#Re-Asserting a Feminine Tradition

[odettecarotte]

Re: the Kristen Stewart Rolling Stone shoot

It's giving JD Samson. I guess even the gays can have a lil Y2K revival.

(I haven't even read the article. I am purely responding to the images before I go to work LOL.)

The #tag comments begging/joking about Kristen going on T, in her response to her own longing for "a little mustache, a happy trail" are very understandable. You all want to push her gender fuckery from fantasy into reality, from metaphor into the concrete, into what Saketopouou calls "the more and more" of gender OVERWHELM and of course that is HOT!!!

But even before Bella starts microdosing testosterone (or maybe she's already started, more power to her!), let us just pause, and fully appreciate this image in this moment. What if we take KStew at her word? What if this photshoot truly is "the gayest thing ever," in the grand tradition of Deep Lez aesthetics and a certain flavor of lesbian gender (which could never be TERFy because it is so clearly distinct from cis women's genders, is a creative response to different kinds of pain points, both fucking with and getting fucked over).

It reminds me of this passage, quoted in Sexuality Beyond Consent:

"I was female-assigned at birth," writes the queer theorist Kathryn Bond Stockton. "Though [my own sense was that] I was a boy… mistaken for a girl. And though I was, to my mind, the ultimate straight man seeking normally feminine women, I turned out a "lesbian," against my will-though in accord with my desires. As for my girlfriend she grew up, to her mind, normally feminine, as a rural Mormon raised in rural Utah. In her twenties, after her male fiancé died, after she didn't go on a mission, after she walked across the US for nuclear disarmament, she met lesbians and wished she could be one, so cool did they seem to her. But, she figured, she wasn't a lesbian. Long story short: I didn't want the sign ["lesbian"] but was pierced by it; she quite wanted it but didn't think she'd gain it. We have [both] been dildoed by th[at] sign. We've been pleasured by it, as it's come inside us-I've had to try to take it like a man. (2015)

Close up on Kristen Stewart on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. She's rubbing her clit underneath a jock strap. Read Sarah Tomasin Fonseca's essay in "It Came From the Closet" for a little foray into the erotics of jacking off into stolen male underwear. A truly young and otherwise disempowered dyke might steal underwear from a male relative, now we can buy what we like at the store, but the relationality is always there. Although the jock might get the most attention, Kristen is also wearing a pointelle thong in pure white cotton from Cou Cou Intimates, a brand which profits from Millennials sexualizing our girlhoods. They advertise to me on Instagram and I get skin shivers at the ability to choose, buy back and own the thong versions of underpants we wore even before men in AIM chatrooms asked us our bra sizes (when we were 11). And Kristen is wearing this delicate piece of panty in the men's locker room.

Part of the power of dyke sociality and sexuality is exclusivity. A "woman's" right to refusal can mean prioritizing other dykes, and asserting the irrelevance of straight men. And yet, in the realm of the sexual unconscious, we all know about each other. We all must deal with each other. In the words of Avgi Saketopoulou, we are all acting ON each other.

Much as the fetish clothing in the gay male leather scene comes from the uniforms of the armed forces, police, and working class, before it is transformed and inducted into delightful and perverted hiérarchies, Kristen plays with sartorial signals which might have their base in other genders, but which she uses to construct a gorgeous dyke existence.

The juxtaposition with men, not just with masculine trappings or locations, which are more easily taken over, was unsettling for me! I was scared for her! The image of her on the floor, mouth open: She's On Our Backs! But she's not, she's on the cover of Rolling Stone, the largest subscriber base is probably white Gen X men. Kristen on the floor lies in both the power and powerlessness in non-normative dyke sexuality. She's wearing an outfit that might make more sense in a leathermen bar -- decadent black leather vest, exposing jock strap -- in front of an objectified Black man. Who is he, and who is he to her? (Who is he to the dudes who subscribe to Rolling Stone?) He is jacked, with sweat (or more likely oil) artfully dripping down his washboard abs to the visible bulge in his gym shorts. A leather bar is a place to find danger, but this man is not at the leather bar. Together, they are in the men's locker room, a dangerous place for a queer or a woman. However, they seem disinterested in each other and Kristen is not afraid. She's skinny and milky (a weakling in many genders) and sitting like a neurodivergent queer, doing "hysterical clowning" with her knees up and posture hunched in front of a mirror in the men's locker room, next to a faceless white man with perfect posture and impossibly large biceps, and she also doesn't look afraid.

Her bangs have been cut with blunt scissors, messed up and sweaty. Nothing says queer like deliberately fucked up at home haircut. Finger in mouth, which reads submissive in straighter settings, but in queer orality, its giving top (if not dom) energy.

OK gotta go to work now, just wanted to blast off some associations before work!!!

#kristen stewart #rolling stone #dyke #jock strap #little girl underwear #avgi saketopoulou #kathryn bond stockton

[hatchetation]

re: your recent ask about lucy. i totally agree with you. i think it seems like we don't know as much about lucy in comparison because there's this odd sense of loneliness in what we've seen of her life, that at first glance doesn't seem to fit with her outgoing character. we've seen jane with maggie, her kids. and her ex a lot. we see kai with his dad and hina. we've seen jesse's daughter, and he's always talking about his wife. we even got that clip of ernie with that painting instructor (?). aside from the brief skylar storyline, which tbh had everything to do with kate, we don't see lucy really have a life outside of work and kate (which lucy even says). i think to some people that indicates that we don't know her too well, since it seems in contrast with her outgoing personality, but i actually think it's not so much an oversight, but actually a more purposeful, interesting aspect of her character. she's a more private person than she first appears, and i don't think it's a stretch to say that aside from her work friends, she was probably rather lonely before kate-- hence the bar story. to me lucy has so far been written as a more emotionally complex character than most of the others. we might not know all the details of her personal life, but i think we know her personality, and how she would react in certain situations, better than that of, say, jesse. like if you asked me to come up with 5 adjectives to describe their personalities i know for a fact i couldn't for jesse, or even jane or kai, probably.

1000% this anon! I completely agree. And to add one or two things, I think there's a tradeoff on this show where we can either get a bunch of facts about the characters or we can get emotional depth and complexity. Some of this is also very very tied into this split audience that I think NCIS: Hawai'i is trying to appeal to. Like we have the traditional NCIS audience (if I had to guess, I'd say this audience is mostly older white men, more conservative) and that audience is mostly there for the action tbqh. It makes sense for a show like this because like I said, there's not a lot of time for character development so you want the audience to be able to understand the character with just a few fun facts about them. Like Jesse Boone is this blank slate in many ways meant for people to project onto-- and if I were a white man I would probably project like hell onto Jesse because I'd just want to be the manly, protective man who's seen some tough stuff but still has a heart of gold. In Jane's case, she kind of has to be this super mom archetype who's juggling parenting and her job. I mean if we remove all the NCIS bells and whistles, that's what her role boils down to. She's the center of the show, the leader, and this a franchise that has only had white male leads up til now so there's pressure on her. So Jane needs to be tough but fair, she needs to be level headed always, she needs to be able to assert herself but maintain her femininity...

But then we have Lucy and to me Lucy is more of a wild card and her character is playing to a more "diverse" millennial audience. She talks about feelings, she's outgoing and playful and friendly, she's emotional--where Jane isn't really allowed to go too deep into her feels, Lucy gets to be in it, gets to lash out and glare and also smile really big and be openly affectionate. And so yeah, like you're saying, Lucy really has a personality. We don't know all the fun facts about her, but we have a sense of her interiority, her emotionality, her character. In conclusion, I love her sm 🥺

#this ask was so interesting thank you!!! #lucy tara #kate whistler #lucy x kate #whistara #ncis hawaii #jane tennant #jesse boone

[janedyson4thyear]

Millner, Jacqueline, and Catriona Moore. Contemporary Art and Feminism.

Conclusion pg 238

The seemingly simple question—how can feminism translate into a socialmovement today?—is a wake-up call for feminists working in the academy and theartworld to keep reaching beyond these contexts to re-develop a grass roots politicsof alliance. An interesting recent turn is feminist artists extending their practice intothe formal sphere of political institutions, seeking and securing seats in local legis-latures by campaigning on their expertiseasartists, highlighting how artists haveparticular insights into community issues and the capacity for creative solutions.

feminist art as an activistpolitics of alliance, with three main strategic emphases, namely, decolonisation; re-imagining the art/life divide, and problematising‘equality’politics.

Ethnicity won’t join a white feminist agenda. It will transform it. It willbecome the central agenda of feminism, as rightly it should, because we arethe majority...the groundwork laid by white feminists of the 1970s, that bodyof knowledge, will be a resource, but we will have to redefine it according to238Conclusion

the experience of women of colour...I can’t relate to the universality of allwomen. We make these bridges tentatively, we don’t make assumptions, webuild a relationship slowly...It’s a long struggle, a long time buildingbridges

https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/stable/1358556

In reconsidering the historical disjunct between the studio and the street,

feminism dovetails with, and draws upon, centuries of de-colonial cultural resis-

tance by linking the artworld to other social spaces through a porous art practice

Artists registered excessive (including failed or under-performing) gendered sub-jectivities and sexual proclivities that complicated the representational demand to bemiddle class, white, straight and good looking. White feminists also learnt from FirstNations’perspectives that proposed a decolonising non-essentialism as a starting pointfor resistant acts of sovereignty, rather than investigating the politics of media/high artrepresentation as a (postmodern) end in itself. Feminist artists broadened their sightsbeyond the circularity of representational politics, towards a politics of acts rather thanof identities.

Across these diverse spaces, we noted how

feminist pedagogy has always been provisional, just as concepts of feminist aes-

thetics have never settled

Renewed attention to the materiality of feminist arts and crafting from the 1990salso helped to sideline the linguistic models that underpinned psychoanalytic ana-lyses of gender and sexual identities. Material practices could directly link to gen-erative and generous acts of non-essentialised common cause and care.

We argued that feminism contributes new artistic perspectives on art and envir-onment by confronting the lingering and gendered view within Western thoughtof nature as feminine and/or racially other.

These challenges have further transformedthe anthropocentric terms whereby Western landscape traditions read the land toexpress self-realisation through divine or proprietorial connection, to help build aneducative, ecological ethics.We noted how feminist participatory actions often have a community base devel-oped through listening to other voices and opening up overlooked spaces of cultural agency

The idea that personal life has political implications (and vice versa) lies at the heartof feminism and of this book. Consciousness raising methods derived fromWomen’s Liberation, such as supportive group reflection on the political implica-tions of women’s personal experience, found their way into feminist aesthetics asan interrogative tool and a means to assert, diffuse and multiply agency. It’s time toacknowledge how feminism introduced this expandedfield of the everyday, thedomestic and the collective into the artworld

it has now become an aestheticnorm in global exhibitions of contemporary art, with artists creating‘diurnal’pro-jects responding to local problems, working with local art co-ops, unexpected sites,

walks and mapping to engage memory and place

This book has tried to under-stand the varied ways that‘the personal is political’has shifted both the way we doart and the way we do politics. This slogan is still relevant today, in promptingintersectional reflection on how experiences of gender are also articulated by race,class, sexuality, disability, religion and geography

the traditional political creed of‘human solidarity’.

[hypers-of-music]

Traditions of Gender: An Overview of Daddy Yankee's "Gasolina"

Reggaeton music is often dominated by the images of either the hyper masculine and/or the hyper feminine, they can however coexist, although primarily in the traditional productions of male reggaetoneros. 

The music video of Daddy Yankee’s 2004 hit, “Gasolina” is one of the most prominent examples of this intersection, in which there is a visible (as well as audible) meeting of masculine and feminine extremes. 

Daddy Yankee’s hyper-masculine presence in “Gasolina” is blatant as the singer of the track as well as his role in the music video as the only significantly featured male. Despite being dressed plainly in a denim jacket and jeans, his body language is assertive and the dominance of his appearance is only supported by the camera’s consistent centering of his face and upper body (even with a background full of women). 

The 2022 article “Reggaeton music videos on YouTube: Policies on gender stereotypes” emphasizes this point through a slightly statistical lens, in which they collect data from music videos across the YouTube platform. The authors use the videos of Daddy Yankee, Anuel AA, and J. Balvin (who are some of the most recognizable names in the reggaeton genre) to collect their data and perform their analysis on. Their article describes a very similar finding of the dominance and sexism present in these videos, “We observe a great difference between the stereotypes of women and men, the dominance of men's roles over those of women is maintained,” (Carpio-Jiménez, et. al 4). It re-affirms the existence and maintenance of this hyper-masculine imagery, however they overlook the significance of the female presence. The women in these videos are often scarcely clothed background dancers or love interests, “the following stereotypes for women were determined: sexual object, sexy figure, submissive, fun complement, among others” (Carpio-Jiménez, et. al 4). And I don’t think they’re wrong in their conclusions, but I think they are also more nuanced than what this article describes as being, and I think a consideration of their agency in these videos is necessary.

