#it just creates divide and harms the people who need that sense of community

[vaugarde]

Stereotypes are definitely something that people should be mindful of to make sure they aren't being mocking or dehumanizing towards minorities, but like, at this point I'm just like "as long as thats not your only character from the minority or you arent mocking them then whatever" towards a good amount of them like idk mean lesbian characters compared to "This character is the most oppressed man to ever exist because he has a close male friend and everyone thinks he's gay but he's NOT :( He has a wife and kids why cant you just let men have FRIENDS!!!"

#Iits nuanced. im not saying they dont matter or arent harmful im saying that you should be mindful but not dismissive #cause like. people who fit the stereotype exist irl so the issue is with the dehumanization #autistic characters that get put on a literal leash and treated like an infant and get treated as laughingstocks for it #is very very different tonally to me than an autistic character that does need extra care and help and thats treated with respect #was reading abt the gay movement in the 1950s and how like middle class white gay men decided that to ''save their image'' #then they should completely shun and disregard flamboyant gay men who were largely working class #so feminine gay men were tossed to the side and mocked by the middle class gay men in an effort to be more palatable #and while that was motivated by the ''masculinity decline panic'' after ww2 it still sticks with me #i dont think refusing to acknowledge that feminine gay men or masculine lesbians or autistic aces exist is doing anyone any good #it just creates divide and harms the people who need that sense of community #tldr think people just need to be more mindful when it comes to this stuff and the black and white approach doesnt help anyone #echoed voice

[genderkoolaid]

Hello! Non binary here. I'm trying to genuinely understand how saying bi lesbians are a thing are not harmful to the trans, lesbian and bi community. I saw some of the bi lesbians history and this label seems to be something they used to say to identify that they felt mostly attraction to women but could eventually like a man / people that liked men in the past but now go as lesbians. On the first example, Isn't it just bisexuality with a preference to women? and in the second, lesbians with comphet. I understand the need to use those labels in the past, but now it seems harmful to use bi lesbian because lesbians are not attracted men and bisexuals are not lesbians. I have also seen that the use of bi lesbian was a reactionary push to the TERF movement of excluding men from queer spaces as in a way to "purify" women

While someone in either of the groups you described might identify as a bi lesbian, that is certainly not the extent of bi lesbianism.

I think the problem emerges for many people because they are viewing the definitions of queer terms as objective descriptions we discovered. From this perspective, people used to use lesbian in a more expansive sense essentially because they didn't know any better. But I dislike that; our foreparents were not identifying how they did because they didn't know better, their constructions of gender and sexuality are just as valid. And it's important to understand why those definitions formed instead of going “well it's different now so stop it.”

I'm not sure if you are saying you've heard TERFs came up with the term bi lesbian. I wouldn't be surprised, since it's a fairly common rumor. But it's very wrong. To give a very general history, “bi lesbian” came about to describe people who identified with lesbianism– in the sense that they identified with being queer, having some personal relationship with womanhood and loved or desired women– who also were multisexual in some way. “Lesbian” emphasized your love/desire for women as an important part of your identity, and “bisexual” gave nuance to that, creating visibility for bi people within the community. The outrage against bi lesbians came from the same source as the hatred for trans lesbians (of all kinds): radical feminist beliefs in political lesbianism, the insistence that being a lesbian is a political choice to end all personal relationships with men & manhood.

The idea that “lesbians, universally, aren't attracted to men” largely comes out of this shift. You cannot separate the idea that “bi lesbians” don't/shouldn't exist and the legacy of transphobic radical feminism which encourage black-and-white thinking and hostility towards Bad Queers who dared to love or desire men, be men, dress like men, or fuck like men (anything from BDSM to using a strap-on). This divide is artificial and we do not need to just accept it. Bi lesbians are not the source of harm, the ideology that insists on their exclusion is. On top of this, in many physical queer communities bi lesbians & other people with complicated identities are very easily accepted; the idea that it's somehow impossible for these identities to be safely normalized is just queer conservatism.

There are many reasons someone might enjoy the bi lesbian label: personally, I'm multigender and using a single sexuality label doesn't accurately express my sexuality. A lot of times I see people who counter reasons for bi lesbian identity by saying “but that's just being a lesbian/bisexual!” which is another product of this black-and-white thinking. The idea that someone else with a similar experience using a different label than you– or someone with a different experience using the same label– is somehow a threat to your identity is very reminiscent of the way radical feminism relies on patriarchal ideas that everyone in a gender group must self-police that group to ensure homogeneity. Someone with a totally “normal” bisexual experience may still identify as a bi lesbian, or use both bisexual and lesbian in varying contexts, because they feel it accurately expresses their personal sexuality & relationship to queer communities.

There's famously an Alison Bechdel strip about a character being a bi lesbian, but I think my favorite piece of bi lesbian art is this poem by Dajenya. It's a very defiant and wholehearted response to anti-bi-lesbian sentiment and how it harms people within the community far more than bi lesbian identity does. this site is a collection of primary resources on bi lesbianism, including a few interviews from bi lesbians which might be helpful for you.

#m. #ask box

[scarfacemarston]

Since you are stuck at the airport, maybe you would like your imagination to go a bit crazy? Feel free to delete it, if it's not really your type of content!

Stupid idea: If you were to give everybody in the gang a superpower, what do you believe would suit them? (Imagine John staying powerless though and Arthur often mentioning his power is being somehow alive with no brain 😆)

Ok, so I actually wanted to take my time with this! It took forever. I hate to sound desperate, but I worked extremely hard on this. It took hours to do as crazy as that sounds. Please “like” and reblog or even comment. It’s the only way I can get feedback and that’s so important to content creators.  Note:  I decided to give every superpower a drawback. I think that’s what I’ve heard about Dungeons and Dragons? I'm not counting deadeye here which could be considered a power by some. I don’t think it’s a power myself, but I can understand the theory. Arthur - The gift of luck and probability. Unlikely, but if you think about it - he has the fate of many people in his hands and their fates depend on his decisions of who he goes after.  I believe John would have elements of this as well if we’re including a meta of the epilogue and rdr 1.  However, this can only apply to strangers. Not to himself or his loved ones. John - Arthur and John argue over who has more luck so I think that he could have elements of this power. I thought about night vision but given that John is at least partially blind if we follow rdr 1, that doesn’t quite work for him. I know this sounds crazy, but I would give him animal communication powers....that doesn’t mean it always works well for him, of course. In fact, he might make animal enemies if he’s not careful. John is canonically known to be freakishly good with horses to the point that people who meet him say he could be rich from working and training horses. Despite his dangerous times, he is able to tell animal behavior quite well and is considered a master hunter in rdr 1. Dutch -Earthquake powers - it just seems to make sense to me! He makes a lot of escapes and I can see him using it to cause trouble. It’s more flexible than the power I gave Bill. However, it’s hard to control and he can cause harm to himself.....especially in rdr 1. (Which was chosen, though.) Hosea - Photographic memory - you can't get shit past him, that's one of the reasons why it's so easy for him to create stories. Unfortunately, he will have no ability to forget painful memories. Javier - Camouflage. He was able to stay in hiding for ages and only came out when Bill needed him. Dutch had rumors about him previously. Rumors about Javier in Mexico also only happened when he and Bill were on the run in rdr 1. The only problem is, if used too often, it can be difficult to turn on or off. Charles - Teleporting or phasing through matter. Kind of like Vision. It fits with how stealthy he is and he tends to divide himself up a bit. Meaning, since he often balances lots of responsibilities, this will help him juggle these responsibilities easily through traveling quickly. This also helps with stealth and spying, of course. Unfortunately, if he’s too tired, he could teleport to the wrong place. Abigail - Very hard to pin down. I liked the idea of her having healing powers especially through the power of song, but I also like the idea of her having a danger sense like Spidey sense ...canonically, she is very strong,  unusually so. Ultimately, I would give her shape-shifting because Hosea notes how gifted an actress she was and even says she’s the best con-woman he’s ever seen. Unfortunately, this can cause her to doubt herself and question who she really is - it can affect her self confidence. She has to be careful not to become over reliant to it. Jack - The ability to speak with the dead. I wrote a thing years ago about it on a roleplay server. I think it would come in handy when he writes. However, I wouldn't have this power show up until he was a teenager because toddlers who speak to the dead are terrifying. Could be scarily amusing. When he is older, it could help him with his writing, help him on rare occasions receive a visit from a family member (There are “hints” that Beecher’s Hope is haunted in rdr 1.) Having this “gift” has a downside to itself already. Sean - Elasticity - he'd have a blast reaching everything and anything he's not supposed to. However, if used incorrectly, he would be akin to a wet noodle, meaning it would be hard to return to normal. Karen - Sonic scream, she has a very loud voice already regardless of whether it comes from laughing or yelling and she loves being a distraction. She could cause a lot of trouble with it like breaking glass. However, she could cause great harm to her friends if she loses control. Tilly - Foresight which gives her a connection to danger detection. I'm also thinking iron will. NOTHING will get in her way. She will manifest her own destiny and she did despite all the circumstances. She's a rock, she cannot be moved. This also can connect her with her sense of morality. Unfortunately, there are times that her danger detection may be incorrect. Sadie - Bravery of the Valkyries and the the ability to have perfect armor/ impenetrable skin.  (Think Colossus from X-Men) Unfortunately, this can affect her ability to feel physical sensations if she fights too often. Molly - Invisibility. It comes in handy for so many things. It could be a power that intrigues Dutch for its usefulness and I can see him using it as a way to flirt. I think it also fits because in later parts of the game, people act like she’s invisible. Like Sue from Fantastic Four, I can see her turning invisible when she gets pissed and walks off in a huff. Unfortunately, like in the game, people do tend to forget about her. Grimshaw - Healing skills. I really wanted to give Abigail this as well because she does a heck of a lot of nursing back to health, but I ultimately believe Grimshaw does so a bit more. She may not always be the softest of carers, but she knows what she’s doing and does care. However, her healing is not always pain free. Lenny - Essentially a bullshit detector. The power that no one can lie or manipulate him. This fits perfectly with how he can navigate people like Dutch and come out on top, go toe to toe with Hosea and is able to climb the ranks of the gang quickly so to speak. (Most of the gang seems to respect him even with his age.) Unfortunately, this depresses him because he sees just how many lies there are. Micah - He’s basically a version of Grima Wormtongue to me. He has the ability to tell incredibly believable lies through a more hypnotic method. That’s why it’s important to have people like Lenny, Tilly and Hosea around. However, this backfires if he is trying to actually tell the truth as in, he’s severely injured or he is trying to call for help in some other way. Mary-Beth - I wanted to go with the power of empathy to her sensing emotions - however, that doesn’t mean she’s always kind or does it for altruistic reasons. Empath powers can be more complex than that. However, just like in real life, this can cause compassion fatigue. Kieran - Size manipulation like Ant-Man. Hell, the idea of him riding a huge ass horse is hilarious af. In actuality, he can shrink like Ant-Man to get into locks. However ---- he can’t get caught so he has to be more careful than most.  Josiah - Duplication of self combined with mimicry. He'd be terrifying depending on how he'd use it. However, it is extremely difficult to control. Reverend - The ability to spread hope / inspire to almost anyone - however, just like in the game, he has to be in the right mind set and it can be exhausting. Bill - The power to cause explosions at will.......this can be difficult to control and can literally backfire. However, it comes in handy as a thief.

