So.... Um....

Chifuyu: How did it go? 😂

Ran: Whose house can I stay in at under short notice for two day😅😭

Shinichiro: It's a full house

Emma: Tell me about it

Waka: Takeomi and Benkai are already at my place 😪

Draken: Not enough room

Chifuyu: Baji-san and Kazutora are crashing at mine😗

Izana: You already heard it from Shin and Emma so I don't owe you an explanation ✨

Taiju: I would let you stay

Mikey: Plot twist coming 😪

Taiju: But I just wanna see you suffer and sleep on the streets😌

Mikey: Called it✨

Ran: Anyone, please 😭😭😭😭😭😭, I'm too handsome to sleep on the streets 😭😭😭

Mikey: Coughs in Spanish 💀

Ran: Got something to say midget😪

Mikey: No no, anyways, good night Haitani, have fine sleeping with the rats👍✨😌

Ran:

Hope you liked it😗😗🙂🙂, I originally got this gc idea from @mulletmitsuya so go check out their work.

#tokyo rev x y/n #tokyo revengers #tokyo revengers gc #ran haitani #haitani brothers #tokyo revengers crack

[olderthannetfic]

26514299393196032/ I dunno, I think we have a lot more of a nuanced view of gender norms now rather than the radfem idea of male privilege. Like, a lot of trans people have talked about their experiences and I think that has supplanted the "women as oppressed class" in a lot of people's minds - That is, both gender roles have a set of societal expectations, and viewing it exclusively as Privilege Men vs Oppressed Women discounts the various issues that men face and the benefits of womanhood. As a trans-or-GNC person myself (...It's complicated,) I have absolutely felt trapped in a male role before my transition - the prospect of endless drudgery in work as my only out, the limitations of self-expression, the way men are viewed as someone who can be killed and it is less of a deal. And I know of the homelessness gap and how men face much harsher jail sentences and other such institutional inequalities. On the flipside, once I began presenting as a woman people became more concerned for my well-being passively, and were willing to go out of their way to assist me. I was also no longer trapped by the societal expectation that my role was to earn money. This is not to discount the very real issues which effect women, but I think the inequalities between genders is much more nuanced and complex and I think more people are realizing this. Certainly, a rich and powerful man has vast and considerable power far beyond most - But I think the average man is as confined by the circumstances of their birth as the average women, and has advantages and disadvantages in specific situations. It is also worth noting that the traditional definition of Radical Feminism IS the belief in patriarchy theory - That is, the belief that society has been historically set up for the benefit of men at the expense of women. Other schools of feminism which emerged earlier tended to focus on feminism as being about women's individual choice, women's rights, or equality rather than the belief in a patriarchy which must be dismantled. By definition, Patriarchy Theory is a Radical Feminist concept

--

[cipheramnesia]

if t4t is a thing why are Ts obsessed with being considered men/women. Why cant there be men/women and transmen and transwomen. Clearly yall recognize theres a difference. Why not just embrace it instead of demonizing the rest of society for also recognizing theres a difference between trans people and cispeople.

Thank you for sending me this ask. It is an opportunity presented to me to get into the underlying assumptions which are used around transphobia and in general recruitment into authoritarian groups committed to maintaining oppressive hierarchy!

1) "If t4t is a thing why are [transgender people] obsessed with being considered men/women?"

A few things are going on with this opening question. In a broad sense, it's drawing a line over t4t relationships have a kind of inverse correlation to general trans rights, which isn't correct. The kind of relationship someone is in doesn't reflect some kind of de-prioritizing of them being deserving of equal rights and fair treatment.

The phrase "obsessed with being considered" is interesting to work with. What's being talked about here is the long running struggle for trans people to be recognized as people in general. It includes being treated with the same legal rights and protections as other people, it also includes not being socially ostracized, not being subject to disproportionate violence, not being used as clowns or jokes, having access to medical care. It also includes expanding both the legal and social idea of sex and gender in ways that accommodate both modern science and social changes, and which are meant to reduce gender inequality across the board.

For example, if we can recognize that gender has greater variance than male/female, it has the double effect of both reducing social and legal barriers to equality between men and women generally, and expanding these kinds of recognitions to include intersex and nonbinary people. If we understand that gender is complex enough that a reductive "M/F" marking on a paperwork isn't adequate, it means fewer people can be singled out for specific biases in circumstances such as medical treatment or employment. Your doctor needs to know what your insides do, but they don't need to have an M/F on a form for that. No employer should need to know your gender to make a hiring decision, and so on.