Coming back to Daddy Yankee, we see in “Gasolina” that the traditional role of femininity in reggaeton is that of the dancer to be objectified by the dominant figure of the man, his particular portrayal in the early 2000’s complicates these traditions by confronting them through the quasi-dominance of the featured dancers. 

The traditional role of femininity in reggaeton is that of the dancer to be objectified by the dominant figure of the man, but Daddy Yankee’s particular portrayal in the early 2000’s complicates these traditions by confronting them through the quasi-dominance of the featured dancers. 

Female background dancers become an integral part of reggaeton music videos, yet the focus on their bodies in these is undoubtedly an example of the music industry’s commodification of femininity. While Daddy Yankee was fully clothed, the women of the video are much more exposed in bathing suits and micro-skirts. Their physical role is therefore defined by their bodies, and even lyrically they contribute little besides a collective, “Dame mas gasolina [Give me more gas]”. There is an obvious objectification of the women, but there is also an underlying theme of agency. They are assertive in expressing their sexual desires and embody a sense of agency by doing so, which does at least begin to subvert traditional notions of femininity and submission. 

There is a subtle fluidity of the hyper-feminine and hyper-masculine in this music genre, one which the current generation of reggaetoneros has sought to abandon in order to embrace a more visible subversion of tradition.  

#reggaeton #latino #music #Youtube

[wollesenthestrup5]

replica birkin bag 28

Hermes Birkin 35 Niloticus Crocodile Himalayan Palladium The reply I just reviewed is decent and, frankly, it could occur as the original in any situation. If you follow the above pointers, I am positive you could also buy an impressive and good quality Hermes replica bag. I am positive we all can agree that the Hermes Birkin Togo is not a trendy bag, it's a timeless one. It is a purse that many ladies dream of getting. I think New Zealand needs to get smart and disrupt things with our own native versions of peer to look platforms ones that actually share with the local economies. Animals of the oil spill When a pipeline ruptures and an oil spills happens, the environment isn’t the only sufferer. Countless animals unaware that their habitat has been sullied unknowingly swim, fly and walk into danger. Your main concern could also be perform Swimwear Women’s Bikinis, but you still need to look good in your swimsuit. You’ll nonetheless discover the recognizable padlock and deal with on this selection. Plus, the bag is produced from a high-quality cow leather-based and is available in fashionable black or darkish blue along with six different lighter color options—all of that are great for summer. We put in significant time and effort to guarantee that our knock off handbags are perfectly replicated. We get all of the minor details right to ensure that nobody will know you’re carrying a designer replica. Most importantly, we use the highest-grade supplies. re-pin.me replica hermes birkin Most on-line sellers fail to recreate the interiors of Gucci purses and LV replica purses with the identical superior craftsmanship as the original. Copyright © 2012 Powered by Hermes Handbags of Hermes Birkin All Rights Reserved. If you need help with the authentication of your Hermes Birkin bag, we’ve obtained you coated. The genuine Hermes Birkin bag does not present any space between its stitches, as they're all positioned close one to a different, not like the faux bag’s stitches. And the key right here is to properly qualify the supply that you’re going to get from. The place that I’m going to tell you is a secret to a lot of people. It’s an open secret, but it’s a secret nonetheless. And of course, the Birkin bag was designed exclusively for British Blow-Up star Jane Birkin. Now, an exhibition opening this week in London pairs up Hermès baggage with artworks to attract a parallel between artwork and luxury handicraft. wikipedia handbags Brands Empire is the most effective place for you, they’re the proper place to buy high quality bags of all manufacturers. It offers me confidence that my bag goes to arrive in flawless situation. I know that it'll possess the identical traits and options at the actual thing. I’m sorry, however your evaluation sounds suspicious. At the start you say you’ve discovered it inconceivable to buy an genuine Birkin, but by the top you are “putting it subsequent to my different Birkins from the Hermes store”. I personal many baggage that price me about 3,000-6,000$. They all get scratched and damaged from using. Handbags are cone possession that females hold very close to their heart. Every feminine has the liking for handbags of their unique type, and each style has a special trend assertion to say. The most famous handbags across the globe are the Hermes Baghandbags. The reason for this being the extraordinary and costly supplies used together with magnanimous artisanship. The Kelly bag got here to existence within the early a half of Thirties and was quickly in a position to have a optimistic impact available on the market. The Hermes Birkin was very quickly dream of the ladies. These firms took the unique frame and attempted to recreate the bag in haste. While it looks good on the surface, the fabric was low high quality. Then, I took to the Internet and started my search. I found that I could simply buy pretend LV baggage without leaving my residence. It was thought-about a traditional piece from the LV. Finding the best luxurious bag is a dream of each girl, and a few are very much prepared to battle tooth and nail just to... If we have a glance at the Hermes Birkin 30 bag in Togo, the genuine model would cost virtually USD eleven,000. Even if you have this money to spend, the following problem comes with the stock, which implies you have to add your name to an intensive waiting list. If I can discover a ‘looked so real Birkin” with that value, I would like to have some. MATERIAL ❤️ This stylish prime deal with bag is created from high-quality eco-friendly vegan leather. Inside this replica of Hermes Birkin, we discover a small pocket. Unfortunately, this pocket could be very skinny and can't deposit so many issues inside.

#birkin bag replica #replica birkin #replica hermes birkin

[littleflowerofchrist]

”There are many opinions about the practice of women wearing a head covering at Mass. I have heard—and personally expressed—the idea that women who wear the veil are vain and holier-than-thou: exactly like those Pharisees who widen their phylacteries for all to see. I have also heard—and believed—that the veil is an antiquated symbol of a misguided view on women’s submission, like the Muslim burqa, a remnant of an old belief that women are unworthy and must humbly cover themselves if they want to appear in church, while men have no need to.

I have heard Catholic apologists and some priests criticize the chapel veil because lay women are appropriating a symbol of nuns—nuns are the brides of Christ, not lay women. As for Saint Paul, well, that is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture—women need to cover their heads in church for the sake of the angels? What? Why? Besides, just because it was appropriate in Paul’s time for women to wear veils in church, times change, expectations change, and we don’t need to hang on to every old practice.

It is incredible how much heat arises in these conversations. Who knew a little piece of lace could cause such anger, such bitterness, such frustration. For years, I rolled my eyes at women who opted to veil. They irritated me so much. Why did they have to make us traditional Catholics look so weird?

So you might be surprised that, on the first Sunday of Advent, four years ago, I snuck into church wearing a chapel veil. The previous week, while cooking dinner for my then-fiancé, I had broken down crying and told him that I really wanted to follow that old tradition. My fiancé (now husband) was bewildered why this would make me cry. But he told me that if I wanted to, then I should go out and get one and do it. I could always take it off.

When I say snuck, I mean it. The first time you wear a chapel veil, you feel like you went to Mass stark naked. The lace kept sliding off of my head until I basically nailed it on with bobby pins. The only other woman wearing a veil at Mass that day was carved out of marble and stood five feet up the front wall. She was the only thing I looked at the whole liturgy. Strength in numbers?

I decided to wear a chapel veil because, in preparing for the sacrament of marriage, I had suddenly been confronted with the question of femininity in ways that before, I had never deeply considered. The modern world tells us women that, since we are man’s equal, we must aggressively assert our presence in every facet of life, and destroy any last vestige of that tired differentiation of the sexes. Then, and only then, when the last of those socially constructed differences between us have been razed, will we truly be able to express ourselves as women.

The problem is, the modern world is trying to liberate us from ourselves. Modern society demands that women be able to compete with men, to show that there is nothing actually different about us. The modern world, for all of its lip-service to diversity, is terrified of differences. It does not know how to cope with true differences because it can only see relationships in terms of power struggles: who can best whom, who is oppressing whom? If you are different, if you have a different nature then, the modern world concludes, it must be because some tyrannical force is keeping you from your full potential to be exactly the same as everyone else.

But true equality is not sameness. God created us male and female and found us to be very good, but he did not ever intend to create us exactly the same, with irrelevant bodily differences that can be hacked off, ignored, or chemically altered as we see fit. God is entirely too fine a craftsman for that.

I wear the chapel veil at Mass as an affirmation and an embrace of my feminine difference. According to the ancient traditions of the Church, only women may be veiled in the presence of God. Have you ever noticed that, while a bishop can enter the church with his miter, he takes it off during most parts of the Mass? Even the pope must take his zucchetto (the little skull cap) off of his head during the Consecration. Men are not allowed to cover their heads in church. When the bishop and the pope remove their head coverings, they are submitting themselves in humility before the presence of God, not asserting some sort of male superiority with their bare heads. When more of society wore hats, it was a much more obvious sign, but even today, we acknowledge that when a man removes his hat, it is a sign of deference and respect—and if you need a reminder, pay attention the next time the national anthem is sung. Within the context of the Mass, bishops, monks, and the pope remind us of this ancient sign of male reverence. Similarly, whatever Saint Paul meant by his reference to the angels, the chapel veil has been a way for women to show our reverence to God in our own, uniquely feminine way since the days of the Apostles.

Many people are confused as to why a veil is a particularly fitting sign of reverence for a woman. I have heard many explanations, some better than others, some more historically or theologically probable than others. Some women say that they like the veil because it makes them feel like a bride, some even saying that it makes them feel like a bride of Christ. Whether or not it is proper for a lay woman to consider herself a bride of Christ, I would like to point out that both traditions—veils on brides and nuns—comes from the older tradition of the chapel veil. Women do not wear veils because they are nuns; nuns wear veils because they are women. Women wear veils when they get married because it is an echo of that ancient feminine tradition of women wearing veils at church.

One possible explanation for the feminine quality of the veil that I personally love is that it symbolizes our role as vessels. A priest—I wish I could remember his name—once pointed out that the Church puts veils on its most sacred of vessels—tabernacles traditionally are covered in fine cloth, either on the inside or out, the altar that bears the Eucharist is covered, as is the chalice. Women are like the chalice or the tabernacle by our nature: we are vessels that can bear children—a holy and blessed calling. The contraceptive mentality of the modern world is attempting to eradicate this difference, this distinctively feminine difference, in pursuit of its value of sameness that it has mistaken for equality. In these days, when the life of the unborn is held rather cheaply, and the family is under assault, I wear the chapel veil as an embrace of my distinctly feminine nature.

In our modern world, there is sometimes an overemphasis on understanding the reasons behind something, and, if we cannot find reasons that adequately justify a tradition, we often are tempted to dismiss it as arbitrary and useless. Now, I am not dismissing our inquisitive spirit—it is important to understand the things that we do. However, traditions, especially those of our ancient church, should not be cast aside because they do not have a clearly documented reason behind them. You probably ate your Thanksgiving dinner last year without demanding a justification for why it should be turkey. More than likely, last December, you set up your Christmas tree, not bothering too much about why Christians started putting formerly pagan trees in their houses to celebrate Christ’s birth. We still expect our priests to wear their proper robes at Mass and the same people who find the chapel veil weird do not hotly contend that those robes need to be justified or tossed out as an irrelevant hold-over of Byzantine fashion. Tradition binds us together and gives our faith a richness, mystery, and depth that the modern world finds frightening because it cannot be satisfactorily explained.

Last Christmas, an old man came up to me after the vigil mass and told me with a smile that my chapel veil had made him remember his grandmother back in Russia long ago. I wear the chapel veil today because it binds me to two thousand years of Christian, Catholic women, from Mary the Mother of God to Mary Queen of Scots, from Saint Catherine of Avila to Jackie Kennedy. It is one of the most ancient traditions of our Holy Mother Church; it is a beautiful tradition of women.” 

#chapel veils #mantillas #resources #feminine genius #Church tradition #Crisis magazine #Mary Cuff #Re-Asserting a Feminine Tradition #Catholic womanhood #to meditate on #modern-day #being in the world #Mary #my patroness #my mother in Heaven #my joy #my heart #my soul #please pray for your little daughters here on Earth!

[hekatepoetryxxwriting]

How is the transgression of boundaries explored in ‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter and ‘Carmilla’ by J. Sheridan Le Fanu?

In ‘Carmilla’ by J. Sheridan Le Fanu and ‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter, the idea of female oppression being thwarted by the women’s self-awareness of their sexuality and their ability to use it as a form of power is explored through various boundary transgressions in both novels. ‘Carmilla’ be Le Fanu was influenced by real life Countess Elizabeth Bathory and was the predecessor to Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’. ‘Carmilla’ is also referenced in Angela Carter’s short story ‘The Bloody Chambers’ (it is the name given to one of the Marquis’ previous wives), thus linking the two novels together.