Strauss - Super intellect. He is more left brained in that this is more mathematics, statistics, able to make a good hypothesis and pick up skills in that field. However, this makes him prone to headaches. Pearson - The ability to be immune to all poisons whether its through food or liquids, but also poisonous gas as in swampy areas. Unfortunately, his ability to avoid poisons could make him a danger to others if he accidentally contaminates something.

#rdr 2 #arthur morgan #van der linde gang #red dead redemption 2 #john marston #dutch van der linde #charles smith #hosea matthews #lenny summers #javier escuella #tilly jackson #kieran duffy #sean macguire #karen jones #bill williamson #mary-beth gaskill #molly o'shea #simon pearson #micah bell #josiah trelawny #Leopold strauss #sadie adler #susan grimshaw #reverend swanson #abigail roberts #abigail marston #jack marston

[whiteheartlight]

I can definitely see in some areas of matoran society that some elements would ge grouped into one group! Probably different expectations depending on their environement, needs, and who was currently ruling. From that would grow different genders. One good example of the spiritual - physical divide is Metru Nui where stone, fire, and air mostly did crafts and transportation while the other metrus focused on teaching, archiving, and future-reading, all jobs related to studying.

It's not that these were the only jobs each element could be performing according to their abilities and nature - see Matoro being a pet shop owner - but what the expectations were.

On a related idea: matoran, toa, and turaga are all different genders going by what was shown about them in the story.

Even a human who doesn't transition doesn't have the same gender over their life. It's a wholly different thing to be a child, compared to being a teenager, a young adult, growing older, being a senior, etc.

Even if it's not related to age, there's a similar idea. Matoran are workers; toa are protectors; turaga are communal leaders. Toa call people of their own team by the title of sister / brother as well as other toa. The same goes among turaga. But a toa and turaga are never seen calling each other that if I remember correctly.

Which makes me think of a toa team who mostly moved on as turaga, but where one or two of their members have stayed as toa for some reason.

They still treat each other largely the same. The turaga sometimes step in as warriors; the toa are also leaders. One of the turaga maybe doesn't want to lead at all and leaves it to a toa sibling.

It's very confusing to some matoran societies.

wow, that's a lot of different ideas! some of that is very new to me, like the idea that Toa, Matoran, and Turaga would be different genders, or that different duties are related to gender. I don't understand some of these ideas, but there's no harm in headcanoning!

I do like the idea of Toa having different terms of affection for Turaga than they do for each other, like instead of calling your Toa 'brother' or 'sister' you call them 'grandfather/grandmother' or 'uncle/aunt.' sometimes people protest that words like that are too human, but they're not any more relational than brother or sister! if you've spent time in a culture where you call lots of people your aunt, uncle, or grandparents, this will make more sense. I also like to say that the Toa Mata call Artakha father, not out of any kind of affection or family relationship, but just as a word that means someone who created you specifically.

[a-dogpgh]

Science vs Religion as as distraction from nuance

science and religion do not preclude one another, we can do our best to measure what we can observe but we cannot know the true nature of the world.

Either side using their position to have a sense of superiority over the other is harmful. Both are institutional powers that have control and real effects on our life, sure, science could be objective in theory but in practice it's man making decisions of what to research, what to value, it's often way messier than that, or at worst weaponized to assert people's own inherent merit. It's highly meritocratic which is at odds with the objective-ness of it: if it were objective, it'd be highly collaborative and not about the ego and immortalization of being the person making the big discovery.

The same person who killed pluto claims we have a ninth planet we have yet to observe, the same guy who said "light works how we know it to and I made a study repeating this I am very smart" says "we can accurately predict who can make nobel prize material based off how often they're cited, and as such we should use this to determine who to permit into programs despite the fact that popular science by big names will always get cited more often than smaller studies that may actually say something meaningful" (yes this is as racist and self-serving as it sounds).

There's so much unethical practices in both, go look at the comment sections of a video by Dr. Fatima, watch her videos, tbh, because if there's one thing we need more of in science is people listening to the experiences of marginalized people in those communities. Granted yes, I'm guilty of centering one person's examples that match my own view of the world, I will admit I'm biased, but I'm biased on the side that looks to acknowledge the faults of the world so we can make something better.

I seriously cannot recommend her content enough, while she doesn't talk much about faith, she does break down the idea of scientific objectivity and other issues that cloud the field of science, and it's been so enlightening to watch.

Sources: Dr. Fatima, lived experience, tired of people fucking arguing about shit that only serves to create greater divides between people, i made it up, it came to me in a dream once, etc. (If I had done real research and not just apply my collective learning online I'd cite shit but for now you get this all because I am a garbage fuck.)

#essay #science vs religion #religion vs science #spirituality #science #dr fatima #Youtube

[sacredcynic]

In previous days I used to write these missives much more frequently, but in recent years I have not. One of the reasons is that I have been involved in other writing projects that have yielded a number of books. (If you haven't already - read my book on Paul - My Friend Paul, you will understand Paul much more thoroughly) The other reason is that it seems no one is listening anymore. Collectively we have retreated into our hardened silos and are very comfortable there. Let me step out of any silo and explain where I am. Hopefully, it is not a silo but a large green field with room for countless others to join.

There are three words that describe my position. The first one is Christian, but let me explain that a bit. In the New Testament Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians. To put it mildly the Corinthians were a mess. They were divided, engaging in lawsuits with one another and were affected by sexual practices that harmed the community. In the midst of all of this Paul never stopped calling them Christian.

The Galatians were a different story altogether. They were devout, firm and very committed to the cause. After Paul left others came to Galatia and told them that to be Christian you not only needed faith, but you had to be circumcised as well, and avoid Red Lobster and bacon cheeseburgers as well. They enthusiastically responded, called the mohel and scheduled their adult circumcisions. That is commitment! Paul looked on their commitment and told them clearly they had abandoned the faith.

Many are surprised at this but Paul's reasoning was clear. One is Christian because of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and nothing else. As soon as anyone adds other requirements, they can be moral, they can be devout, and they can be committed, but they are no longer Christian. it seems to me we are again in the world of the Galatians. There are a number of voices that proclaim a number of requirements for the faith. You have to look a certain way, listen to certain music, or vote a certain way. A Christian must have the same political opinion as me. Any requirement other than faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus takes us away from this word, Christian.

In fact, one of the powerful statements that the church can make is when Jew and Gentile, male and female, Democrat and Republican can genuinely love and care in a way that surpasses all of these labels. When we do we proclaim to every earthly tyrant and despot that Jesus is Lord and not them, or their empty rhetoric that divides for their political gain. If Jesus is Lord, we do not need them.

My second word is Anyone. I am an Arminian - proudly. This is a description that many people do not recognize. It is from a man named Jacobus Arminius, who lived around the turn of the 17th century. After 100 years of Reformation, the church had made a hard turn toward Calvinism and its emphasis on the elect as objects of God's grace. This bothered Arminius and people heard a different message in his teaching and sermons. He ran afoul of the leaders of the movement so they questioned him about his teaching. When asked if he believed in the doctrine of Election he responded that he did. As a follow-up he was asked who comprised the Elect. His answer was simply "anyone who would believe."

This is where I stand as well. I believe anyone can benefit from grace. His grace is available for everyone, so anyone can access this grace. In recent years our leaders separated us between the Essential and the Non-Essential. This was profoundly arrogant and stupid. Everyone is essential. Every life bears the image of the God who created all of us. My second word is Anyone.

My third word is Spirit. This is a popular word today as most people want to describe themselves as spiritual. Just ask their previous four wives, and they will all say the same thing. I am not using Spirit in the amorphous, touchy-feely way that is so prevalent today, but in the historical, Christian sense. In Romans 7 Paul describes the struggle of anyone who seeks to live a good life by observing the rule book. If I check all the boxes, then I will know that I am living the good life. Paul details the struggle that we know intimately. If we know that we should not eat the brownie for dessert, it only makes us want the brownie more. Knowing what I shouldn't do doesn't make me good - it just makes me aware of where I fall short. In another letter Paul even stated that he kept every rule perfectly only to find that life did not flow from following the rulebook.

If following the rules does not make a difference, then what does? Paul follows the anguish of Romans 7 with his masterpiece of Romans 8. The answer is not more rules or better discipline but a daily walk with God' Spirit who seeks to live in us. We don't really live until God lives in us.

What does this Spirit do? Romans 8 is clear. The Spirit frees us from the entanglements that pride, anger, and selfishness create. If enables us to live in a way that is no longer characterized by our all too human traits. It enlivens us. The Spirit grants new life here, and promises us that no disease or tyrant will ever have the last word again. We will also experience the resurrection. And the Spirit empowers us to love, serve, and live in ways we otherwise could not.

These are my 3 words. When I was 21, I was ready to do battle and die on about 87 hills. My hills are few now, but these hills are mine. These words are mine. I want to live with these words - Christian. Anyone. Spirit.