Anyway, all of these complex legal and social and medical and etc issues affect us, trans people, and others, every day. However, the underlying narrative in the ask here is simplifying this as merely obsessed over what other people think. This kind of reductive shorthand is a pretty common route that radical right recruiters like to use. For example, the detailed and complex nature of sex and gender, and the myriad ways they are neither binary, nor strictly fit into a clear male/female division is commonly reduced to "trans people think sex isn't real."

Last, but not least, is the assumption that trans people think about gender in the binary of man/woman. Perhaps some do, but not myself, and there's quite a lot of trans people that don't fit any binary at all who are also affected by the various systems that maintain gender as binary and hierarchical.

Which means that the answer to this question is "we aren't" but also the question itself is so steeped in specific underlying assumptions that a direct answer legitimizes them. It's not just that the answer to the question is "we aren't" it's that the context of the question is wrong. It's meant to draw the topic into the grounds of "what trans people want other people to do" rather than "we would like greater equality with regard to sex and gender overall, and better medical care for everyone."

2) "Why cant there be men/women and transmen and transwomen. Clearly yall recognize theres a difference. Why not just embrace it"

This one is fun, because it's taking something that is already part of a more complex idea of gender, and inverting it. Again, it's still trying to fix this as strictly men and women, which is really fascinating with how much I try to beat the drum about sex and gender not being limited male or female. But, okay, we know they're trying to keep this as a binary argument and that's a fallacy from the jump.

The idea here is that there should be separate but equal categories of "woman and trans woman" and "man and trans man." But a system that both addresses this and is inclusive rather than exclusionary already exists. We have a broad gender category of woman or man, and this can include cis, trans, intersex, and others. Rather than trying to separate out woman or man as categories which can only include an idea of gender which, when you get down into the construction of gender, doesn't exist, a more useful tool is to understand that woman or man are both broader categories which can include multiple versions of those genders. Not only that, but it allows us to more usefully understand how gender isn't always reduced to male or female. Intersex can exist as its own category to include trans as a subset. Nonbinary can exist as a category to include trans masculine / feminine as a subset, and so on.

The underlying assumption here is that "recognizing genders are different" means "recognizing that if you are trans you should be excluded from any cis gender" and so again the answer here is "we already do that" but the assumption is wrong enough that there's no way to answer it yes or no with out legitimizing the idea of gender as exclusionary and reductive.

3) "instead of demonizing the rest of society"

In this case "demonizing" really just means "people who are openly bigoted experience relatively minor public disapproval while continuing to promote bigotry."

And "the rest of society" is akin to the previous assumption in that it has a framework where there are "trans people" and "society" and the two are separate. It additionally contextualizes "all of society" as equivalent with "opposed to trans rights" while in reality it's typically people with transphobic views who are in the minority.

Lastly, it includes the idea that trans people, as a relatively small percentage of the global population, have the ability to "demonize" the entirety of all global societies which, once you think about the idea that trans people are some fully united group around the world oppressing a generic and homogeneous non-trans society, it's clear this entire statement is patently absurd.

4) "for also recognizing theres a difference between trans people and cispeople."

This is basically a rehash of earlier items, but the false assumption here is that just because we understand sex and gender can have significant variation from binary male or female does not mean it is equivalent to the exclusionist reduction of "biological man/woman" and binary genders only. It's possible to recognize differences in people in ways that are oppressive or in ways that promote equity. The "recognized" difference this anon is talking about is the oppressive version, but by equating all differences as functionally the same, they are trying to create a narrative where these differences maintain systemic oppression, rather than reduce it.

Anyway, thank you for the added stimulation anon, it's been awhile since I dissected a bad-faith ask to demonstrate how hiding underlying assumptions in seemingly simple statements can be used to direct people towards authoritarian positions, without appearing to do so. As we can see, most of these questions, if addressed on their own terms, require engaging with gender view a lens of systemic oppression. If we don't unpack these innate details, it can be very easy to be drawn into debate on the grounds of the oppressor's assumptions, and follow what seems like a logical pathway to authoritarian ideals.

Note also how short and simple each statement is. By reducing complex ideas to very simple statements, it makes it a little more difficult to peel back the layers and see the intent. It also is designed to direct your attention away from looking for those underlying assumptions. By making it more difficult to consider complex ideas and easier to draw you in to conversing in a way which accepts those ideas, the question itself becomes a kind of rhetorical weapon.

(I haven't checked this over for grammar or consistency)

#long post #transphobia #authoritarianism