In another one of Carter’s stories, ‘The Company of Wolves’, there is a transgression of gender roles regarding the girl in the story. In the Gothic genre, women usually fall into three types: The Trembling Victim, The Femme Fatale, and The Crone. However, the child in this story is none of these, and displays strength that defies the stereotypes in her confrontation with the werewolf as seen when she ‘burst out laughing; she knew she was nobody’s meat’[1], which is itself is sexual symbolism that makes the ‘meat’ a metaphor for the sexual objectification of women’s bodies, which she rejects by laughing. Her laughter is also a mockery of the patriarchal expectation of submissiveness that men believe all women possess. It suggests that the girl is aware of the power her sexuality carries, much like a femme fatale. The same could also be said for ‘Carmilla’, where Laura’s father ‘won’t consent to you leaving us’[2]even though he has no familial ties to Carmilla. In both stories, the fathers seem to be in a superior position within the family, and evidence of this can be found not only in that quote from ‘Carmilla’, but also from the line ‘Her father might forbid her’[3]in ‘The Company of Wolves’. The verb ‘forbid’suggests that he hold powers over his daughter and is able to control her actions. This is a reflection of the patriarchal family systems which were in place up until the late 1970s, when men were considered the breadwinners. Angela Carter, a feminist, was part of the movement that broke down those family systems; Carroll Davids referred to this in her review of Angela Carter; “Angela Carter’s portrayal of husbands and fathers not only reflects the ideals of her time, but also contradicts them on occasion with the femininity of the men.”[4]

There is also a transgression of gender through the empowerment of female characters in ‘Carmilla’ and ‘The Werewolf’. In both of these texts, the female character succeeds through her own means, rather than relying on a man to support her. In ‘Carmilla’, it is through death that Carmilla is able to gain power. This idea is strengthened through Laura’s speech to Carmilla in Chapter 4, where she asserts that ‘Girls are caterpillars while they live in the world, to be finally butterflies when the summer comes’[5]. The use of this metaphor suggests that girls are only free of the constraints that surround women when they have died, a suggestion that is supported by Colleen Damman’s analysis of the novel “as a woman, Carmilla can only claim her sexuality after death. Thus, vampirism is the only way she can express her own carnal desires. Besides marriage, becoming a vampire is one of the only ways that female sexuality is licensed in the Victorian era”[6]. Meanwhile, in ‘The Werewolf’, the child represents the New Woman and is pitted against her grandmother, who represents the generation of women who have fallen under the thumb of a patriarchal society. The final line states ‘Now the child lived in her grandmother’s house; she prospered.’[7]which implies that the child benefits from the downfall of the previous generation and is able to live happily without a husband or children. This conclusion suggests that women can live complete and fulfilled lives without needing to be married. Angela Carter’s feminist views on empowerment were controversial during her lifetime, including negative reviews for her book ‘The Sadeian Woman’ due to its defence of the Marquis de Sade, who wrote violent erotic novels that many consider sexist and inspired the word ‘sadism’. In regards to the empowerment in ‘Carmilla’, Elizabeth Signorotti states that “Le Fanu allows Laura and Carmilla to usurp male authority and to bestow themselves on whom they please, completely excluding male participation in the exchange of women”[8].

The inclusion of the female ‘Monster’ in ‘The Lady of the House of Love’ and ‘Carmilla’ also transgresses the boundaries placed around gender and the roles women play in society. The Countess is a vampire, much like Carmilla, and bears similarities to Elizabeth Bathory, the acclaimed ‘Blood Countess' who was rumoured to be a relation of Vlad the Impaler. The Countess in Carter’s tale embodies the idea of a Gothic Femme Fatale through the description ‘Everything about this beautiful and ghastly lady is as it should be, queen of night, queen of terror’[9]- the repetition of ‘queen’ places emphasis upon her position within the story. She is the highest authority within the text, being the queen, and is not subject to male dominance. In ‘Carmilla’, the monster is humanised at its death by Laura ‘a sharp stake was driven through the heart of the vampire, who uttered a piercing shriek at the moment, in all respects such as might escape from a living person in the last agony.’[10]and a simile is used to liken the monster’s pain to that of a human’s, implying that Carmilla is not actually that different from human beings. It seems that Le Fanu, like Carter, is suggesting that women who are free from male dominated societies are not monsters but are in fact just as human as everyone else. Le Fanu’s decision to focus on a female vampire may have been influenced by the legends he would have known growing up, namely the stories of the Leanan Sidhe and the Dearg-Due. These myths revolved around female vampiric creatures that preyed upon Irish youths and left a lasting effect on the victims even after the creature’s death (Laura never fully recovers from the effect of Carmilla, and often imagines she will return.). A connection between Le Fanu and the myths of the Leanan Sidhe and the Dearg-Due can be made as his mother read Irish folk tales to him when he was a child.

The continued transgression of gender moves onto the reversal of gender roles in ‘The Erl King’ and ‘Carmilla’. In ‘The Erl King’, the titular character defies the stereotypical role of men in literature as it states that ‘He is an excellent housewife.’ -[11]Carter ironically using the feminine spousal term for him. Aside from this, he has long hair he frequently combs and he takes part in activities that were frequently considered feminine, such as cooking, basket weaving and collecting flowers. Carter may have taken elements from the traditional Pagan god ‘The Green Man’ and his myth; he completed a loop in which he would conceive a child with ‘The Goddess’, die, and then be reborn as the child he created. Certainly, the Erl King is similar in appearance, as well as the narrator of the story stating ‘I would lodge inside your body and you would bear me’[12]. This is a metaphorical reference to birth, something only females are capable of, which juxtaposes the idea of the Erl King birthing the narrator. ‘Carmilla’ does the opposite, as Le Fanu gives Carmilla masculine qualities, the most obvious being her inhuman strength ‘and unscathed, caught him in her tiny grasp by the wrist.’[13]The use of the adjective ‘tiny’juxtaposes the power Carmilla is able to demonstrate. Moreover, a less obvious trait of masculinity is Carmilla’s lesbianism which was , in Le Fanu’s time, sinful in Ireland, and sexual desire for women would have only been acceptable from men. The inclusion of homoerotic features in ‘Carmilla’ points towards Le Fanu’s possibly relaxed view of homosexuality, as pointed out by Christy Byks, who states “Le Fanu, one of the godfathers of Gothic, appears to draw upon features that women would not have been given during his era, and his writing of Carmilla and her inability to fit in with most female Gothic characters would likely have been a topic of controversy within Ireland, a country ruled by religion.”[14]. This idea is supported by the introduction of Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’, which takes many ideas from ‘Carmilla’. Many literary theorists suggest that Bram Stoker wrote ‘Dracula’ as an answer to the female centric ‘Carmilla’, choosing to re-focus the story upon men, with women being forced back into smaller, weaker roles.

Further transgressions of boundaries, including the transgression of religious boundaries, can be viewed in ‘The Company of Wolves’. This story mocks religion through an intrusive narrator who informs you ‘you can hurl your Bible at him and your apron after, granny… and all the angels in heaven to protect you but it won’t do you any good.’[15]This is the intruding narrator mocking the two key aspects that Carter believed held women back, that being the ‘Bible’and the ‘apron’, which is a not just a symbol of stereotypical femininity; a feminist literary study showed that almost every female character in a fairy-tale wears an apron, referencing their roles as the housewife. seems to be Carter herself, who openly stated that she thinks “Mother Goddesses are just as silly a notion as father gods. If a revival of the myths of these cults gives women emotional satisfaction, it does so at the price of obscuring the real conditions of life. This is why they were invented in the first place.”[16]Rather similarly, in ‘Carmilla’, Le Fanu presents Carmilla’s aversion to religion, and portrays a fight between Carmilla and Laura’s father, which could represent an argument about nature versus God. Carmilla speaks against Christianity ‘”Creator! _Nature! _” said the young lady in answer to my gentle father. “And this disease that invades the country… and under the earth, act and live as Nature ordains? I think so”’[17]. The caesura used between the words ‘creator’and ‘nature’ not only symbolises her anger, but in placing a caesura here, Le Fanu separates God from Nature, and therefore denies religion the claim of creating everything. This scene contrasts with Le Fanu’s own background, whose father brought up the entire household with strong Catholic beliefs.

This questioning of religion perhaps suggests why there is also a transgression of moral boundaries in both texts. The ‘Trembling Victims’ within ‘Carmilla’ and ‘The Lady of the House of Love’ are Laura and the Soldier. Both texts include a similar juxtaposition of feelings towards the ‘monster’. In ‘Carmilla’, Laura portrays the Gothic feature of ‘The Uncanny, in people’s reaction to her; “but there was also something of repulsion. In this ambiguous feeling, however, the sense of attraction immensely prevailed.’[18]This shows that Laura subconsciously knows that something is wrong with Carmilla, because like most Victorians of the time, she reflects the belief that the appearance of a person was an indicator of their moral standing. Carter’s ‘The Lady of the House of Love’ has a similar scene in which ‘Her huge dark eyes almost broke his heart with their waiflike, lost look; yet he was disturbed, almost repelled, by her extraordinarily fleshy mouth’[19]The descriptive imagery and modified noun phrases work to emphasise the Countess’ appearance and how the soldier is affected by this, and it also represents the notion of the ‘Male Gaze’, the theory presented by Laura Mulvey, that women are either sexual objects there to satisfy men, or the housewife. The two notions are represented in the Gothic genre as the Femme Fatale and the Trembling Victim, and the Countess in ‘The Lady of the House of Love’ has facial features that are stereotypical of both women. Her ‘huge dark eyes’ and ‘waiflike, lost look’ are used often in the description of innocence, whilst her ‘extraordinarily fleshy mouth’ is a sign of sexualisation. Freud’s theory of ‘The Madonna and the Whore’ also comes into play here, as the Countess and Carmilla both bear qualities (both physically and metaphorically) of innocence and sexuality. The presentation of the soldier as a Trembling Victim links with Angela Carter’s view that not only should women become more masculine, but that men should also embrace femininity.

Laura in ‘Carmilla’ transgresses the sexual boundaries placed around her by choosing to refuse medical treatment from her father and the doctor. In doing so, she rejects the idea of curing her illness, which is a metaphor for lesbianism, and becomes free to make her own decisions in regards to her body. She takes on the dominant role in saying ‘I would not admit that I was ill, I would not consent to tell my papa, or to have the doctor sent for’[20]by making her own decisions regarding her wellbeing. The first-person pronoun ‘I’ is used so that the readers understand that Laura is the sole maker of these decisions. Through this illness, she has been able to gain freedom from her father. According to Christy Byks, Laura’s illness is a visualisation of what Victorian’s believed homosexuality was: a disease that needed to be cured. Byks says “Two ideas are at work in this passage. First is Laura’s father’s attempt to control the women who are becoming “ill” and dying; the men want to “cure” her (Laura) by making her well and keeping her among the living, for it is in death that the women break free… By making these interactions with Carmilla a medical problem, the situation can be contained and defined, thus still under the control of men”[21]. Angela Carter also provides transgressions of sexuality when placing women in the dominant position. In ‘The Company of Wolves’, it is the girl who makes the first move towards sexual intercourse, as suggested by the removal of her clothes in the extract ‘The thin muslin went flaring up the chimney like a magic bird and now came off her skirt, her woollen stockings, her shoes, and on to the fire they went, too, and were gone for good[22]’. A simile is used to present the girl’s clothes as a ‘magic bird’, and this personification of her clothing suggests that by removing her clothing, the girl, like a bird, is free to go wherever she wants to. The use of listing used within this quote also suggests that layers are being removed, eventually revealing the girl’s real desires beneath. Angela Carter herself believed that women were not given an equal role in sex, as stated in her book ‘The Sadeian Woman: The Ideology of Pornography’. In her comparison of Justine and Juliette, she states “Women do not normally fuck in the active sense. They are fucked in the passive tense and hence automatically fucked-up, done over, undone.”[23]and it is clear that this idea of a preference of submissive women over dominant ones had a large influence on how Angela Carter shaped her female protagonists and their attitudes to sexual desire, especially in regards to ‘Wolf-Alice’, who’s title character, like the Marquis De Sade’s Justine and Juliette, was originally housed in a convent after being found with the wolves.