[bi-sapphics]

another thing that’s irrelevant to my interactions on this hellsite but that i feel needs to be said anyway, come to think of it, is that i hate how much the term “TERF” gets misused to mean anything that’s “wrong” in the eyes of the person who said it.

what “TERF” should refer to:

radfems (although i will admit imo that some do not entirely qualify ideology-wise even if they do impact-wise; but still)

“(medically) transitioning is body mutilation”

“transmascs of any kind suffer from internalized misogyny”

“transfems are rapists and inherently want to harm and destroy women’s spaces”

“sex > gender // sex should always be divided under any and all circumstances”

“’bisexual’ is based on sex and not gender”

“the full acronym is LGB (drop the T)”

the annoying kind of misandrist truthers. you know the kind. not the “i hate my oppressors and make jokes” but the “i will actually commit mass genocide once i get the chance and feel no remorse because they deserve it”

what “TERF” should NOT refer to (note - i do not 100% agree with all of these):

lesbians

lesbians who have boundaries

people who call out lesbophobia

people who take issue with “mspec lesbians”

people who take issue with “bi+ mspec” labels

“aces & aros are not inherently lgbt (but still valid)”

“ace/aro cannot be a spectrum”

“i don’t care if you reclaim queer but don’t call me a slur”

“queer does not actually unite everyone under one indecisive mixed group and create the flawless community you think it does”

“queer is a fucking slur and should never be reclaimed fuck you if you use that word ever”

exclusionists of any kind (through the eyes of radical inclusionists), whether leaning, casual, radical, etc.

anti-mogai (at least in the extreme radical sense where some coined terms violate boundaries and make many uncomfortable)

what TERF should NOT refer to since even though these are extremely shitty takes, they don’t qualify for the acronym:

political conservatives (they can’t be radfems; they’re all misogynists and uphold gender roles)

transmedicalists (can often lead to that path and should be distrusted not to, but don’t always)

nonbinary-skeptics (in some cases they may qualify as TERFs but imo that line is slightly blurred, just like with transmeds)

“asexuality & aromanticism aren’t real or valid and you’re probably young”

“pronouns = gender”

“your presentation must match your gender identity”

“lesbians cannot be nonbinary”

“you should use trixic/neptunic/venusic/etc. instead of lesbian”

“butch/femme are lesbian-exclusive”

“dyke can only be reclaimed by lesbians”

lesbian superiority complex

unironic “bihet” users

anti-neopronouns ;; anti-xenogenders

TL;DR - use TERF for what it actually means (anti-trans, “biology is not bigotry”, etc.) and NOT for “someone i disagree with”, whether or not that take is ACTUALLY harmful.

DISCLAIMER: feel free to correct me about the misplacement of anything or if there’s anything i should add somewhere!! please do not attack me or assume bad faith as you might’ve missed the true intention of this post. to be very clear: i am not an exclusionist, or a transmed, or a radfem (especially the latter two), or buddy-buddy with any of those things. i am not defending any of these harmful ideas. please reread the note i put where i said i do not agree with everything in the second list and agree with nothing in the third list. with that out of the way, feel free to reblog, comment, or send an ask with your additions.

#chase.txt #lgbt discourse #terf mention #radfem mention #terfs dni #radfems dni #transmed mention #transmed dni #transphobia #nbyphobia #lesbophobia #biphobia #exclusionist #inclusionist #radical ideology #lgbt resources #lgbt sources

[thetravelingmaster]

Anonymity - Shield or Weapon?

The most common thing among us in this community is Anonymity. We all use it to some degree when indulging our Kinks. Our first and foremost reason to do it is, of course, to keep us safe as we explore this strange and for some, embarrassing kinky world of non conventional arousal. The internet is a heaven for everyone to learn and explore ANYTHING their hearts may find desirable.

Are identities aren't needed to indulge and discover new things about ourselves. You can call yourself Jack, Jill, Fran or Hornybabyslut. It doesn't matter. It helps create a sense of security that enables you to dive into what ever kink you feel you can't indulge in your every day life.

And even if you can indulge IRL and are fully accepted as the kinkster that you are, Anonymity affords you a a free shield for you to protect your wonderful life from the dark and ill intentioned predators constantly surfing the World Wide Web for prey.

Anonymity isn't bad at all. It's recommended.

Exploring and enjoying our different kinks can lead you to wonderful and emotional places. Places you may not go if you couldn't be someone else.

Anonymity is a perfect and accepted shield we all carry.

But it doesn't mean you can't be yourself. It doesn't mean you can't be honest and true with yourself and the people you engage with.

You can call yourself Gina64 and be a full on kinky bimbo slut that talks and acts so dumb and dirty that the people you engage with online think you are nothing more. If that is your way to explore and escape, there is nothing wrong with that. You can become anyone you wish once you fire up your phone or your computer.

That is the beauty of this wonderful and dark internet.

When all is said and done, Gina64 is just a persona you try on. She may or may not have the same beliefs as you promote in your every day life. That's perfectly fine.

Anonymity offers that possibility. That safety...

However...

Anonymity can also be a weapon.

That same safety can protect the bad people that are looking to take advantage of others.

Just like a sword, it can be used to defend and protect as well as divide and conquer. It all depends on who wields it and what they choose to do with the sword in their hands.

My point is very simple: Anonymity doesn't half to mean that you can be 100% yourself.

For the purpose of this post, I'm going to exclude the people that come here to become someone else. It can be a very therapeutic and I definitely not saying that being a completely different person online is wrong in anyway.

Well not in itself...

And that's what I mean. You can play at being fun and fluffy or dark and brooding, what ever fills your cup of tea. As long as you are being honest with yourself about why you are doing it.

The problem I have tonight as I write these lines is when the kink in question involves hypnosis. Not fun roleplaying, but REAL hypnosis and subsequent play.

You have to be very honest and open to engage in that sort of kink and Anonymity can offer you that safe space to indulge from.

BUT ANONYMITY DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE BEING DISHONEST.

Being dishonest has nothing to do with anonymity and here is an example of what I mean. Say Our Gina64 is into hypnosis. Say she searches out potential erotic hypnotists online to explore and indulge that itch. She can call herself Gina64 and be a dude. It doesn't really matter as long as you are being honest and about the level of things you wish to reveal to the hypnotist.

If you are being honest with yourself and the person you are engaging with, no harm no foul.

But say that Gina64 doesn't want to reveal that he is in fact a guy. It could be fine if the hypnotist doesn't care. But what if the reason you are engaging in hypnosis is to experience erotic hypnosis? And that Gina64 leads the hypnotist on being saying again and again that they are a girl. For all of us, erotic hypnosis in our Kink community is arousing and erotic for both parties. So a hypnotist that decides to engage and offer erotic hypnosis to Gina64 while under the impression that he is a she when in fact they are a HE...

Well... That can create confusing and even dangerous things down the road. If the connection develops and more and more the hypnotist is made to believe in this falsehood, then it creates an invisible rift between them. A very dishonest rift...

A rift that can actually hurt... Especially if the hypnosis kink also includes flavours of Domination and submission. We all know and understand that D/s play can stir up incredibly powerful emotions. As the lies pile on to covert up more lies, the cycle becomes deeper and darker with every dishonest reply.

Until Gina64 finds himself in a position where the lies have boxed him in and he has to bail out instead of admitting to everything he led the hypnotist to believe and experience.

And I'm not even going to talk about people who create elaborate and complex fake personas to actively catfish people...

I'm not saying that all people who indulge in hypnokink and D/s play should always reveal everything about themselves, far from it.

What I'm saying is that you just have to be HONEST as to what type of person you are and what you want to experience. Our community can be very open minded. It's the very nature of our kink.

And anonymity provides the perfect way to be 100% true to yourself without fear or worries.

To properly demonstrate how one can be completely anonymous and still be incredibly honest, I'm going to talk about friend @qu1etsleep.

Theo is an incredible human being and hypnotist that is, like me, adamant about keeping his online life separate from his offline life. He doesn't shy away from telling anyone who contacts him that Theo isn't his real name and that there is no respectful way in hell that you'll ever get a glimpse or a clue as to who he really is.

His Anonymity is a shield meant to keep the lines clear between his hobby and his life. We all do that in some form or another.

I might not know Theo's true name and identity, but I do know that if I were to ever sit in a cafe somewhere and end up chatting with the man behind the blog, then those 2 persons would be identical.

I'd have the same exact conversations and learn about all the exact same opinions Theo and the man in front of me share.

Because even though his name has changed, he will still be the same person. he just changed out his name tag. Nothing else changed.

Theo is authentic with himself and with everyone that takes the time to talk with him. His Anonymity doesn't affect or change that at all. It just offers him the same safety we all crave.

This authenticity is what makes him, in my humble opinion, a terrific and accomplished 'amateur' hypnotist. Make no mistake, he is no rookie and he WILL drop you if the rapport is there. Authentic and Anonymous...

That is what this community needs above all else.

Some of you MIGHT just understand why I'm ranting about all this tonight, and you would be right. I've felt the sting of this double edged sword and it took others to help me see just how far down the fake rabbit hole I had been led into.

But now I'm out, dusting off the creepiness of the experience and moving on.

So by all means, soak yourselves in Anonymity until people in our kink community aren't even sure who you are...

But BE HONEST. And if you do, I think you'll find even more incredible people and exquisite experiences to be had. You'd be surprised how much someone can accept and understand.

As a point of fact, if the person you are trying to let into your mind isn't opened minded enough to accept your own authenticity, then perhaps you should seriously rethink the fact that you are giving them the keys to your mental palace.

There is no gain from being dishonest and stringing people along.

Unless that is the pleasure you are seeking here... If that is the case, then maybe you should start understanding that you are no better than a full blown predator.

And that is something our community needs the least of all.

We are all searching and indulging ourselves in our forbidden and delicious kinks, there is nothing wrong with that.

Enjoy your safe and secure anonymity, but do it responsibly and above all, do it while being honest with yourself and others.

#musings

[vkelleyart]

Thoughts on fandom: inclusion and engagement.

(Art credit to the kindhearted @penpanoply​!)

There’s been some stuff floating around on Tumblr about strife in the CO/WS fandom, and though I haven’t been explicitly named-dropped on anything public, my DMs have been... active. lol Rather than rehash what’s been said already, I just want to impart a little wisdom and perspective in the hopes it may soothe frayed feelings and offer a way ahead for cultivating a respectful community. As someone who has been an active participant in online fandoms since the mid-’90s, which was the advent of online fandom content creation (shout out to my fellow X-Philes!), and who has also spent a chunk of her professional life managing social media for the federal government and for activist groups, I can promise you it’s all gonna be okay.

Here’s some context for why strife happens and what we can do to create a more inclusive and communicative fandom environment. 

1) It sounds cliché, but fandoms go through growing pains. 