The portrayal of the convent in ‘Wolf-Alice’ itself does not conform to the traditional view of religion, and instead transgresses religious boundaries by presenting the nuns not as kind, helpful religious figures, but instead as oppressive matriarchs; the nuns’ only purpose in the story is to attempt to integrate Wolf-Alice into the human society they live in, evidenced when ‘The nuns poured water over her, poked her with sticks to rouse her’[24]and ‘Therefore, without a qualm, this nine days’ wonder and continuing embarrassment of a child was delivered over to the bereft and unsanctified household of the Duke’[25]. When they find they are unable to manipulate her into becoming like everyone else, their choice is to pass her off to a male figure instead, whose house is described as ‘bereft and unsanctified[26]’, which is ironic, as it means the nuns, extremely religious beings, abandon their ward in a house that is considered unholy. This irony serves the purpose of being a metaphor for how society treats outcasts as whole, by isolating them from those considered normal. Angela Carter herself believed religion to be mythical, and stated “I’m interested in myths because they are extraordinary lies designed to make people unfree”.[27]The second transgression of religious boundaries in ‘Carmilla’ is during the funeral scene where Carmilla states ‘Besides, how can you tell your religion and mine are the same… everyone_must die; and all are happier when they do.’[28]and uses a caesura, perhaps to indicate the way she views life. The use of ‘Why you must die--_everyone_must die’[29]indicates how short life is, and the suddenness of death is reflected in the caesuras. Furthermore, the use of ‘your religion and mine’ seperates the two, and conflicts with Victorian ideas of religion. Christianity was considered the one true religion, and therefore Carmilla suggesting she followed another religion would have been heresy. As well as this, her pain at hearing religious hymns in the line ‘”There! That comes of strangling people with hymns!”’[30]presents the idea of a supernatural aversion to religion and foreshadows the reveal of Carmilla’s vampiric nature.

In conclusion, the varied transgressions presented within the two novels provide solid evidence of both authors’ awareness of the problems that are faced by females within traditional literary roles, and both Carter and Le Fanu are able to present their arguments using a variation of language features and characters whilst managing to keep a strong theme of female sexuality at the forefront of their stories.

[1]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [2]‘Carmilla’ by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu [3]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [4]Carroll Davids on: How Does Angela Carter Deconstruct Conventional And Repressive Gender Identities In The Bloody Chamber [5]‘Carmilla’ by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu [6]Colleen Damman on: Women's sexual liberation from Victorian patriarchy in Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla [7]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [8]Elizabeth Signorotti on: Repossessing the Body: Transgressive Desire in Carmilla and Dracula [9]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [10]‘Carmilla’ by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu [11]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [12]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [13]‘Carmilla’ by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu [14]Christy Byks on: Women's sexual liberation from Victorian patriarchy in Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla [15]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [16]‘The Sadeian Woman: The Ideology of Pornography’ by Angela Carter [17]‘Carmilla’ by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu [18]‘Carmilla’ by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu [19]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [20]‘Carmilla’ by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu [21]Christy Byks on: Women's sexual liberation from Victorian patriarchy in Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla [22]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [23] ‘The Sadeian Woman: The Ideology of Pornography’ by Angela Carter [24]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [25]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [26]‘The Bloody Chambers & Other Stories’ by Angela Carter [27]Angela Carter on: Religion by SlideShare [28]‘Carmilla’ by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu [29]‘Carmilla’ by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu [30]‘Carmilla’ by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu

#literature #academics #literature essay #gothic writing #gothic literature #carmilla #dracula #angela carter #joseph sheridan le fanu #feminism #writing #academic writing #academic essay #gothic essay #writing essay #essay

[pynkhues]

Why does Dean plead guilty? Is it bc of Phoebe? Is it because he wants to protect Beth? Is it because he wants to take the credit? Does it have to do with his male-ness? Have you already explored this topic? #questions

That’s such a good question, anon! It makes for a really interesting (and I actually think in-character) beat for Dean, and I think you’re right in the sense that it’s partially about protecting Beth and partially having to do with his male-ness, but I think there’s also something more fundamental at play.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how this show explores image, perception and projection, and how frequently those things are at the root of Beth and Dean’s arcs, both together and apart. These themes do of course feed into other character storylines (Annie at Ben’s school charity auction in 4.02 being one of the clearest examples of this – that was entirely about projecting an image to Ben’s peers and trying to change the way she would be perceived), but I don’t think it roots as deeply as it does in Beth and Dean, in no small part because Beth and Dean’s biggest audience is themselves.

So! Let’s break that down and talk about how that feeds into Dean pleading guilty.

Rose Coloured Boy (Rose Coloured Girl): nostalgia as the face of love

One of the things that’s always fascinating to me about Beth and Dean’s relationship is how often the show roots it in the past. One of the very first moments of Dean acting regretful over his cheating way back in 1.02 is through talking about the ‘fun stuff [he and Beth] did in the back seat in highschool’. That sense of the history of their romance is further emphasised in imagery of their past – Beth and Dean’s wedding photo is revisited frequently in season 1 while their anniversary is a key moment of the finale, Dean reminisces over screenshots of the kids as babies in season 2, and they even talk sweetly about anniversary dates, and their first apartment together after signing their divorce papers in 2.13.

This paints a picture of a tender history. One of young love and years of happiness and kindness, only it’s a history that the show has regularly, deliberately undermined.

All those beautiful pictures Dean’s looking at of his young family together and happy? Well, 2.05 confirmed that Beth was pregnant while he was having one of his affairs, so which of those photos are truly happy, and which were taken while Dean was betraying her? Similarly, they talk and joke about Valentine’s Day three years ago at the end of 3.08, but if he wasn’t having an affair with Amber then, he was likely having one with another woman.

The purpose of undermining history like this isn’t about the show forgetting or retconning these plot points – especially when the show ties these moments to other emotions, like Dean’s jealousy over Rio in 3.08 (and I’ll come back to that later), or Dean’s feelings of failure – but rather to establish the way that Beth and Dean both romanticise their past and paint it with a rose-coloured brush.

They tell themselves that they might not be happy today, but they were happy yesterday. And then they say that the next day and the next day and the next day, until every unhappy day, becomes a happy yesterday.

That romanticisation of their history is intrinsically tied to an image that they want to project to themselves. They have put so much time and energy into this thing between them, they have so many children, have so much of their lives entwined, that they need to believe that it’s all been worth it, because if it’s not, the image cracks and I don’t think either of them have the tools to handle that.

Which we kind of saw in 4.03.

It’s not an accident that the Beth and Dean flashbacks were in that episode – an episode that in a lot of ways fractured the image of Beth and Dean’s relationship, particularly for Dean. He’s been under the impression that they’re better, that they’re working again, that neither of them are cheating and Rio’s far away and Beth believes in him like she did before everything went wrong, and to discover that that image was false – was a projection of what Beth wanted him to believe, and perhaps simply what he himself wanted to believe too – is challenging to say the very least.

He was put in a position where he was faced not only with the extreme consequences of his wife’s actions, but a domino effect of lie after lie after lie, and the show choosing to take us back to the start of their relationship at that very moment, I think, shows us that the root of Beth and Dean’s relationship came back to Beth needing to be looked after, and Dean deciding, without knowing Beth very well, that he wanted to be the one to do it.

Macho Macho Man: Dean & Masculinity

Which brings us to Dean and masculinity. I’ve talked about the show’s exploration of masculinity quite a bit now (hell, it even has its own tag now, haha), and wrote a whole series of posts after 2.04 about male ego which I should probably update sometime to include s3 and s4,  but it really is one of the core themes of the show. It bubbles to the surface almost constantly and frequently becomes a driving factor of character motivations, particularly characters like Turner, who had his male ego challenged by Beth which resulted in a vendetta, to Boomer’s toxic masculinity driving him through much of the show.

For Dean though, his masculinity is frequently projected only to be destroyed, undermined or used against him in a way that ultimately completely emasculates him. The scene of Dean trying to reassert gender roles on himself and Beth only to have Rio bone his wife, destroy his prized car and insert himself into his business is perhaps the clearest example of that, but it manifests in plenty of other ways too. From hiring hitmen only to be robbed and have his wife’s panties stuck in his mouth, to buying the gun only to have it stolen, to think he’s establishing a new business for himself only to discover his wife’s pulling the strings with her ex-lover. Hell, even the fact of losing the business in the first place is inherently emasculating.

What I’m getting at is that every time Dean asserts himself in ways that are typically considered ‘Masculine’ – providing for his family, dominating his wife / treating her paternalistically, behaving with violent intents, establishing a business – it’s only to have that immediately undermined in the narrative. Dean likes this image for himself, and wants to project it, but the show keeps telling us that the image is a false one.

And then the show outright used that falsehood, and Dean’s insecurity over it, in 4.02 with Dave convincing Dean to give him the books, despite Beth telling him they weren’t ready.

Dean played right into his hand because Dave saw Dean’s masculinity for what it was – a projection covering an insecurity, which in turn, made Dean act thoughtlessly.

(Another pattern of behaviour for Dean! Like hiring the hitmen or cutting the money plate).

Dean’s commitment to the image of masculinity is in a lot of ways too tied to this idea of the rose-coloured image of his and Beth’s romantic history. Beth, from an image standpoint, is a case study in traditional femininity, and for much of their 20-year relationship, they’ve had their roles and they’ve stuck to them. The challenge of that throughout the course of the series is ultimately a challenge to the image that their relationship is based on, which in turn means that Dean’s feelings of failing masculinity end up being tied to his feelings and insecurities around Beth, frequently manifesting into jealousy over Rio.

To have that used against him by Dave (and funnily enough, Rio using those same feelings of Dean’s against Beth in 4.02) is a really interesting character note and I think very much fuels his motivation in the scene with Phoebe.

That Loving Feeling: a brief aside

I feel like I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention here that I actually do think Beth and Dean love each other. I think that it’s a broken love, like Christina said in her BUILD interview while promoting season 3, and I also think it’s a child’s love, which is something that we saw a bit through these flashbacks. Their relationship is so steeped in that history and that origin, that their love has failed to grow with them. It’s a sort of arrested development type of love, which I think makes them cling to the image all the harder, and it’s that old love and that image that’s stopped Dean from ever even contemplating turning Beth in.

Dean Pleads Guilty

Projection and perception are key in this show overall, but especially this season. We’ve seen that with the way Fitzpatrick has projected onto Beth, which I’ll talk about another time, but we also importantly saw Phoebe project onto Beth in this episode. She equates Beth to a girl she was friends with in highschool who used her, and tells Dean as such.

Phoebe’s projection of Beth – her image of her – isn’t one that Dean identifies with, and he tells her as much in return. While Dean is quiet in the scene overall outside of that interaction, the flashbacks deliberately seek to remind us of the nostalgia that has driven Beth and Dean’s relationship for the last twenty years and four seasons of the show. There’s a part of Dean that still sees Beth as the girl he chose to look after when they were just teenagers, and I think having his masculinity threatened the episode before by Dave intermingled with Dean’s nostalgia and his desire to ‘man up’ and take care of her in the way he tried to when her mum was in the hospital. All their murky, messy history and anger and hurt is painted over again, and Dean, at least in the moment, re-commits himself to the image of what he and Beth are.

He’s the man, she’s the woman, and it’s just another unhappy today for all those happy yesterdays.

#beth x dean #beth boland #dean boland #gg 4.03 #masculinity #character backgrounds #staying's worse than leaving #welcome to my ama #Anonymous

[dwellordream]

“Critics of Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde tend to regard the eponymous female character as either the tale's victim or its villain. Those subscribing to the latter position consider Criseyde cagey, devious, and self-centered. In their view, Chaucer creates a character who fits within the "power of women" topos, in which a wily woman effects a worthy man's ruin. During the Middle Ages, "sermons, treatises, instruction manuals, poetry and romances included lists of celebrated men who were brought low by the apparently irresistible power of women and their sexuality." Critics of Troilus and Criseyde argue by analogy when they regard Troilus as suffering such a fate at the hands of his love. They imply that since most medieval writers portray women as manipulative black-widow figures bent on destroying men, Chaucer must have done so as well. For example, D. W. Robertson, Jr., notes that, for Criseyde, "the mastery of a man like Troilus, a man of prowess and renown, a prince, and a handsome prince at that, would be quite an achievement."

Winthrop Wetherbee also emphasizes the virtues of the ill-fated Trojan prince and stresses that, no matter how interesting we may find the duplicitous Criseyde, we cannot admire her, for she remains "incapable of anything like the integrity or aspiration of Troilus." These critics, whom Carolyn Dinshaw describes as "masculine readers" of the text, create the impression that Chaucer has fabricated a terrifying, power-hungry figure in Criseyde. She emerges as less a woman than a monstrous, near-masculine, abomination, the incarnation of the Medusa myth that Helene Cixous regards as the traditional literary stereotype used to describe an indomitable female character. Dinshaw attributes this view of Criseyde to the critics as well as to Chaucer: "Masculine reading in Troilus and Criseyde is dominated at last by a desire to contain instability, carnal appetite - those things that... medieval writers (and their descendants, modern critics) associate with femina."

In an effort to counteract this ominous image of Criseyde, Dinshaw and other feminist critics have repositioned Chaucer's heroine as the tale's victim. They see Criseyde as the polar opposite of the conniving character imagined by the text's "masculine readers," regarding her instead as an emblem of passive femininity whose submissive nature makes her vulnerable to the machinations of ruthless men. Angela Jane Weisl, for instance, views the hapless heroine as "invaded by male power," and Catherine Cox regards the consummation scene as tantamount to rape. Focusing upon Criseyde's unfortunate position as a beautiful woman trapped in a society that treats her and all women like "commodities to be traded," Dinshaw exculpates Criseyde for her seemingly callous treatment of Troilus. Far from being fickle, Criseyde, in favoring Diomede, selflessly works to further her nation's male-dictated agenda. In Dinshaw's view, Criseyde is merely a pawn of the Trojan patriarchy, a bargaining chip used to establish a temporary truce.

These critics may succeed in exonerating Criseyde; however, they also succeed in making her much less interesting. Stripped of any motives of her own, Criseyde becomes a mere automaton, and the reader's interest shifts to the men who manipulate her. Unwittingly perhaps, feminist critics, by curtailing Criseyde's agency, diminish her significance. They too sacrifice Criseyde, flattening her character and transforming her into a type, another example of the endlessly suffering woman who must endure countless indignities at the hands of callous men. Readers, however, need not relegate Criseyde to the status of victim in order to redeem her character. Criseyde, certainly, does not view herself as a passive pawn, and this essay attempts to read the events comprising Troilus and Criseyde from her point of view, a perspective that has often been slighted by critics intent upon examining the agenda of her nation or the psyche of her lover.

Criseyde's actions, for instance, indeed may be constrained by her nation's perilous position, but so are those of her male counterparts. Even valiant Hector finds himself powerless to gainsay the people's will when they decide to trade Criseyde for Antenor, for the lords make the compelling argument that the Trojans desperately need more manpower in order to rid themselves of the Greeks who have relentlessly plagued the besieged town (IV, 176-96). The council ignores Hector's angry protests and enjoins him to set aside his ideals, exclaiming "'O Ector, lat tho fantasies be!'" (IV, 193). Troilus also feels constrained by his nation's plight. He so fears the opprobrium of his father and of Parliament should he strive to rescue Criseyde from her awful fate that he is rendered impotent, unable to make even the slightest effort to effect his love's salvation (IV, 540-67).

Criseyde, however, does try to wield power, albeit within the narrow scope granted her. She lays the ground rules for her affair with Troilus, for instance (III, 169-75), and she constantly engages in activities such as reading and writing that Cixous regards as potentially subversive to patriarchal society. Unlike Troilus, she displays great confidence in her own abilities and plots to bring about her safe return to Troy without her lover's help (IV, 1296-1414). As her uncle Pandarus understands, his niece admires men of action, men like heroic Hector who value their individuality and refuse to let challenges daunt them. Such men strive to follow their own moral code and often refuse to conform when they believe that they have judged correctly and society has erred. Hector, for example, does not shy away from offering Criseyde his protection, although such an offer might be viewed with disfavor among those incensed at her father's treacherous act (1,117-23).

Nor does he readily succumb to the chorus of voices demanding Criseyde's exchange for Antenor but, rather, continues to protest passionately against such a maneuver up until the very moment when Parliament seals the Trojan beauty’s fate: For which delibered was by parlement For Antenor to yelden out Criseyde,/And it pronounced by the president, Altheigh that Ector "nay" ful of te preyde. (IV, 211-14) Criseyde attempts to appropriate this heroic ethos for herself, believing firmly that the challenges she will face in her attempt to escape the Greeks will prove far from insurmountable. By the end of the poem, however, Criseyde has recognized finally that the man for whom she is willing to risk her life lacks the qualities of a hero, qualities that she believes she herself possesses and qualities that she had once thought Troilus held in abundance, making her fall in love with him. She now realizes that her lover does not share her faith in the heroic ideal and that his earlier heroic stance was nothing more than a pose, part of his attempt to make her engage with him in the game of courtly love.

Laura Howes believes that "Chaucer is often his most critical of established social and literary systems when he appears his most conventional." Even though the poet fashions Criseyde as a strong-willed woman, his poem does not represent a straightforward rendition of the "power of women" topos. Instead, Chaucer uses this convention to expose the hypocrisy embedded in courtly love, a system in which the male lover feigns to cede power to a lady only ultimately to subjugate her. Chaucer employs the "power of women" motif subversively to create an image of a self-determined, desiring woman, who yearns for a wholesome, natural sexual relationship - a relationship not tainted by the artifice of courtly conventions - and who refuses to be transformed into the passive receptacle of a male lover's passion.

…The first time Troilus sets his eyes upon her, Criseyde displays her strong-willed nature. When Troilus ogles her, the Trojan beauty flashes him a look that implies "What, may I nat stonden here?" (I, 292). Her haughty attitude is not only bold but also rash, for she, the daughter of a traitor, refuses to submit to the gaze of a king's son. Criseyde misinterprets Troilus's behavior, regarding it not as prompted by her beauty but, rather, as offering a challenge concerning her right to participate in Troy's public domain. She fears that this prince might not share his brother Hector's generous attitude concerning her status as a citizen of Troy. Unlike Troilus, at this moment her thoughts revolve not around the possibility of a love affair but, rather, the ramifications of the ongoing Greek siege and her father's subsequent defection. Critics often stress Criseyde's meek and fearful nature, but in this instance Chaucer depicts her as a brave woman indeed, holding her head proudly in the public sphere and refusing to show shame for her father's misdeeds.

Chaucer makes her audacious behavior all the more striking by having it follow the narrator's assertion that Criseyde stands as the very emblem of femininity (I, 281-87). One would expect such a woman to accept passively Troilus's stares, to blush perhaps, and bow her head, but not to gaze unabashedly back. Criseyde may seem feminine, but she displays an inclination to behave in a masculine manner. She resembles Portia in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, who possesses a "man's mind, but a woman's might." By juxtaposing Criseyde's feminine appearance with her bold behavior, Chaucer suggests Criseyde may possess a masculine spirit as well, and, indeed, the narrator describes her as "nevere lasse mannyssh in semynge" (I, 284, emphasis added). The author's use of the word "semynge" indicates that Criseyde's femininity relates only to her surface, her good looks.

Criseyde's exquisite appearance belies her true nature as a woman who cherishes her autonomy and will not readily succumb to a man's will. Before Pandarus presses Troilus's suit upon her, Criseyde lives peacefully in a predominately feminine realm. Weisl stresses that Calchas 's defection leaves his daughter fearful and vulnerable: "Calchas' exit at night through the walls of Troy is the first event of Troilus and Criseyde; in the vacuum of power created by his absence stands Criseyde, 'wel neigh out of hir wit for sorvve and fere' (I, 108)." Criseyde, however, loses no time in recruiting Hector as her defender, recognizing that she needs to protect both herself and her feminine retinue. Her decision to appeal to Hector represents her first act as a matriarch and emerges as a deed of heroic proportions, for she has not only her own interest but also the interest of the members of her household in mind.

She recognizes the peril of her position and approaches the Trojan prince with all the tact of a skilled diplomat engaged in a dangerous and urgent mission. Using her feminine appearance to her advantage, she dresses in "widewes habit large of samyt broun" (I, 109) to underscore that she too has been betrayed by her father's duplicity. Her wretchedness as well as her loveliness move the noble prince to pity her plight, and she elicits his oath that no harm will befall her as long as she resides in Troy (I, 113-26). Further, Hector promises to protect Calchas’s daughter without demanding any favor in return, revealing that Criseyde has played the role of a chaste, and hence untouchable, widow with consummate skill.

Once Criseyde assures herself of Hector's staunch but laissez-faire support, she finds her father's desertion a boon. Unlike Calchas, whose arbitrary behavior toward his daughter in calling her to the Greek camp indicates the power he holds over her, Hector leaves Criseyde alone, free to pursue her own will. Thus, her father's defection enables Criseyde to enjoy finally her widowed state. Judith Bennett notes that for many medieval women, widowhood emerged as the first time since their marriage that they could exert a measure of control over their own fortunes. For instance, these women often would serve as managers of their deceased spouses' estates, a role Criseyde may assume finally after her father abandons Troy.

Criseyde revels in her newfound autonomy, exulting that she now stands "unteyd in lusty leese" (II, 752) without a husband to "Chek mat" her every move (II, 754). Criseyde's use of this metaphor to describe her marriage offers more evidence of her steely will; she had not been a woman who meekly obeyed her husband's every whim. Criseyde's allusion to chess also reveals that she thinks of herself in martial terms. Freed from both her husband's and her father's control, she no longer considers herself the passive, acted-upon king but rather a powerful and potent player. Her situation resembles that of Binx Boiling's aunt in Walker Percy's The Moviegoer, who "with her illustrious brothers dead and gone might now at last become what they [her brothers] had been and as a woman had been denied her": her family's champion.

As mentioned, Chaucer depicts Criseyde's household as comprised entirely of women. Such an image evokes the realm of the Amazons, a society to which Chaucer alludes in the Knight's Tale. The poet depicts these women's pursuits as potentially subversive to patriarchal culture. Pandarus, for instance, finds Criseyde and her companions sitting together listening to a tale, a common entertainment for aristocratic women of Chaucer's day; however, these ladies do not listen to a romance but rather to a "geste" concerning "the siege of Thebes" (II, 83-84). They represent a cluster of women reading about the actions of men - they are feminine readers of a masculine text, the epic. Criseyde's choice of reading material reveals her intellectual curiosity as well as her attachment to the heroic ideal. She wishes to understand the workings of the public domain and to grasp the significance of her nation's own war. Additionally, as a woman who likens herself to a figure in chess, she senses, perhaps, a connection between herself and these legendary heroes and looks to their tales for inspiration for her own bold deeds.”

- Mary Behrman, “Heroic Criseyde.”

#troilus and criseyde #medieval literature #geoffrey chaucer #courtly love #mary behrman

[leebird-simmer]

Russian Fairy Tales Review: Feminism(s) pt. 1

Basic Ideas:

- A political stance and a mode of critique

- Challenges essentialism, the idea that men are naturally & essentially “masculine” and that women are naturally and essentially “feminine”

- Aims to uncover, analyze, and overturn gendered systems of social hierarchy (the patriarchy)

- Exposes the ways in which male power is realized and maintained in economic & cultural institutions

- Reveals the biases in other supposedly objective cultural practices and objects

Phases of (white, American) Feminism:

- First Wave (late 19th-early 20th century), principally concerned with political rights such as suffrage (the right to vote)

- Second Wave (1960s-1980s) imagined the personal/cultural as being linked with the political; focused on issues of discrimination and social inequalities; principally revolved around how family roles isolate and limit women.

- Third Wave (1990s-present?) corrects second-wave feminism’s emphasis on the plight of white upper- and middle-class w omen; instead favors intersectionality (the idea that discrimination against women is connected to other forms of discrimination).

Essentialism

- The idea that “masculine” and “feminine” are essential traits inextricably linked to the sexes (argument from nature).

- Essentialism is used as a justification for systemic oppression (i.e. patriarchy). It’s really about power.

- Feminism wants to examine and critique this claim by re-framing it as a question of nurture.

Some Essentialist Binaries

Marcia Lieberman’s Thesis: The most popular fairy tales acculturate boys and girls to accept traditional, patriarchy-approved social roles in such a way that fairy-tale collections essentially become training manuals about how to behave in a patriarchal system.

Editors of popular fairy-tale collections were selective, and they chose to compile fairy tales that highlighted and encouraged traditional behavioral patterns. According to Lieberman, fairy tales teach that…

- A woman’s life is a beauty contest.

- The suffering of women is glamorous.

- Powerful women are generally evil.

- Marriage is the goal of the woman’s life.

Life is a Beauty Contest

What is the “contest” like for girls?

- Being beautiful = getting picked = getting rich

- You don’t need to do anything to get picked, just look good.

- Beautiful women are meek and good-tempered.

- Ugly women are ill-tempered, ambitious, and conniving.

The lesson for girls: You will be rewarded for being passive, meek, and sweet, but if you are ambitious and assertive, then you will be considered ugly and no one will love you.

What is the “contest” like for boys?

- Boys get to solve riddles, find magical objects, and kill dragons. They are the heroes in life’s narrative, and they get to have all the fun.

- Boys have agency: they are subjects. Girls lack agency: they are objects. Boys are rewarded for their efforts with wives.