In the case of the Simon Snow fandom, what was once a small and cozy space untouched by cataclysmic events (such as the release of *gasp* a sequel) has grown exponentially in a relatively short amount of time following the release of Wayward Son. Newcomers are eager to find a home in this space at the same time as folks who’ve been here a while may be consciously or unconsciously wary about widening their circle, and It’s important to remember that this is not necessarily an expression of bad behavior on either side but just human psychology doing its thing. 

The byproduct, however, is that tension and stress builds over time from the lack of meaningful communication across the divide, which subsequently fuels misunderstandings. Ironically, the interfaces we use to communicate don’t help with this because any existing communication about the tension happens in tiny vacuums until a trigger goes off and bad feelings go public. 

Way Ahead: These moments of destabilization are opportunities to see where we can be more self aware about how we engage with fandom and the kind of community we want to be. Can you promote, support, or befriend someone trying to gain a foothold? If yes, please do! Each person must reach their own decision about what they can do within the confines of their available energy, health, and time, but a little self awareness goes a long way as long as you’re honest with yourself and others if applicable about what you can contribute. Anyone who judges you for it isn’t worth the strife.

2) In a fandom comprised of vulnerable/marginalized people, it’s more accurate to say that cliques are “bubbles of trust.”

This one's important. Just by nature of the source material, the CO/WS fandom includes fans with a wide array of backgrounds and experiences, especially when it comes to those who identify with the characters’ queerness, mental illness, and/or trauma. I really believe––based on individual conversations/group chats––that the difficult lived experiences that so many of our fandom peers have endured has produced one of the most open, aware, and accepting fandoms I’ve had the pleasure of participating in. Our vulnerability is, in a real way, our strength.

That said, a community of survivors also has the side effect of cultivating small circles of engagement that I call “bubbles of trust.” When you’re a survivor of abuse, marginalization, mental illness, fill-in-the-blank, it’s often quite hard to risk casting a wide net and expanding your circle to include new faces––which can subsequently be internalized by equally sensitive and vulnerable newcomers as rejection, judgement, or inadequacy.

Way Ahead: First of all, there may indeed be gatekeeping and exclusion going on. But before internalizing someone’s cagey behavior as gatekeeping or purposely exclusionary, ask yourself if you have all the information. Many people are private (I include myself in this assessment) because life has regrettably taught them to be this way, and so they may insulate themselves to a small group of people who have earned their trust. Some people might also triggered by certain content (case in point: smut triggers my anxiety) so they don’t engage with it. Others might have something in their pasts that define how they handle certain subjects (for example, a person of color should not be tone policed for getting angry when confronted with a racialized microagression, however accidental it was). You just don’t know what you don’t know. 

The solution here is to regularly check your privilege and ask questions in a private space if you sense you’re being treated unfairly by someone. If you go public with your grievances in hopes of mobilizing the mob, you may accidentally find yourself stepping into the role of the aggressor instead of the victim.

3) Social Media is not built to help you get engagement. It’s built to help itself make money off of you.

Repeat after me: Hits/likes are not a measurable indicator of talent or worth. There are ridiculously talented folks on Tumblr and elsewhere who, for whatever reason, haven’t had their viral moment, and it’s not their fault. Loads of factors come into play where things like likes, reblogs, and comments are concerned, among them being posting frequency, subject matter, the time of day, the day of the week, the week of the month, the month of the year, the current administration, the stock exchange, the concentration of middle class users, who just won the Superbowl, a madman trying to steal an election and undermine the democratic process, a PANDEMIC, do you get where I’m going with this?? lol

At the end of the day, my humble successes have been helped along by good luck, good timing, high profile signal boosters, and an absurd amount of work. (This is why I try to signal boost new work whenever I get a chance over at @vkelleyshares.) 

So while you cannot control Tumblr’s interface, trends at large, or your fellow users, here’s what you can do to ensure you give your work the best possible chance of exposure.

Have an image ready to go with your post. Tumblr is a visual platform (no matter what it says about being good for text). Not good with images? Set up a Canva.com account and get access to free graphic software with a gazillion templates to create whatever attractive image you want to attach to your post.

Keep the outward facing text brief and easy on the eyes. Too long and eyes will glaze over. Put excess text behind a “read more.”

You may think you’re being cute when you do this, but don’t put yourself down in your posts. (Don’t put yourself down in general, of course.) Doing so acts as engagement repellant. If you don’t believe in your work, no one else will.

Related: Be your best cheerleader. Confidence is a magnet, and if you don’t have it, go ahead and fake it until you start to convince yourself you are worth the buzz. So promote yourself! You have gifts that only you can impart. Use that knowledge to fuel everything you do from your art/fiction writing to your outreach with other content creators, and by golly, if someone’s done it already, acknowledge that contribution and then tell the world that this is YOUR unique take on it.

Treat your fellow fandom creators as human beings, not art/fiction/content boosting machines. I cannot count how many times I’ve had folks slide into my DMs with offers of friendship only to disappear once they realize I’m not available to draw a picture for their fic. It hurts because it’s manipulative and it makes me want to hole up and not signal boost anyone. Creators who truly support each other will not give off a transactional vibe. I want to help you reach more people, but not if that’s all I’m good for in your eyes. 

The long and short of it: Lead with compassion, do your best with the opportunities at  your disposal, and remember that fandom belongs to everyone in it. ❤️

What saves a fandom made of sensitive and vulnerable souls from imploding when it goes through growing pains is radical compassion from those who can offer it. Begin with the assumption that your fellow fandomers are not trying to harm you, and wade into the water knowing that your insight into the lives of your peers is limited by default and you may need to temper your words or actions accordingly. If you’re a content creator, save compassion for yourself as well, as there are indeed challenges to gaining an audience, and lack of engagement does not mean you lack talent or skill. Be your best advocate, and if you have the bandwidth to lift up a fellow creator and make a new friend, please, go ahead do it! 

And finally, fandom belongs to everyone, and no one has a monopoly on characters, tropes, or themes. Create and consume what you love (with respect for your more vulnerable peers), and bask in the variety, my friends!

That’s all I’ve got in my head at the moment, although I’m sure there’s more I’m forgetting. Thanks so much to @penpanoply for letting me use her art for this and to everyone else, hang in there and try not to judge each other too harshly. These are unprecedented times, and most of us are doing our best in circumstances that are pushing us to our limits. 

As always, if you have questions or want to sound off on anything, shoot me a message or an ask, or ping me on Discord. It might take me a second to respond (thanks, Covid) but I’ll get to it! Love, love, and more love to all.

#fandom stuff

[chainofclovers]

Ted Lasso 2x1 thoughts

Running out of time to capture my thoughts on 2x1 specifically before 2x2 airs, so here's a mess of things I thought about in response to the season 2 premiere. (Heavily informed by conversations w/my wife and some friends and family both within and without the fandom, discord conversations, things I've read on tumblr, reviews in the press, and, yes, my own little brain when it's alone.)

I really liked it (actually, I loved it)

Because a lot of people--myself included--binged s1 in a single go, I think a lot of people came away from that (beautiful almost perfect) season of TV with a sense that it was just this continuous five-hour explosion of feelings-y goodness with a very clear thesis statement: Make The Audience Happy. But obviously there's a lot of complicated stuff being set up within those five hours of TV, with intentional dividing lines and transitions between the episodes. I know some people watched 2x1 and felt frustrated because it didn't "feel like Ted Lasso" but I didn't feel that way. What I did feel, by contrasting 2x1 with all of s1, is that the atmosphere in s1 wasn't so much an audience-centric feel-good make-em-laugh kind of thing so much as a reflection of the gradual feeling of settling into home as Ted finds his place in Richmond and at AFC Richmond and in letting go of things (marriage) for the first time, and Rebecca, who's majority owner of the damn club but doesn't have a place within it, goes on a parallel community-locating journey. So the intensely warm, comfortable, feelings-y viewing experience is really just a reflection of what it was feeling like for pretty much every character with the exception of Rupert and Bex to carve out a more comfortable, honest, warm place for themselves.

But the challenges of relegation, the specters of the past, the longing any character (any human) has for more, and the mental health issues that come along for the ride meant that 2x1 needed to feel uncomfortable. They create that atmosphere by riddling 2x1 with so many jokes and references that it feels chaotic, overstuffed. The football season isn't going horribly, but it's WEIRD, and everyone is uncomfortable, and Ted doesn't know how to deal with the discomfort within himself so he's relying on the things he knows: references, anecdotes, strung-together wisdom. He clearly plans the Hank-the-dog speech in advance of the press conference, and the tongue-in-cheek "wow, this is so profound" expressions on the journalists' faces are hilarious to me because it's like we're watching them react to a man who's about to lose it and is in the final moments of being able to control the narrative about his team before someone from the outside will have to come in.

I'm obsessed with a tag @ratherembarrassing put on a TL reblog: "This is a show of soliloquies." I loved Ted's manufactured yet thematically necessary speech. I loved that Rebecca basically blacks out at a coffeeshop and tells John all about the messages (harmful or at least profoundly still-in-progress) she's been processing about intimacy and safety. [Side note: it's so perfect that she's still afraid to feel safe. It's like, "If I feel safe, what am I missing about the situation that's going to come back to hurt me?" OOOOF.] I feel like these moments where characters kind of speechify and the audience matters but the audience also does not matter just reflect the overall atmospheric stuff the show does. Like, it's more important to make us feel how it feels than to construct a moment of hyper-realistic dialogue. I get why it can be jarring but I'm into it.

The dog. Welp. A dog died right away. The special effects looked weird. I love dogs, I'm not a monster, but I was also just...not emotionally torn up about Earl at all. It's a catalyst. It's a very quick way to kind of bloop the entire world of Ted Lasso into a skewed and uncomfortable place where these characters absolutely need to reside until they can figure out how to attend to their own mental health and healing with the same focus and compassion they apply to their friendships with other people.

I'm obsessed with how much everything is going to HURT. Like, Ted walked in and Rebecca said she wished he was Keeley and then she didn't start eating the biscuits right away?!?

The biscuits are such an emotional crutch in s1 and SO MUCH of Rebecca's headspace is taken up with destroying something Ted is starting to love, destroying Ted, but also being there for him and feeling seen by him in a truly unique way, so I kind of love the psychic shift here, where all this emotional stuff has happened between them but to move forward they're going to have to learn some new conversational skills. Like girl talk.