Women’s Suffering is Glamorous

Think about Snow White or Sleeping Beauty: they are in catatonic states (suffering) but are arrayed in beautiful finery within crystal, bejeweled caskets (glamour).

Women in distress are portrayed as interesting, and thus passivity leads to rewards.

The lesson for girls: Enjoy your suffering; revel in it! Or at least get used to it, because a woman’s role under patriarchy is to suffer, so she needs to be conditioned to accept that suffering.

Powerful Women are Generally Evil

For a girl trained by popular fairy tales, to be powerful is to be ugly and evil, to be loathed and reviled rather than to be desired and chosen.

The lesson for girls: Don’t be ambitious, active, or strong-willed. The world will reject you. Avoid the pursuit of power if you want to be a “real” woman.

Powerful women who are *not* evil, such as fairy godmothers, are old, asexual, and not quite human. They are seldom present during the narrative’s action. Girls are not encouraged to view the fairy godmother as an aspirational figure; they are supposed to identify with the princess!

Marriage is the Goal of the Woman’s Life

Marriage dominates the most popular tales, and it leads to wealth and social status.

Tales rarely portray what happens after marriage: the work, the toil, the routines. Instead, they present a world of eternal courtship in which the beautiful, passive woman is always desired and the center of attention.

The lesson for girls: Focus on getting married; don’t worry too much about the marriage itself.

#Russian Fairy Tales #feminism #study note #my blog #gender binaries #gender essentialism #patriarchy

[bruxas-grimoire]

Tarot Guide

Major Arcana

The Fool: Beginnings, innocence, spontaneity, a free spirit

Naivety, foolishness, recklessness, risk-taking

The Magician: Power, skill, concentration, action,resourcefulness

Manipulation, poor planning

High Priestess: Intuition, higher powers, mystery, subconscious mind

Hidden agendas, need to listen to inner voice

Empress: Fertility, femininity, beauty, nature, abundance

Creative block, dependence on others

Emperor: Authority, father-figure, structure, solid foundation

Domination, excessive control, rigidity, inflexibility

Hierophant: Religion, group identification, conformity, tradition, beliefs

Restriction, challenging the status quo

Lovers: Love, union, relationships, values alignment, choices

Disharmony, imbalance, misalignment of values

Chariot: Control, willpower, victory, assertion, determination

Lack of control and direction, aggression

Strength: Strength, courage, patience, control, compassion

Weakness, self-doubt, lack of self discipline

Hermit: Soul searching, introspection, being alone, inner guidance

Isolation, loneliness, withdrawal

Wheel of

Fortune: Good luck, karma, life cycles, destiny, a turning point

Bad luck, negative external forces, out of control

Justice: Justice, fairness, truth, cause and effect, law

Unfairness, lack of accountability, dishonesty

Hanged Man: Suspension, restriction, letting go, sacrifice

Martyrdom, indecision, delay

Death: Endings, beginnings, change, transformation, transition

Resistance to change, unable to move on

Temperance: Balance, moderation, patience, purpose, meaning

Isolation, loneliness, withdrawal

Devil: Bondage, addiction, sexuality, materialism

Detachment, breaking free, power reclaimed

Tower: Disaster, upheaval, sudden change, revelation

Avoidance of disaster, fear of change

Star: Hope, spirituality, renewal, inspiration, serenity

Lack of faith, despair, discouragement

Moon: Illusion, fear, anxiety, insecurity, subconscious

Release of fear, unhappiness, confusion

Sun: Fun, warmth, success, positivity, vitality

Temporary depression, lack of success

Judgement: Judgement, rebirth, inner calling, absolution

Self-doubt, refusal of self-examination

World: Completion, integration, accomplishment, travel

Lack of completion, lack of closure

Minor Arcana

Suit Of Cups

Ace of Cups: Love, compassion, creativity, overwhelming emotion

Blocked or repressed emotions

Two of Cups: Unified love, partnership, attraction, relationships

Break-up, imbalance in a relationship

Three of Cups: Celebration, friendship, creativity, community

An affair, “three’s a crowd,”stifled creativity

Four of Cups: Meditation, contemplation, apathy, re-evaluation

Boredom, missed opportunity

Five of Cups: Loss, regret, disappointment, despair, bereavement

Moving on, acceptance, forgiveness

Six of Cups: Reunion, nostalgia, childhood memories, innocence

Stuck in the past, naivety, unrealistic

Seven of Cups: Fantasy, illusion, wishful thinking, choices, imagination

Temptation, illusion, diversionary tactics

Eight of Cups: Escapism, disappointment, abandonment, withdrawal

Hopelessness, aimless drifting, walking away

Nine of Cups: Wishes fulfilled, comfort, happiness, satisfaction

Greed, dissatisfaction, materialism

Ten of Cups: Harmony, marriage, happiness, alignment

Misalignment of values, broken home or marriage

Page of Cups: A messenger, creative beginnings, synchronicity

Emotional immaturity, creative block

Knight of Cups: Romance, charm, “Knight in shining armor,” imagination

Unrealistic, jealousy, moodiness

Queen of Cups: Emotional security, calm, intuitive, compassionate

Emotional insecurity, codependency

King of Cups: Emotional balance and control, generosity

Emotional manipulation, moodiness, volatility

Suit Of Pentacles

Ace of Pentacles: Manifestation, new financial opportunity, prosperity

Lost opportunity, lack of planning, lack of foresight

Two of Pentacles: Balance, adaptability, time management, prioritization

Disorganization, financial disarray

Three of Pentacles:Teamwork, initial fulfillment, collaboration, learning

Lack of teamwork, disregard for skills

Four of Pentacles: Control, stability, security, possession, conservatism

Greed, materialism, self-protection

Five of Pentacles: Isolation, insecurity, worry, financial loss, poverty

Recovery from financial loss, spiritual poverty

Six of Pentacles: Generosity, charity, giving, prosperity, sharing wealth

Debt, selfishness, one-sided charity

Seven of Pentacles: Vision, perseverance, profit, reward, investment

Lack of long-term vision, limited success or reward

Eight of Pentacles: Apprenticeship, education, quality, engagement

Perfectionism, lacking ambition or focus

Nine of Pentacles: Gratitude, luxury, self-sufficiency, culmination

Over-investment in work, financial setbacks

Ten of Pentacles: Wealth, inheritance, family, establishment, retirement

Financial failure, loneliness, loss

Page of Pentacles: Manifestation, new financial opportunity, new job

Lack of progress and planning, short-term focus

Knight of Pentacles: Efficiency, routine, conservatism, methodical

Laziness, boredom, feeling “stuck”

Queen of Pentacles: Practical, homely, motherly, down-to-earth, security

Imbalance in work/family commitments

King of Pentacles: Security, control, power, discipline, abundance

Authoritative, domineering

Suit Of Swords

Ace of Swords: Raw power, victory, breakthroughs, mental clarity

Confusion, chaos, lack of clarity

Two of Swords: Indecision, choices, truce, stalemate, blocked emotions

Indecision, confusion, information overload

Three of Swords: Painful separation, sorrow, heartbreak, grief, rejection

Releasing pain, optimism, forgiveness

Four of Swords: Contemplation, passivity, recuperation, relaxation, rest

Restlessness, burn-out, lack of progress

Five of Swords: Conflict, tension, loss, defeat, “win at all costs,” betrayal

Open to change, past resentment

Six of Swords: Regretful but necessary transition, rite of passage

Cannot move on, carrying baggage

Seven of Swords: Betrayal, deception, getting away with something, stealth

Mental challenges, breaking free

Eight of Swords: Isolation, self-imposed restriction, imprisonment

Open to new perspectives, release

Nine of Swords: Depression, nightmares, intense anxiety, despair

Hopelessness, severe depression, torment

Ten of Swords: Back-stabbed, defeat, crisis, betrayal, endings, loss

Recovery, regeneration, fear of ruin, inevitable end

Page of Swords: Talkative, curious, mentally restless, energetic

“All talk and no action,” haste, undelivered promises

Knight of Swords: Opinionated, hasty, action oriented, communicative

Scattered thought, disregard for consequences

Queen of Swords: Quick thinker, organized, perceptive, independent

Scattered thought, disregard for consequences

King of Swords: Clear thinking, intellectual power, authority, truth

Manipulative, tyrannical, abusive

Suit Of Wands

Ace of Wands: Inspiration, power, creation, beginnings, potential

Delays, lack of motivation, weighed down

Two of Wands: Future planning, progress, decisions, discovery

Fear of the unknown, lack of planning

Three of Wands: Preparation, foresight, enterprise, expansion

Lack of foresight, delays, obstacles to long-term goals

Four of Wands: Celebration, harmony, marriage, home, community

Breakdown in communication, transition

Five of Wands: Disagreement, competition, strife, tension, conflict

Conflict avoidance, increased focus on goals

Six of Wands: Public recognition, victory, progress, self-confidence

Egotism, disrepute, lack of confidence, fall from grace

Seven of Wands: Challenge, competition, perseverance

Giving up, overwhelmed, overly protective

Eight of Wands: Speed, action, air travel, movement, swift change

Delays, frustration, holding off

Nine of Wands: Courage, persistence, test of faith, resilience

On edge, defensive, hesitant, paranoia

Ten of Wands: Burden, responsibility, hard work, stress, achievement

Taking on too much, avoiding responsibility

Page of Wands: Enthusiasm, exploration, discovery, free spirit

Setbacks to new ideas, pessimism, lack of direction

Knight of Wands: Energy, passion, lust, action, adventure, impulsiveness

Haste, scattered energy, delays, frustration

Queen of Wands: Exuberance, warmth, vibrancy, determination

Shrinking violet, aggressive, demanding

#tarot

[threewaysdivided]

I appreciate the response. Yeah, among other adjustments, had the plot been handled a little differently, I feel like Sam’s relationship with her parents could have evolved into something like that of Danny and Jazz and their parents. And don’t get me wrong; I still like Sam, too.

(In reference to this post and follow-up ask.)

Good to hear from you again 😊

I think there were a lot of things across the board that could have been tweaked or edited to improve the integrity of the series.  If I had to boil down the problem with DP to a single point I’d probably say it’s that the most interesting parts of the show are the characters/world/implications but the writers (or some of them anyway - I suspect there might have been some conflict between Hartman, the lead writers and the execs’) wanted certain plots, aesops and gags, and chose to brute-force them in regardless of whether they actually worked with what was already there.  Basically, it lacks consistency and internal logic.

For Sam in particular I think there are a few things that could have been handled better:

First one’s more a general complaint at the show and might light a fire under my notes but heck lets go there anyway but the writing has kind of a sexist bent that really doesn’t fit the characters or need to be there. Considering how much Danny and Jack are shown to love and respect Maddie and Jazz there’s no way they’d call their involvement in Genius Magazine “the swimsuit edition”.  Paulina might be traditionally feminine but “She surrendered her individuality for a boy! I’m so proud of her!” is not a line that any human girl in the history of human girls would say unironically.  There’s also a few too many jokes that basically boil down to “male character is emasculated/ vulnerable/ likes feminine-coded things, hyuk hyuk hyuk”.

I’m bringing this up not just because they’re gross cheap gags but because for Sam specifically, this pervasive low-key contempt for women and femininity in the writing, especially the tendency to portray almost every non-sympathetic girl her age as one-note, brainless boy-crazy cliches that she can’t connect with, really does not help her character.  I would have loved to see more genuine interaction between Sam and the other girls, even if it most of it was Kim Possible-Bonnie Rockwaller style antagonistic rapport.  We could have seen her develop some kind of tenuous connection with one of the A-listers, or even just have a secondary-female-character to be cordial towards - kind of like Mikey is for Danny and Tucker.  Hold up, outside of Valerie, Star and Paulina are there any named secondary girls at Casper High?  Sam doesn’t seem to have a single female friend in the show and considering how vocally judgemental she is, it can almost read like she’s rejecting them outright for being girls, which really undercuts attempts to make her seem feminist. (I mentioned it in a past tag but this feels like an early-2000s-male-writer mistake of equating Female Empowerment™ with the ability to tear down other women and belittle traditional femininity - which isn’t so much Feminism as it is Internalised Misogyny.)  Even just mixing up the pairings to put her with Star instead of Kwan in Lucky in Love would have helped.

I’d have also liked to see more awareness of and consistency in the conflict between her activism and her wealth.  It kind of undercuts the significance of her activism when you realise that she’s wealthy enough to make these choices with little cost to herself; it’s much easier to go vegan or buy renewable/ recyclable /sustainable /fair-trade when price isn’t an issue, especially if you also have serving staff to offset the time cost.  Once you notice this it makes her activism feel more tokenistic, and also like she doesn’t really understand her own privilege when she tries to push her agendas onto the school/ her classmates without considering why they mightn’t be able to do so as easily.  It’s also weird because the source of her family’s wealth is a cellophane-toothpick-wrapper (i.e. something that basically produces litter) but she still seems very comfortable enjoying the material benefits despite her pro-eco anti-consumerism sentiments.  It’s bizarre that she’s more concerned with the social consequence of ‘fake friends’ than the ethics of capitalism.  It can come off a bit “do as I say, not as I do”. 

It would have been nice for the show to give more screen time to reinforcing that Sam is aware of that conflict and is making an active effort to hold to her principles even at the cost of personal comfort; maybe showing some unease at the source of her wealth, trying to live below her means and only spend up on ethical/ eco-friendly/ sustainable products, op-shopping or hand-making her goth accessories, going out of her way to re-use or re-purpose things even if buying a new one would be ‘better’, actually showing or referencing her doing substantial hands-on activities (e.g. going off-screen or taking the boys to do tree-planting, litter pickups, soup kitchens, animal-shelter work etc).  Just something to help make it clearer that she genuinely cares and isn’t just doing the low-mess lip-service activities because she enjoys indulging in the image of Wokeness™.

These things would have helped regardless of how her family was written but let’s hop back on topic and talk about them.  I don’t have any prescriptive preference but let’s spitball a few different options and how they could have played:

#1 Sam’s parents don’t respect her interests and want her to fit a mold

In this case I’d make it that they don’t really pay attention or show much caring for who Sam really is as a person; their image of and interactions with her are more of a fantasised version of the ‘perfect’ daughter they want, they make very little effort to encourage her actual interests and are perhaps restrictive about what they let her do in the few moments when they do bother paying close attention (you might compare to some versions of Tim Drake’s Parents from DC Comics).  Classist, overly image-conscious, snobby and superficial.  

This would be the most sympathetic portrayal of her character without changing it very far from how it is in DP canon - helping contextualise why Sam is so fiercely defensive of her autonomy, why she pushes so hard when trying to get her opinions across and why she’s so judgemental of rich people and disdainful towards classic femininity - even possibly explaining her more hypocritical/ manipulative/ entitled traits as learned behaviours.  It would also give her more legitimate reason to be less empathetic towards others - after all even if they have struggles and family troubles it’s still better than what she’s dealing with (Danny’s parents may not be attentive but hey, at least they love him for himself, right?)

For this version I’d probably put her arc around growing past the “suffering olympics” model of viewing other people’s pain, but also in her finding family in Danny/Tucker/her Grandmother’s circle of connections, learning how to have healthy power-balance and communication in her relationships with others (aka: getting over her hypocrisy and realising that assertiveness is about communicating that “I matter, and so do you”) and pulling away from her parents’ influence - maybe even living with Ida a lot of the time.

#2 Sam’s parents are well-intentioned but overbearing

For this one, Sam’s parents would genuinely want the best for her… only they have an overly old-fashioned and restrictive view of what “the best” is and are a bit set-in-their-ways.  They’d probably view “hippies” and “goth” stuff as “dangerously rebellious hooligan-activities” and likely to be somewhat patronising about Sam’s passion for it being “just a phase”.   They’d be worried about her hanging around “the Fenton Kid” and “the Foley Kid” both because Danny’s parents are kind of irresponsible screwballs about safety but also because they put a lot of value in image due to their belief in social connections being the way to get ahead.  Them pushing Sam towards classic femininity and specific activities would be less about disrespecting her identity and more about their overly narrow view of “success” and worrying that she’s going to end up losing valuable opportunities and “wasting her life” if she keeps on down her current path.

This would still give Sam more sympathetic context for her views on femininity and pushiness about self-expression. 

Personally I think the arc I’d like to see here is one themed around responsible/considerate assertiveness and valuing alternative perspectives.  Sam coming to realise her own hypocrisy - that she can’t push her views onto others while complaining about her parents doing the same - developing more sympathy for Danny as she realises that he’s in a similar position with Jack’s insistence that he’ll inherent Fentonworks and his parents’ narrow-mindedness about ghosts, interacting with other girls and seeing their perspective, learning how to assert her opinion while making allowances for others’ (maybe an alternative version where she connects with Star in Lucky in Love and, after Aragon’s defeat in Beauty Marked, Sam still says she personally thinks it’s dumb but then steps down and lets Star win because she understands that Star values it), and getting her Grandma’s help in convincing her parents to widen their perspective while still responding to their concerns.

(This one has the overall kindest message and I think I like it best).

#3 Sam’s parents are trying and Sam’s actually the problem 

This one is the one that’s the least sympathetic to Sam.  Her parents still don’t get the Goth/Activist thing and they have some concerns about safety but they understand that it makes her happy and they’re okay with it so long as she’s not getting into trouble or mixing up with anyone that could hurt her.  Them pushing her towards more feminine/optimistic things is less pushing and more trying to encourage some hobbies that offer a bit more common ground.  They might have reservations, and they might not always have time, but they would like to be part of their daughter’s life… except for the problem that Sam has wrapped herself up in a teen-drama persecution complex and got it into her head that they “won’t accept her” are “pushing her to be someone else” and “don’t understand” so there’s no point even trying to explain or connect.  In this one Ida isn’t taking sides on purpose but she ends up accidentally enabling Sam a little because Sam reminds her of her younger days and she likes spoiling her granddaughter (and doesn’t much care for her daughter-in-law).

In this case Sam’s flaws would be framed much more as flaws born of her making superficial snap judgements, thinking she knows better and being too proud to admit she’s wrong.  There would definitely be moments of her coming across as an entitled, privileged holier-than-thou brat who invents problems because she likes feeling sorry for herself, especially early in her arc.

This version of the story would go the hardest on Sam with the general lesson being “you need to respect that other people are people who have their own problems, feelings and needs that are as real and valid as yours”.  She’d still have good qualities and Danny and Tucker would still obviously like and value her but there’d also be times of strain where they don’t want to hurt her feelings but are clearly getting worn out with the nonsense.  At its worst, maybe a “you’re like mustard. Great in small quantities, but a lot of you is…a lot” type confrontation.

I’d also give the secondary cast the most fleshing out, agency and sympathetic-ness here, and have beats where Sam has to realise that they’re lot more complex than her 2D stereotyped view of them and are dealing with actual serious problems to which hers are largely non-issues by comparison.  I’d probably play Dash and Paulina similar to in the fic Alibi (go read it, it’s good) - Dash being gay and performing aggression because toxic masculinity, insecurity, and being terrified of anyone outside the A-listers finding out (still not okay that he’s a bully but at least more understandable), while Paulina is hiding high emotional perceptiveness behind her pretty face and deliberately bearding for him to keep bigoted parents/ teachers off his back.  I’d also probably have a subplot in an alternate Life Lessons where Sam follows Valerie around because jealous/possessive and, like Danny, ends up realising that she’s working two jobs to help her Dad with their financial problems.  Basically she’d be getting hit with the Reality Stick a lot.

There’d also be more instances of Sam getting directly called out by the other girls. Fleshing them out as people and showing that their dislike is less superficiality and more because she unfairly judges and antagonises them all the time.  Giving them more agency in Beauty Marked and have them be direct about “we know you’re just here to be smug about how much ‘Better’ you are but have you considered that we’re doing this for ourselves and actually enjoy it?”.  Having Paulina be less “tee hee I am indeed a Witch” in Parental Bonding and more “Ugh fine, fine, I don’t really like him that much but you were being so obviously Jealous and Judge-y and I figured if I played a little you might actually step up.  But fine, if you’re sure.  Here’s your necklace back, I’ll let your dorky ‘friend’ down tomorrow.  But pro-tip?  You like someone you gotta go for it - otherwise don’t complain when your boy-toy gets taken by someone who actually means it.”  (Still petty, but emotionally intelligent pettiness, which… not really much better, but at least more interesting.)  A lot more of Sam realising that she’s not a particularly good feminist and that she’s no more entitled to Danny’s affections than anyone else.

To be honest, while I could say the most about this version and there’s a lot of potential drama there it’s the one I like the least because it means canonising my least favourite proto-abusive bad-faith narcissistic reading of Sam, casting her as an almost-villain and essentially punishing her over and over until she character develops into a decent human being.  Sure it’s an important message about how you treat others but it’s not a very nice or kind story and while there might be the odd fic that makes it cathartic I can’t say I’m a huge fan.

Again, if I had to pick, I’d probably go with something like #2. 

But there we go.  Another thrilling instalment in the “overly long posts about Sam Manson” saga.  

Hope you enjoyed it and thanks for stopping by!

#Danny Phantom #Sam Manson #Character Analysis #Storytelling suggestions #the mustard quote is from John Green's Turtles All The Way Down BTW (haven't read but heard it and thought it was a good turn of phrase) #there was so much potential in this show #they were really not good at writing girls in particular #cw: mentions of abuse #cw: sexism discussed #anonymous #3WD Answers

[lazaruspithottub]

Found in the #Daenerys Targaryen tag:

“

This is very wrong.

Please, bear with me. Saying this infers that people should only have one form of representation. That one message of the way a woman should be is enough and that we should be grateful and accept just that.

It’s almost like we don’t just want one option for people.

Dany and Sansa are two quite different characters with important distinctions to be made between them. Firstly, Dany DIDN’T grow up privileged like Sansa. Sansa’s family were the most powerful and respected family in the North while she was growing up. Dany didn’t have a loving family siblings and parents. Dany grew up on the run and with no safety at all and under abuse from her only family member. Furthermore, Sansa gets a long way with just the “Stark” name whether she recognises this privilege or not whilst Dany has always had to actively fight against her own family name. Asserting that people should just be happy with Sansa ignores all of these important distinctions to be made between them.

The people

Daenerys works to earn the favour of her people. Whilst she says a lot of clout to exert confidence and position she doesn’t really assume that she is owed anything and in fact calls her brother “a fool” for having this mindset. Again, Sansa has done little to actually earn the loyalty of her people besides having the right last name. And, no, the knights of the Vale don’t count because they only came because of who she was not because she had earned their loyalty. No doubt that she started to that somewhat in the later seasons but it just isn’t the same and the little ways that they’ve outlined it have been rather superficial.

Treatment of others

What we’ve seen Sansa doing in season eight is her deliberately choosing to undermine Dany. I do think that a part of this is sexism in the writing, however, it is there and it is there a lot. Useless quips in front of their people when they should be showing a united front, rejection of Dany trying to make peace. Judgement of Jon and Dany’s relationship past the normal even assuming that Jon bent the knee not because Dany was a good leader but because she was pretty and he loved her. Again, the writing is at fault but what we see is a female who claims to be a good fair leader actively trying to devalue another female leader even going so far as to inferrring that Dany basically used sex/looks to manipulate Jon. Do I need to explain how damaging this is and why you should be against at the very least the writers for this?

The continued negative behaviour of Sansa towards Daenerys and her people who were coming to save Sansa’s home also made me really reject her character this season.

Another important distinction I think to be made is that Daenerys has always been a woman shown to try to use whatever power she has to help disenfranchised and disadvantaged people. We haven’t been provided evidence that Sansa in any way actively does this which is why just saying: “oh but we have Sansa can’t you appreciate her”, doesn’t sit well with me. Dany’s standards for the people who follow her also make me really question this considering what she has specifically outlawed. Sansa is said to lead the north or is supposedly worthy of doing so and yet her/Jon’s people continue to pillage/r*pe and have always been shown to be at the very least mildly xenophobic.

This praise I should supposedly give her for continuing to stay kind loving and caring? In season 7 we see Sansa assert that she believes that the people should have chosen her and deliberately undermine Jon in public. This is not a good leader’s behaviour and only exemplifies that she didn’t/doesn’t yet understand what it means to lead people beyond being a figure head or just maintaining the status quo. She does maintain the status quo for a time when Jon is on Dragonstone and kudos for that but is a female leader who only maintains all that we should strive and hope for? (Or If i give the benefit of the doubt she still has only ever been shown to care about that and not about true change)

Gender roles

The biggest problem that I have, however, in particular with Sansa being the only or main female character who is allowed to be representative of women is in that she is the safe seeming hyper feminine woman that appeals most to the liberal-conservative. She fits “traditionally femine” roles more than any other character and doesn’t often deviate much from these. It is okay to be like this but it is really important to recognise that Dany breaks traditional roles which makes her such an interesting female character. She will stand in front of an army and motivate them, lead them right into battle but also play the political game when she needs to. Despite her past, show Dany is shown to embrace her sexuality and seek love. Dany is shown to take up space in both typically feminine and masculine spaces. She is gentle but isn’t afraid to be ruthless with her enemies. She takes on the mantle to put herself in danger for her people when necessary exhibiting the kind of behaviour that we usually come to see in the most prominent male fantasy characters.