The nail polish. I love everyone. I love the nail polish. I love that Ted was late to practice because of it. I love how much he wants other people to need him because it's so clear that he got his feelings hurt like 30 times in 2x1 and doesn't even fully realize it.

I love Dr. Sharon Fieldstone. I love that everyone but Ted very clearly understands the value of having a sports psychologist around. I love that her introduction is not about having to sell the players on the fact that they should talk to someone, but rather about Ted's discomfort over his own leadership abilities and the conflict this could create. It's so good. I'm so excited about it.

Beard and Ted in the pub! All people are different people! Ahhhhhh! Thank God For Beard (TGFB). TGFB is probably going to be my personal motto while watching this season of adorable and emotionally wrenching and ambitious television.

OK, I feel better now that I have this chaotic list out of my brain and onto tumblr. Should that make me feel better? I do not know. I do know that I'll probably try to do this for every episode because watching it week by week is going to drive me insane and I would really like to have some kind of record of the distinct-to-episodes yet cumulative viewing experience before I'm able to take in the full season (and the full series so far) as a whole.

#ted lasso #ted lasso s2 spoilers #meta by me #a lesbian watches ted lasso #ted lasso 2x1

[poisonfallen]

Your take on cancel culture and stan culture?

Oh boy, oh boy, it's happening.

Alright, let's talk about toxic people on the internet. And keep in mind that my opinion goes beneath the mcyt community. I feel the same about the kpop community and any other community that is famous for having lots of toxic people. 

Also, keep in mind that this is my opinion about these topics, I don’t intend to offend or misinform anybody. I might be wrong, and if I am wrong indeed, please help me correct any mistake that I’ve done.

Cancel culture

Before ranting about its toxicity, let's understand what it actually means and how it works.

What is cancel culture? 

Well, according to Wikipedia, “cancel culture or call-out culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person” (source). 

Basically, cancel culture is the process of ceasing offering support to a public figure after saying or doing something that is considered objectionable or offensive. 

In theory, cancel culture is a good thing that helps the victims speak up and properly defend themselves, as well as preventing other people from doing the same mistakes. No harm done to innocent people, just a way of saying why a certain person or a certain company has done something that really hurt a category of people. Some even say that it’s an exercise of free speech.

However, while a culture that encourages calling out inappropriate behaviour is important, a culture that is quick to cancel and reluctant to forgive is something that divides the internet and starts wars in the trial of defending an opinion that is not shared by every single person on the internet, thus becoming the thing that its purpose is to defeat. (a vicious cycle of hatred)

So why is it toxic?

From my point of view, I don’t think that cancel culture is a toxic thing in theory. But the way people actually use it is what concerns (and bothers) me. 

In its current form, anonymous and fuelled by negative emotions, cancel culture has the power to destroy a person’s career in a matter of minutes. There are no gray areas, just the white and black pack mentality: “I am right and you are wrong”. 

The subject of the cancelation becomes “cancelled” for disagreeing with a certain opinion, and the cancelled one feels like the whole world is hating them. No one can argue that going through a cancellation, no matter how big or small it is, can severely affect one’s mental health and leave them scarred for life. 

Cancel culture, at this point, is bullying someone famous without facing the consequences. We are already used to surf the web and stumble across someone’s cancelation over something that not even in our wildest dreams we would be able to imagine otherwise. 

I think that all of us are familiar with a stupid cancelation, like canceling someone over a burger that somehow became the sole reason of obesity (see: Dream MrBeast burger). We can’t help but laugh at people trying to cancel someone for a stupid reason. 

But, unfortunately, not all of our cancelations are stupid or laughable. There are people cancelled over their physical aspect or them not being political active, people cancelled over being friends with certain people or over saying something that is now considered to be slightly offensive a few years ago. The ones who are under the spotlight can’t make jokes or take decisions by themselves, they are supposed to be the marionettes of their fans. 

(I do not intend to say that all cancelations are bad, but I’m trying to highlight how the majority of the most recent cancelations are out of place. If someone actually tries to actively harm your minority, your beliefs etc. you should call out that inappropriate behaviour, but without purposely harming that person as a means of payback) 

There is also a toxic behaviour that I’ve noticed in a cancelation: the “I forgive you”/”I don’t forgive you” phrase used by people who have no right to do so. If you are part of the minority who has been hurt, then you have every right to forgive or not someone for saying or doing something hurtful towards your minority. 

But if you are not a part of that minority, shut the f*** up. By speaking on behalf of a minority while you aren’t part of that minority you take away the right of actually addressing the issue from the people who are part of that minority. You can support them from the sides and let them express their pain with their own voice. They perfectly capable of addressing the issue, they need your support but not you taking the spotlight away from the actual problem.

What is my take on cancel culture?

I think that there are more civil ways of resolving an issue without actively trying to destroy someone’s career. Instead of cancelling that person, we could educate them (but not in that harmful way I’ve seen on twitter) on the subject and on why their words or actions are hurtful. 

We should remember that we are all humans and that every human makes mistakes. Don’t forget that children learn by making mistakes. And while I’m well aware that we are not talking about children here, you should also be well aware that we are talking about actual humans with feelings. 

Cancelation should be the last weapon we use, but only if that person refuses to give an apology and educate themselves on the subject. 

Overall, don’t. Just don’t cancel people. Don’t attack people on the internet. Don’t try to harm people on the internet. 

Some of you might disagree with my opinion and I’m open to criticism as long as you can help me educate more on the subject.

Now let’s move on to the other topic

Stan culture

Before I start talking about this one, I’d like to point out that stans actually scare me, a lot. 

What is stan culture?

“Stan culture describes an online phenomenon in which communities of stalker fans, or stans, engage in overly enthusiastic support of a favorite celebrity online (called “stanning”), including at times vehement, coordinated attacks against detractors and critics” (source). 

Basically stan = stalker + fan. 

There are also people who say that the word stan comes from Eminem’s song “Stan” which tells the story of a crazed fan. I do recommend listening to the lyrics of this song if Eminem is not your cup of tea, it’s a good intake in what stan culture was at the beginning of 2000′s.

To be honest, I don’t have anything more to add at this section. Anything more I’d say would, in the end, be the same as what was already stated. (but you can see my opinion on it with more comments at the end)

It stan culture toxic?

You have to live under a rock if you had never seen a stan on twitter or tumblr. You usually recognize them by their profile pictures, the content they share, their posts and their ready to argue behaviour in case you insult or disagree with the ones they worship. 

I’d like to point out that there is a fine line between a stan and a fan: stans know no length when it comes to defending their object of worship and often have really toxic ways of expressing their opinions, while a fan is there just to enjoy their favourite content without engaging in harmful discussion and hate speeches. 

This topic is filled with controversy. In essence, stanning should be a means of showing support. The majority of them don’t even realize the toxicity they spread only after leaving the fandom. 

The real problem here is the moment when they engage in conflicts without entertaining the thought that they might be wrong. Anything they do is right and their object of worship can say or do no mistake. This extends to the point of sending death threats and even doxxing. 

For those who don’t know about doxxing, short for dropping dox: doxxing is an internet slang that means to publish personal information (of an individual) on the internet. You can find more about it here.

With no intend to disrespect or disregard one’s religious beliefs, you can say that stanning is like being part of a religion. The stans are the extremist people who practice that religion, while the fans are those who practice it from time to time (eg. like a Christian who goes to Church only on Christmas and Easter - me). 

In the end, stan culture is toxic to both the stans and celebrities. 

Is there a connection between stan culture and cancel culture?

They are both toxic internet cultures, this one is right for sure.

From what I’ve noticed during my short timed stay on twitter, a lot of cancelations are made by stans from the same community or different communities. 

I’m part of mcyt community, so I’ve seen a lot of Dream fans and Dream antis fighting over the past months, trying to cancel each other and harm each other. It’s mental seeing people actively trying to do these kind of things just because they love or hate a certain person. Of course that we can’t tie the situation to a certain content creator. 

I know that his also happens a lot in the kpop community where stans are in a constant fight to destroy the career of each other’s favourite idol group or bias (someone's most favorite member of an idol group). 

What is my take on stan culture?

I feel like I need to repeat myself: stans scare the s*** out of me. 

It’s like their sole purpose in life is to support someone and don’t have the basic sense of boundaries. A lot of problems arise with this: like shipping people who are uncomfortable being shipped with, intense sexualizing (sexualizing the minors is the worst from my point of view), creating drama and intentionally ignoring real world problems just to make their favourite person(s) trend, and the list is so long that I feel like I’d create a record on tumblr for the longest post if I go on. 

We are talking about some weird adaptation of Lord of the Flies where children raise each other on the internet. It’s like a cult and they are brainwashed into believing what everybody else thinks. And the worst part is that I don’t think we’ll ever get better from this, things are only going south to heaven. 

I might be wrong and biased, so I do expect someone to help me understand these topics better, but for now these are my firm opinions. 

I’d also like to clarify, once again, that in the religion example I’m not making fun of Christianity, I’m just using it as a means to help people better understand my point.

#if you think doxxing and death threats are justified unfollow me #I'm sorry but I'm so fucking sick of internet at this point #or even better block me you fucking coward #I feel like I have lots of words misspelled but it is what it is #cancel culture #stan culture #mcyt #kpop #free speech #censorship #stanning #important #personal opinion #ask

[letterboxd]

Careful How You Go.

Ella Kemp explores how film lovers can protect themselves from distressing subject matter while celebrating cinema at its most audacious.

Featuring Empire magazine editor Terri White, Test Pattern filmmaker Shatara Michelle Ford, writer and critic Jourdain Searles, publicist Courtney Mayhew, and curator, activist and producer Mia Bays of the Birds’ Eye View collective.

This story contains discussion of rape, sexual assault, abuse, self-harm, trauma and loss of life, as well as spoilers for ‘Promising Young Woman’ and ‘A Star is Born’.

We film lovers are blessed with a medium capable of excavating real-life emotion from something seemingly fictional. Yet, for all that film is—in the oft-quoted words of Roger Ebert—an “empathy machine”, it’s also capable of deeply hurting its audience when not wielded by its makers and promoters with appropriate care. Or, for that matter, when not approached by viewers with informed caution.

Whose job is it to let us know that we might be upset by what we see? With the coronavirus pandemic decimating the communal movie-going experience, the way we accommodate each viewer’s sensibilities is more crucial than ever—especially when so many of us are watching alone, at home, often unsupported.