Conclusion

Daenerys is inspiring because she didn’t have any of that privilege, because very few followed her because of her name and in fact that she had to actively fight against it. Because she has been put through hell from day one. Because she rose from the ashes. Because people chose her for her. So yes I’m going to be very pissed for a very long time that this is the message that they’ve sent. Dany is unique. Her experience is different from Sansa’s and should be allowed to be bereaved without people telling me to just be grateful that there are other female characters who have also suffered.

Thinking that only one woman can or should be allowed to represent women or that people should just jump the bus to the next woman after a female character is assassinated are actively dangerous mindsets that should be re-evaluated.

#game of thrones #anti sansa stark #daenerys targaryen #dont @ me #got spoilers

[madamlaydebug]

#UbuntuRestoration 🌍👁

GET IN-TOUCH WITH YOUR MASCULINE & FEMININE ENERGIES

Despite the GENDER we identify ourselves with, we are actually both MAN and WOMAN. Each of us contains MASCULINE and FEMININE ENERGY.

We can all agree on the fact that we came from a MAN and a WOMAN. Despite certain chromosomes expressing themselves as predominantly MALE or FEMALE, we come from both - equally.

Logic, planning, and structure fall under the MASCULINE. Ways of Being such as rigor, discipline, and control also fall under this category. The MASCULINE is a necessary trait, for it supports the growth of a balanced ego, financial stability, family, shelter, and organization. OVERUSE of MASCULINE ENERGY can manifest as tight muscles, digestive trouble, holding grudges, and unreasonable anger.

The FEMININE part of ourselves is perhaps more subtle in a society that is highly ego driven. It is GOVERNED by intuition, receptivity, dreams, and emotion. This is a necessary counterbalance to the MASCULINE. DISPERSED (loose) FEMININE ENERGY may feel like being out of control, ungrounded, irritable, and lonely.

When we operate primarily from our MASCULINE side, we may feel tired, stressed, overworked or unloved as a result. When we feel overworked, moving about life on autopilot, too much in our heads and not enough in our bodies, and/or we are experiencing a lack of intimacy in our lives, it is likely a re-fuel of the FEMININE is in order.

The MASCULINE likes to “do” - it is contained. The FEMININE craves to just “be” - it flows. We have access to both of these ENERGIES inside each and every one of us. We need BOTH to be BALANCED, but we are primarily born with one DOMINANT form that feels most NATURAL to us.

Women are usually more FEMININE associated and the opposite is true for men. In same-sex couples, usually one partner is more MASCULINE and the other FEMININE in order for there to be sexual polarity.

If we are more FEMININE associated by NATURE and change to compete in the MASCULINE dominated corporate world, then we LOSE some of our INNATE POWER. We FORGET how to be a woman. We FORGET how to soften once we’ve left work. This causes us to feel unbalanced, stressed and stuck. We become rigid and LOSE our FLOW.

Holding onto Miss Independent Woman ENERGY can feel like a mask. We have a hard time CONNECTING with others, and we start to see other women as THREATS.

We also attract more FEMININE associated men into our lives. Men that can’t step into their MASCULINE power and meet our needs. They feel wimpy to us, lack drive, or the assertiveness that we desire. It creates an UNBALANCED polarity and sexual attraction can fizzle. Burn out is guaranteed when we feel constant pressure to strive and prove our equality in this way.

The reason I am passionate about this subject is because I was living so deep in my MASCULINE ENERGY for so many years that I actually mistook it as my FEMININE... For nearly 12 years of my adult life, I lived alone. I was committed and independent, and to me, I was a strong FEMININE woman. Perhaps I was strong or courageous in one sense, however I was severely lacking in my ability to receive. I experienced severe GIT disorders, Fibroids, Fibromyalgia and Insomnia as a result. . . I am still learning to recalibrate myself...

According to Yoga Philosophy, the MALE ENERGY is known as Shiva and the FEMALE ENERGY is known as Shakti. Within the BaNtu Initiatic Tradition the MALE ENERGY is known as aboMkhulu and the FEMALE ENERGY is known as aboGogo. These complementary channels inside the body make-up the stream though which Ntu, (life force, Prana, Chi) circulates.

The FEMININE channel governs the left side of the body, hence Is’phandla sakubo Mama is worm on the left wrist and nabo baphahlelwa on the left side when making offerings. The MASCULINE channel governs the right side of the body, thus Is’phandla sakubo Baba is worn on the right wrist and their offerings are made on the right.

The MALE ENERGY is symbolized by the SUN and the FEMININE by the MOON. The goal is to establish and maintain COHESION of the SUN and MOON parts of ourselves so we can experience our TRUE NATURE. When we fail to acknowledge our vast ENERGETIC SYSTEM, we may feel chronically out of BALANCE, breeding dysfunction, chaos and dis-ease...

#Makukhanye...☀️👏🏾👏🏾

[idiosyncraticwordsmith]

Hi, happy pride! I’m a cis lesbian and I saw your post saying to unfollow if “You believe dysphoria is the defining trait of transness”, and since I’ve always heard that it is, I’d really like to have it explained if that’s possible? I hope I don’t come off as offensive, I really just wanna be more educated so I can be there for my trans friends🌈 I hope you have a wonderful and powerful pride!!

Happy Pride sister! I’d be glad to explain, thanks for asking!

So dysphoria denotatively refers to any deep and profound discomfort, and the term connotatively almost exclusively is used these days to refer to the trans experience of that discomfort felt in relation to one’s assigned gender or physical anatomy.

Certainly many trans people experience this; either in the form of social dysphoria, which is caused by the cultural assignment of their gender (a trans man being called “ma’am/lady/miss” or being expected to wear traditionally feminine clothing, for example), or physical or body dysphoria, which is caused by the anatomical structure of their body (a trans woman having a penis or lack of breasts, for example).

This phenomenon can cause people to identify as trans because doing so provides them a road to no longer having this dysphoria. However, you will note that the dysphoria leads to ID’ing as trans--it isn’t necessarily intrinsic to being trans. It is a motivation, not a defining trait.

Those who assert that dysphoria is an intrinsic trait of transness erase many other motivations for rejecting one’s assigned gender. And that bears emphasizing: Transness is not a medical condition or a psychological issue, but rather the rejection of one’s assigned gender. 

That’s it. It is a personal and cultural identity, not a diagnosis; it is not informed by the way a trans person suffers, but rather by their relationship to themselves and to the culture around them, specifically in the context of gender.

Because, you see, those ‘other motivations’ I mentioned, being erased by certain groups? There’s a lot of them, and they’re diverse.

Some trans people are euphoric, i.e. they may not feel discomfort at their assigned gender, but identifying or being identified as another gender fills them with such comfort and joy that they’d rather go that route.

Some trans people reject gender at its roots ideologically. Many of these people are non-binary, agender, or similar such identities. For them gender is simply nonsense, or a means of control, and they’d rather be free of it altogether.

Some people we as Westerners would use the term ‘trans’ for are members of indigenous cultures that don’t use our binary conception of gender, but rather a totally unique identity-construction. Two-spirit people come to mind, for example. I suggest looking into resources offered by members of these communities for more information on that, as I am not qualified to speak on it at length. The important takeaway for our purposes here is that sometimes transness is an act of anti-colonialism or anti-imperialism, and an embracing or re-embracing of traditional, pre-colonial indigenous culture--the place of dysphoria in such a situation is quite non-central, if there even is such a place.

I could go on, but the root of this is that transness is not defined by suffering. One does not need to be suffering the blight of dysphoria to reject the role assigned to them by the dominant culture of their home. 

Indeed--and this is expanding beyond your specific question, but it’s an important note to be made while on the topic--an argument used also by groups emphasizing dysphoria is that trans people, if “truly” trans, should be making all efforts to transition. Is this not simply an affirmation of the patriarchal assignment of gender to anatomy, the very thing transness is meant to reject? 

And so it’s important to understand that some trans people have no interest in “medically transitioning”. Some people are perfectly fine with their bodies as they are - for them it isn’t the body that is the issue, but rather the presumptions, expectations, and associations--as well as the control and oppression--that assigned gender entails that is the issue.

Thus we can see plainly that transness is more than a negative sensation, more than the act of ‘transitioning’, and, though I won’t get into it on this already extensive answer, it is more than the act of ‘passing’.

In short: transness is a rejection of assigned gender, which may or may not be motivated by dysphoria. On a larger scale it is an act of resistance against patriarchy, and in some cases, colonialism. Trying to reduce transness to a medical condition, restricted only to the “right” people who are “suffering enough,” is insulting to those who embrace it as a manifestation of the incredible diversity of the human spirit and its ability to express itself in infinite ways.

Phew. Anyway, putting the soapbox away, I hope that was informative. Please let me know if there’s something I need to clarify!

(I’ve attempted to format this in an accessible way, anyone can feel free to please inform me if I can do better)

[not-poignant]

Hi, I have kind of a personal question, so feel completely free not to answer (and I know that everything is opinion only, not as pro advice at all), but: I have a pair of queer friends from all through high school who are very vocal about queer support, and they've been telling me I should come out as NB because I apparently fit the profile? But I don't feel like _not_ a woman; I just feel like me, and Me doesn't really embrace or embody any of the traditional societal ideas of femininity. cont

cont. How did you know that you were non-binary? What does it mean to be a woman or to _not_ be a woman for you? Or even to be feminine vs masculine vs not, if that's an easier answer. (Again, if this is too personal, you don't have to answer at all, I just wanted the opinion of someone who seems really comfortable in who they are now.)             

*

Hi anon!

I’m not super comfortable with talking about my experiences that in depth re: gender, but I will say this:

If you’re not ready to use the term nonbinary, even if other people say it fits you, you never need to use it. You are the only one who gets to determine or feel or live your gender, and you are the one who gets to label it.

Other people may assertively say ‘you’re this or you’re that’ but you’re on your own journey, and that may end somewhere different.

Like I not only fit ‘nonbinary’ but other people might say ‘Pia you’re butch’ or ‘Pia you’re agender’ or ‘Pia you’re bisexual’ but that might be because they don’t know I’m nonbinary, or genderqueer, or gray asexual. In other words, people classify me based on what they know, right down to misgendering me as a woman or straight. Ultimately, it’s nothing to do with me and my experiences, (except that sometimes it’s a microaggression lol), and it’s deeply personal.

Before I had the term nonbinary, I just said ‘I don’t feel like I’m a woman but I don’t feel like I’m a man.’ It was just something I knew in myself. But it wasn’t up to anyone else to then decide what I was. It was still up to me. And it’s still up to you, anon, and that’s completely valid. Maybe it’s just not important to you right now. Maybe you’re not nonbinary. Maybe you’re just a woman who doesn’t embrace traditional ideas of femininity (super common and great!) Maybe it will be different things over different years!

The best path through gender is one of self-validation and self-acceptance whether you’re within or outside of labels, if you’re not comfortable with a label, you don’t need to accept that label. And if your queer friends are pressuring you, it may be worth reminding you (and definitely them) that your gender is self-determined, and it’s not up to them either, and that you appreciate their help and letting you know that they’d obviously be okay with you coming out as nonbinary, but right now, you’re not doing that because it doesn’t feel right either (or whatever is most comfortable to say here). You have a right to tell them to back off and respect your gender, that includes your right to not use a label others are using for you.

Also, everyone’s perception of what is male and female, man and woman, masculine and feminine, varies widely. For me, nonbinary actually feels right, as does being genderqueer. I came to genderqueer first, because I knew I had ‘queer’ (or non-normative) gender, but for someone else, they may come to another conclusion, or have a different experience. I don’t think anyone should use my experiences as like the yardstick for their own label choices or to measure experiences of gender against.

I mean it may be worth looking for nonbinary or gender reddits, or just familiarising yourself with a bunch of different gender related terms, even if you ultimately walk away like ‘I know a lot more now but these all don’t fit me.’ Whatever you decide for yourself, that’s what matters here. No one else gets to decide your labels, even queer friends who presume to know better than you about your own experience of life and yourself.

#asks and answers #personal #pia on gender #//// #///// #like honestly queer friends doing this can piss me off #they generally mean well #but it *is* still a form of label pressure #like letting someone know what nonbinary means and being like #'have you ever thought about this for yourself' is one thing #but being like 'we're waiting for you to come out' is #a form of peer pressure #anon you are okay as you are #maybe you'll pick up different labels for yourself down the track #maybe you won't #but just because you don't feel like a Shania Twain level 'woman' #doesn't mean you're not doing it perfectly fine #in a way that works for you? #basically it's not up to them or me #but more research into gender labels #somewhere like wiki #may help you a lot #administrator Gwyn wants this in the queue #Anonymous