In order to understand how we can champion a film’s content and take care of its audience, I approached women in several areas of the movie ecosystem. I wanted to know: how does a filmmaker approach the filming of a rape and its aftermath? How does a magazine editor navigate the celebration of a potentially triggering movie in one of the world’s biggest film publications? How does a freelance writer speak to her professional interests while preserving her personal integrity? How does a women’s film collective create a safe environment for an audience to process such a film? And, how does a publicist prepare journalists for careful reporting, when their job is to get eyeballs on screens in order to keep our favorite art form afloat?

The conversations reminded me that the answers are endlessly complex. The concerns over spoilers, the effectiveness of trigger warnings, the myriad ways in which art is crafted from trauma, and the fundamental question of whose stories these are to tell. These questions were valid decades ago, they will be for decades to come, and they feel especially urgent now, since a number of recent tales helmed by female and non-binary filmmakers depict violence and trauma involving women’s bodies in fearless, often challenging ways.

Emerald Fennell’s Promising Young Woman, in particular, has revived a vital conversation about content consideration, as victims and survivors of sexual assault record wildly different reactions to its astounding ending. Shatara Michelle Ford’s quietly tense debut, Test Pattern, brings Black survivors into the conversation. And the visceral, anti-wish-fulfillment horror Violation, coming soon from Dusty Mancinelli and Madeleine Sims-Fewer, takes the rape-revenge genre up another notch.

These films come off the back of other recent survivor stories, such as Michaela Coel’s groundbreaking series I May Destroy You (which centers women’s friendship in a narrative move that, as Sarah Williams has eloquently outlined, happens too rarely in this field). Also: Kata Wéber and Kornél Mundruczó’s Pieces of a Woman, and the ongoing ugh-ness of The Handmaid’s Tale. And though this article is focused on plots centering women’s trauma, I acknowledge the myriad of stories that can be triggering in many ways for all manner of viewers. So whether you’ve watched one of these titles, or others like them, I hope you felt supported in the conversations to follow, and that you feel seen.

Weruche Opia and Michaela Coel in ‘I May Destroy You’.

* * *

Simply put, Promising Young Woman is a movie about a woman seeking revenge against predatory men. Except nothing about it is simple. Revenge movies have existed for aeons, and we’ve rooted for many promising young (mostly white) women before Carey Mulligan’s Cassie (recently: Jen in Coralie Fargeat’s Revenge, Noelle in Natalia Leite’s M.F.A.). But in Promising Young Woman, the victim is not alive to seek revenge, so it becomes Cassie’s single-minded crusade. Mercifully, we never see the gang-rape that sparks Cassie’s mission. But we do see a daring, fatal subversion of the notion of a happy ending—and this is what has audiences of Emerald Fennell’s jaw-dropping debut divided.

“For me, being a survivor, the point is to survive,” Jourdain Searles tells me. The New York-based critic, screenwriter, comedian—and host of Netflix’s new Black Film School series—says the presence of death in Promising Young Woman is the problem. “One of the first times I spoke openly about [my assault], I made the decision that I didn’t want to go to the police, and I got a lot of judgment for that,” she says. “So watching Promising Young Woman and seeing the police as the endgame is something I’ve always disagreed with. I left thinking, ‘How is this going to help?’”

“I feel like I’ve got two hats on,” says Terri White, the London-based editor-in chief of Empire magazine, and the author of a recently published memoir, Coming Undone. “One of which is me creating a magazine for a specific film-loving audience, and the other bit of me, which has written a book about trauma, specifically about violence perpetrated against the body. They’re not entirely siloed, but they are two distinct perspectives.”

White loved both Promising Young Woman and I May Destroy You, because they “explode the myth of resolution and redemption”. She calls the ending of Promising Young Woman “radical” in the way it speaks to the reality of what happens to so many women. “I was thinking about me and women like me, women who have endured violence and injury or trauma. Three women every week are still killed [in the UK] at the hands of an ex-partner, or somebody they know intimately, or a current partner. Statistically, any woman who goes for some kind of physical confrontation in [the way Cassie does] would end up dying.”

She adds: “I felt like the film was in service to both victims and survivors, and I use the word ‘victims’ deliberately. I call myself a victim because I think if you’ve endured either sexual violence or physical violence or both, a lot of empowering language, as far as I’m concerned, doesn’t reflect the reality of being a victim or a survivor, whichever way you choose to call yourself.” This point has been one many have disagreed on. In a way, that makes sense—no victim or survivor can be expected to speak to anyone else’s experience but their own.

Carey Mulligan and Emerald Fennell on the set of ‘Promising Young Woman’.

Likewise, there is no right or wrong way to feel about this film, or any film. But a question that arises is, well, should everyone have to see a film to figure that out? And should victims and survivors of sexual violence watch this film? “I have definitely been picky about who I’ve recommended it to,” Courtney Mayhew says. “I don’t want to put a friend in harm’s way, even if that means they miss out on something awesome. It’s not worth it.”

Mayhew is a New Zealand-based international film publicist, and because of her country’s success in controlling Covid 19, she is one of the rare people able to experience Promising Young Woman in a sold-out cinema. “It was palpable. Everyone was so engaged and almost leaning forwards. There were a lot of laughs from women, but it was also a really challenging setting. A lot of people looking down, looking away, and there was a girl who was crying uncontrollably at the end.”

“Material can be very triggering,” White agrees. “It depends where people are personally in their journey. When I still had a lot of trauma I hadn’t worked through in my 20s, I found certain things very difficult to watch. Those things are a reality—but people can make their own decisions about the material they feel able to watch.”

It’s about warning, and preparation, more than total deprivation, then? “I believe in giving people information so they can make the best choice for themselves,” White says. “But I find it quite reductive, and infantilizing in some respects, to be told broadly, ‘Women who have experienced x shouldn’t watch this.’ That underestimates the resilience of some people, the thirst for more information and knowledge.” (This point is clearly made in this meticulous, awe-inspiring list by Jenn, who is on a journey to make sense of her trauma through analysis of rape-revenge films.) But clarity is crucial, particularly for those grappling with unresolved issues.

Searles agrees Promising Young Woman can be a difficult, even unpleasant watch, but still one with value. “As a survivor it did not make me feel good, but it gave me a window into the way other people might respond to your assault. A lot of the time [my friends] have reacted in ways I don’t understand, and the movie feels like it’s trying to make sense of an assault from the outside, and the complicated feelings a friend might have.”

Molly Parker and Vanessa Kirby in ‘Pieces of a Woman’.

* * *

A newborn dies. A character is brutally violated. A population is tortured. To be human is to bear witness to history, but it’s still painful when that history is yours, or something very close to it. “Some things are hard to watch because you relate to them,” Searles explains. “I find mother! hard to watch, and there’s no actual sexual assault. But I just think of sexual assault and trauma and domestic abuse, even though the film isn’t about that. The thing is, you could read an academic paper on patriarchy—you don’t need to watch it on a show [or in a film] if you don’t want to.”

White agrees: “I’ve never been able to watch Nil by Mouth, because I grew up in a house of domestic violence and I find physical violence against women on screen very hard to watch. But that doesn’t mean I think the film shouldn’t be shown—it should still exist, I’ve just made the choice not to watch it.” (Reader, since our conversation, she watched it. At 2:00am.)

“I know people who do not watch Promising Young Woman or The Handmaid’s Tale because they work for an NGO in which they see those things literally in front of their eyes,” Mayhew says. “It could be helpful for someone who isn’t aware [of those issues], but then what is the purpose of art? To educate? To entertain? For escapism? It’s probably all of those.”

Importantly, how much weight should an artist’s shoulders carry, when it comes to considering the audiences that will see their work? There’s a general agreement among my interviewees that, as White says, “filmmakers have to make the art that they believe in”. I don’t think any film lover would disagree, but, suggests Searles, “these films should be made with survivors in mind. That doesn’t mean they always have to be sensitive and sad and declawed. But there is a way to be provocative, while leaning into an emotional truth.”

Madeleine Sims-Fewer in ‘Violation’.

Violation, about which I’ll say little here since it is yet to screen at SXSW (ahead of its March 25 release on Shudder) is not at all declawed, and is certainly made with survivors in mind—in the sense that in life, unlike in movies, catharsis is very seldom possible no matter how far you go to find it. On Letterboxd, many of those who saw Violation at TIFF and Sundance speak of feeling represented by the rape-revenge plot, writing: “One of the most intentionally thought out and respectful of the genre… made by survivors for survivors” and “I feel seen and held”. (Also: “This movie is extremely hard to watch, completely on purpose.”)

“Art can do great service to people,” agrees White, “If, by consequence, there is great service for people who have been in that position, that’s a brilliant consequence. But I don’t believe filmmakers and artists should be told that they are responsible for certain things. There’s a line of responsibility in terms of being irresponsible, especially if your community is young, or traumatised.”

Her words call to mind Bradley Cooper’s reboot of A Star is Born, which many cinephiles knew to be a remake and therefore expected its plot twist, but young filmgoers, drawn by the presence of Lady Gaga, were shocked (and in some cases triggered) by a suicide scene. When it was released, Letterboxd saw many anguished reviews from younger members. In New Zealand, an explicit warning was added to the film’s classification by the country’s chief censor (who also created an entirely new ‘RP18’ classification for the Netflix series 13 Reasons Why, which eventually had a graphic suicide scene edited out two years after first landing on the streaming service).

“There is a duty of care to audiences, and there is also a duty of care to artists and filmmakers,” says Mayhew. “There’s got to be some way of meeting in the middle.” The middle, perhaps, can be identified by the filmmaker’s objective. “It’s about feeling safe in the material,” says Mia Bays of the Birds’ Eye View film collective, which curates and markets films by women in order to effect industry change. “With material like this, it’s beholden on creatives to interrogate their own intentions.”

Filmmaker Shatara Michelle Ford is “forever interrogating” ideas of power. Their debut feature, Test Pattern, deftly examines the power differentials that inform the foundations of consent. “As an artist, human, and person who has experienced all sorts of boundary violation, assault and exploitation in their life, I spend quite a lot of time thinking about power… It is something I grapple with in my personal life, and when I arrive in any workplace, including a film set.”

In her review of Test Pattern for The Hollywood Reporter, Searles writes, “This is not a movie about sexual assault as an abstract concept; it’s a movie about the reality of a sexual assault survivor’s experience.” Crucially, in a history of films that deal largely with white women’s experiences, Test Pattern “is one of the few sexual-assault stories to center a Black woman, with her Blackness being central to her experience and the way she is treated by the people around her.”

Brittany S. Hall in ‘Test Pattern’.

* * *

Test Pattern follows the unfolding power imbalance between Renesha (Brittany S. Hall) and her devoted white boyfriend Evan (Will Brill), as he drives her from hospital to hospital in search of a rape kit, after her drink was spiked by a white man in a bar who then raped her. Where Promising Young Woman is a millennial-pink revenge fantasy of Insta-worthy proportions, Test Pattern feels all too real, and the cops don’t come off as well as they do in the former.

Ford does something very important for the audience: they begin the film just as the rape is about to occur. We do not see it at this point (we do not really ever see it), but we know that it happened, so there’s no chance that, somewhere deeper into the story, when we’re much more invested, we’ll be side-swiped by a sudden onslaught of sexual violence. In a way, it creates a safe space for our journey with Renesha.

It’s one of many thoughtful decisions made by Ford throughout the production process. “I’m in direct conversation with film and television that chooses to depict violence against women so casually,” Ford tells me. “I intentionally showed as little of Renesha’s rape as humanly possible. I also had an incredibly hard time being physically present for that scene, I should add. What I did shoot was ultimately guided by Renesha’s experience of it. Shoot only what she would remember. Show only what she would have been aware of.

“But I also made it clear that this was a violation of her autonomy, by allowing moments where we have an arm’s length point of view. I let the camera sit with the audience, as I’m also saying, as the filmmaker, this happened, and you saw enough of it to know. This, for me, is a larger commentary on how we treat victims of assault and rape. I do not believe for one goddamn minute that we need to see the actual, literal violence to know what happened. When we flagrantly replicate the violence in film and television, we are supporting the cultural norm of needing ‘all of the evidence’—whatever that means—to ‘believe women’.”

Ford’s intentional work in crafting the romance and unraveling of Test Pattern’s leading couple pays off on screen, but their stamp as an invested and careful director also shows in their work with Drew Fuller, the actor who played Mike, the rapist. “It’s a very difficult role, and I’m grateful to him for taking it so seriously. When discussing and rendering the practice and non-practice of consent intentionally, I found it helpful to give it a clear definition and provide conceptual insight.

“I sent Drew a few articles that I used as tools to create a baseline understanding when it comes to exploring consent and power on screen. At the top of that list was Lili Loofbourow’s piece, The female price of male pleasure and Zhana Vrangalova's Teen Vogue piece, Everything You Need to Know about Consent that You Never Learned in Sex Ed. The latter in my opinion is the linchpin. There’s also Jude Elison Sady Doyle’s piece about the whole Aziz Ansari thing, which is a great primer.”

Sidney Flanigan in ‘Never Rarely Sometimes Always’.

Even when a filmmaker has given Ford’s level of care and attention to their project, what happens when the business end of the industry gets involved in the art? As we well know, marketing is a film’s window dressing. It has one job: to get eyeballs into the cinema. It can’t know if every viewer should feel safe to enter.

It would be useful, with certain material, to know how we should watch, and with whom, and what might we need in the way of support coming out. Whose job is it to provide this? Beyond the crude tool of an MPAA rating (and that’s a whole sorry tale for another day), there are many creative precautions that can be taken across the industry to safeguard a filmgoer’s experience.

Mayhew, who often sees films at the earliest stages (sometimes before a final cut, sometimes immediately after), speaks to journalists in early screenings and ensures they have the tools to safely report on the topics raised. In New Zealand, reporters are encouraged to read through resources to help them guide their work. Mayhew’s teams would also ensure journalists would be given relevant hotline numbers, and would ask media outlets to include them in published stories.

“It’s not saying, ‘You have to do this’,” she explains, “It’s about first of all not knowing what the journalist has been through themselves, and second of all, [if] they are entertainment reporters who haven’t navigated speaking about sexual assault, you only hope it will be helpful going forward. It’s certainly not done to infantilize them, because they’re smart people. It’s a way to show some care and support.”

The idea of having appropriate resources to make people feel safe and encourage them to make their own decisions is a priority for Bays and Birds’ Eye View, as well. The London-based creative producer and cultural activist stresses the importance of sharing such a viewing experience. “It’s the job of cinemas, distributors and festivals to realize that it might not be something the filmmaker does, but as the people in control of the environment it’s our job to give extra resources to those who want it,” says Bays. “To give people a safe space to come down from the experience.”

Pre-pandemic, when Birds’ Eye View screened Kitty Green’s The Assistant, a sharp condemnation of workplace micro-aggressions seen through the eyes of one female assistant, they invited women who had worked for Harvey Weinstein. For a discussion after Eliza Hittman’s coming-of-ager Never Rarely Sometimes Always, abortion experts were able to share their knowledge. “It’s about making sure the audience knows you can say anything here, but that it’s safe,” Bays explains. “It’s kind of like group therapy—you don’t know people, so you’re not beholden to what they think about you. And in the cinema people aren’t looking at you. You’re speaking somewhat anonymously, so a lot of really important stuff can come out.”

The traditional movie-going experience, involving friends, crowds and cathartic, let-loose feelings, is still largely inaccessible at the time of writing. Over the past twelve months we’ve talked plenty about preserving the magic of the big screen experience, but it’s about so much more than the romanticism of an art form; it’s also about the safety that comes from a feeling of community when watching potentially upsetting movies.

“The going in and coming out parts of watching a film in the cinema are massively important, because it’s like coming out of the airlock and coming back to reality,” says Bays. “You can’t do that at home. Difficult material kind of stays with you.” During the pandemic, Birds’ Eye View has continued to provide the same wrap-around curatorial support for at-home viewers as they would at an in-person event. “If we’re picking a difficult film and asking people to watch it at home, we might suggest you watch it with a friend so you can speak about it afterwards,” Bays says.

Julia Garner in ‘The Assistant’.

But, then, how can we still find this sense of community without the physical closeness? “It’s no good waiting for [the internet] to become kind,” she says. “Create your own closed spaces. We do workshops and conversations exclusively for people who sign up to our newsletter. In real-life meetings you can go from hating something to hearing an eloquent presentation of another perspective and coming round to it, but you need the time and space to do that. This little amount of time gives you a move towards healing, even if it’s just licking some wounds that were opened on Twitter. But it could be much deeper, like being a survivor and feeling very conflicted about the film, which I do.”

Conflict is something that Searles, the film critic, knows about all too well in her work. “Since I started writing professionally, I almost feel like I’m known for writing about assault and rape at this point. I do write about it a lot, and as a survivor I continue to process it. I’ve been assaulted more than once so I have a lot to process, and so each time I’m writing about it I’m thinking about different aspects and remnants of those feelings. It can be very cathartic, but it’s a double-edged sword because sometimes I feel like I have an obligation to write about it too.”

There is also a constant act of self-preservation that comes with putting so much of yourself on the internet. “I often get messages from people thanking me for talking about these subjects with a deep understanding of what they mean,” Searles says. “I really appreciate that. I get negative messages about a lot of things, but not this one thing.”

Michaela Coel in ‘I May Destroy You’.

* * *

With such thoughtful approaches to heavy content, it feels like we’re a long way further down the road from blunt tools like content and trigger warnings. But do they still have their place? “It’s just never seemed appropriate to put trigger warnings on any of our reviews or features,” White explains. “We have a heavy male readership, still 70 percent male to 30 percent female. I’m conscious we’re talking to a lot of men who will often have experienced violence themselves, but we don’t put any warnings, because we are an adult magazine, and when we talk about violence in, say, an action film, or violence that is very heavily between men, we don’t caveat that at all.”

Bays, too, is sceptical of trigger warnings, explaining that “there’s not much evidence [they] actually work. A lot of psychologists expound on the fact that if people get stuck in their trauma, you can never really recover from PTSD if you don’t at some point face your trauma.” She adds: “I’m a survivor, and I found I May Destroy You deeply, profoundly triggering, but also cathartic. I think it’s more about how you talk about the work, rather than having a ‘NB: survivors of sexual abuse or assault shouldn’t see this’.”

“It’s important to give people a feel of what they’re in for,” argues Searles. “A lot of people who have dealt with suicide ideation would prefer that warning.” While some worry that a content warning is effectively a plot spoiler, Searles disagrees. “I don’t consider a content warning a spoiler. I just couldn’t imagine sitting down for a film, knowing there’s going to be a suicide, and letting it distract me from the film.” Still, she acknowledges the nuance. “I think using ‘self-harm’ might be better than just saying ‘suicide’.”

Mayhew shared insights on who actually decides which films on which platforms are preceded with warnings—turns out, it’s a bit messy. “The onus traditionally has fallen on governmental censorship when it comes to theatrical releases,” she explains. “But streamers can do what they want, they are not bound by those rules so they have to—as the distributors and broadcasters—take the government’s censors on board in terms of how they are going to navigate it.

“The consumer doesn’t know the difference,” she continues, “nor should they—so it means they can be watching The Crown on Netflix and get this trigger warning about bulimia, and go to the cinema the next day and not get it, and feel angry about it. So there’s the question of where is the responsibility of the distributor, and where is the responsibility of the audience member to actually find out for themselves.”

The warnings given to an audience member can also vary widely depending where they find themselves in the world, too. Promising Young Woman, for example, is rated M in Australia, R18 in New Zealand, and R in the United States. Meanwhile, the invaluable Common Sense Media recommends an age of fifteen years and upwards for the “dark, powerful, mature revenge comedy”. Mayhew says a publicist’s job is “to have your finger on the pulse” about these cultural differences. “You have to read the overall room, and when I say room I mean the culture as a whole, and you have to be constantly abreast of things across those different ages too.”

She adds: “This feeds into the importance of representation right at the top of those boardrooms and right down to the film sets. My job is to see all opinions, and I never will, especially because I am a white woman. I consider myself part of the LGBT community and sometimes I’ll bring that to a room that I think has been lacking in that area, when it comes to harmful stereotypes that can be propagated within films about LGBT people. But I can’t bring a Black person’s perspective, I cannot bring an Indigenous perspective. The more representation you have, the better your film is going to be, your campaign is going to be.”

Bays, who is also a filmmaker, agrees: representation is about information, and working with enough knowledge to make sure your film is being as faithful to your chosen communities as possible. “As a filmmaker, I’d feel ill-informed and misplaced if I was stumbling into an area of representation that I knew nothing about without finding some tools and collaborators who could bring deeper insight.”

Carey Mulligan and Bo Burnham in ‘Promising Young Woman’.

This is something Ford aimed for with Test Pattern’s choice of crew members, which had an effect not just on the end product, but on the entire production process. “I made sure that at the department head level, I was hiring people I was in community with and fully saw me as a person, and me them,” they say. “In some ways it made the experience more pleasurable.” That said, the shoot was still not without its incidents: “These were the types of things that in my experience often occur on a film set dominated by straight white men, that we're so accustomed to we sometimes don’t even notice it. I won’t go into it but what I will say is that it was not tolerated.”

Vital to the telling of the story were the lived experiences that Ford and their crew brought to set. “As it applies to the sensitive nature of this story, there were quite a few of us who have had our own experiences along the spectrum of assault, which means that we had to navigate our own internal re-processing of those experiences, which is hard to do when we’re constructing an experience of rape for a character.

“However, I think being able to share our own triggers and discomfort and context, when it came to Renesha’s experience, made the execution of it all the better. Again, it was a pleasure to be in community with such smart, talented and considerate women who each brought their own nuance to this film.”

* * *

Thinking about everything we’ve lived through by this point in 2021, and the heightened sensitivity and lowered mental health of film lovers worldwide, movies are carrying a pretty heavy burden right now: to, as Jane Fonda said at the Golden Globes, help us see through others’ eyes; also, to entertain or, at the very least, not upset us too much.

But to whom does film have a responsibility, really? Promising Young Woman’s writer-director Emerald Fennell, in an excellent interview with Vulture’s Angelica Jade Bastién, said that she was thinking of audiences when she crafted the upsetting conclusion.

What she was thinking was: a ‘happy’ ending for Cassie gets us no further forward as a society. Instead, Cassie’s shocking end “makes you feel a certain way, and it makes you want to talk about it. It makes you want to examine the film and the society that we live in. With a cathartic Hollywood ending, that’s not so much of a conversation, really. It’s a kind of empty catharsis.”

So let’s flip the question: what is our responsibility, as women and allies, towards celebrating audacious films about tricky subjects? The marvellous, avenging blockbusters that once sucked all the air out of film conversation are on pause, for now. Consider the space that this opens up for a different kind of approach to “must-see movies”. Spread the word about Test Pattern. Shout from the rooftops about It’s A Sin. Add Body of Water and Herself and Violation to your watchlists. And, make sure the right people are watching.

Brittany S. Hall and Will Brill in ‘Test Pattern’.

I asked my interviewees: if they could choose one type of person they think should see Promising Young Woman, who would it be? Ford has not seen Fennell’s film, but “it feels good to have my film contribute to a larger discourse that is ever shifting, ever adding nuance”. They are very clear on who can learn the most from their own movie.

“A white man is featured so prominently in Test Pattern as a statement about how white people and men have a habit of centering themselves in the stories of others, prioritizing their experience and neglecting to recognize those on the margins. If Evan is triggering, he should be. If your feelings about Evan vacillate, it is by design.

“‘Allies’ across the spectrum are in a complicated dance around doing the ‘right thing’ and ‘showing up’ for those they are ostensibly seeking to support,” Ford continues. “Their constant battle is to remember that they need to be centering the needs of those they were never conditioned to center. Tricky stuff. Mistakes will be made. Mistakes must be owned. Sometimes reconciliation is required.”

It is telling that similar thoughts emerged from my other interviewees regarding Promising Young Woman’s ideal audience, despite the fact that none of them was in conversation with the others for this story. For that reason, as we come to the end of this small contribution to a very large, ongoing conversation, I’ve left their words intact.

White: I think it’s a great film for men.

Searles: I feel like the movie is very much pointed at cisgender heterosexual men.

Mayhew: Men.

White: We’re always warned about the alpha male with a massive ego, but we’re not warned about the beta male who reads great books, listens to great records, has great film recommendations. But he probably slyly undermines you in a completely different way. Anybody can be a predator.

Searles: The actors chosen to play these misogynist, rape culture-perpetuating men are actors we think of as nice guys.

White: We are so much more tolerant of a man knocking the woman over the head, dragging her down an alley and raping her, because we understand that. But rape culture is made up of millions of small things that enable the people who do it. We are more likely to be attacked in our own homes by men we love than a stranger in the street.

Mayhew: The onus should not fall on women to call this out.

Searles: It’s not just creeps, like the ones you see usually in these movies. It’s guys like you. What are you going to do to make sure you’re not like this?

Related content

Sex Monsters, Rape Revenge and Trauma: a work-in-progress list

Rape and Revenge: a list of films that fall into, and play with, the genre

Unconsenting Media: a search engine for sexual violence in broadcasting

Follow Ella on Letterboxd

If you need help or to talk to someone about concerns raised for you in this story, please first know that you are not alone. These are just a few of the many organizations and resources available, and their websites include more information.

US: RAINN (hotline [phone] HOPE); LGBT National Help Center; Pathways to Safety; Time’s Up.

Canada: Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centers—contacts by province and territory

UK/Ireland: Mind; The Survivors Trust (hotline [phone]); Rape Crisis England and Wales

Europe: Rape Crisis Network Europe

#promising young woman #violation #emerald fennell #carey mulligan #ella kemp #shatara michelle ford #test pattern #women directors #female director #directed by women #non binary director #non binary filmmaker #lgbt #trigger #trigger warning #content warning #censorship #empire magazine #letterboxd #empire online #terri white #courtney mayhew #film publicity #film marketing #birds eye view

[thcmutcbard]

Headcanon time! - Vyn’s childhood/relationship with parents

More like a ramble but whatever

Vyn has 3 child fcs i use for icons, the younger form of their normal fc (for expressions mostly before they cut their hair), mostly the full body expressions/crying close ups of this one, and also this bean for expressions with shorter hair.

Vyn‘s deadname is Vynessa (Vanessa) and their nickname was Ness/Nessie until they found their sense of self and figured out their gender and chose to cut out the Essa and just be Vyn but pronounced Vine.

Vyn’s mother isn’t intending to deadname them and always uses proper pronouns but assumes the Vyn is “Van” from their deadname rather than pronounced differently even after being told, she’s called them Van for so long that its a habit she has to break and as time goes on and she gets to redeem herself she’ll start saying it right.

Vyn’s toddler years were horrible. They spent the first two years completely unable to communicate. No magic captions, no crying when needing something, no writing or speaking.

Orion taught Vyn sign language from a young age, able to fluently sign around age 2, Orion was near fluent but needed some things slowed to understand. Jasmyn wasn’t picking up on sign language at all.

Vyn felt like a burden, their mother was always frustrated with their curse, seemingly angry that Vyn couldn’t communicate, which led Vyn to closing up further. Jasmyn made them learn a caption spell as soon as they could read and write since it would be easier for her than learning sign language. She told them that it will be more useful to have the caption than to sign and Vyn went along with it to make her happy.

Vyn’s mother, Jasmyn, would speak for Vyn. She made a show of their curse, leading to the adults in town pitying them and whispers whenever they were out and about their hometown.

Jasmyn focused more on trying to find the lady who put the curse on them and it was obvious she had issues with Vyn’s curse. She hated herself for being the cause of her child’s suffering but Vyn felt like their mother was annoyed and inconvenienced by their curse and tried to not bother her.

Jasmyn only realized after Vyn moved in with her father how her actions made Vyn feel and became really doting and over affectionate as they grew older and were away from her for long times. She wants to make up for how she acted but is too oblivious to realize Vyn hasn’t forgiven her and is still very hurt and just gets angry that she seems to pretend that nothing ever happened to create the divide between them.

She genuinely doesn’t understand that Vyn is always angry toward her and goes out of their way to hide until she leaves. Though deep down she knows and wishes she could fix it.

Orion has been working with Jasmyn to learn sign and work on her personality that led to that divide. Helping Jasmyn learn to listen when she reads or signs and trying to teach her boundaries and to think before acting.

Jasmyn is an impulsive woman and honestly not very bright when it comes to people. She had a queen bee persona through her school years and Orion was only able to see the real her when they were alone cause she felt she didn’t have to put on a show for him. They went to Glandus and as a potions student, Jasmyn felt she had to prove herself constantly to everyone around her.

Tw - Depression/Bullying/Self Harm

As Vyn’s childhood went on, they were having severe mental health struggles. They were only three almost four and felt like they were causing everyone problems and was nothing but an annoyance, their mom snapping at them every so often for signing too fast or not using the caption spell didn’t help.

Vyn was bullied at school (age 4/5) for being silent, at this time their curse was known by classmates. (This would lead to the decision to keep the curse secret) Bigger kids would steal from them and hurt them saying if they wanted it to stop they just had to say so! With their words.

They had no friends, and home was depressing to be around. They didn’t know how to make friends or really think they deserved friends.

This was building up in them, they stayed alone, coming home from school to just sit and read. They missed meals, they slept constantly, Orion was very concerned and tried to reach out to them but realized it wasn’t him that needed to make that effort. He did assure Vyn that no matter what, their parents would always love them even if they could be bad at showing it.

Vyn would come home covered in bruises and with tears, one time coming home with a broken arm. Orion was furious but since it happened outside of school hours and the parents didn’t care there wasn’t much he could do to protect Vyn. All he could do was comfort.

Vyn eventually started avoiding school, staying home “sick” and staying in bed. They were growing more and more depressed and Orion knew they wouldn’t survive at this rate. He started making plans to give Vyn a fresh start. Vyn would move in with their grandfather and be away from their mother and have a new start at a new school where no one knew them. They could be anyone they wanted.

The final straw was one night when they were 5. Vyn heard Jasmyn on the phone complaining about the curse to a friend. She was frustrated and angry, the bullying at school, Vyn being unable to communicate how they felt, Jasmyn was furious at herself, but Vyn thought she hated them for the “problems” they caused.

Orion caught Vyn in the bathroom in the middle of the night with scissors and a small sewing kit. They were trying to stitch their mouth shut. Their exhausted depressed 5 year old brain reasoning that if they were cursed to never speak, why did they need their mouth? Orion fought the tools out of their hands as Vyn broke into hysteric tears, bleeding and needing the needle removed from their mouth.

After the healing coven took care of the wounds they were left with a scar around the right side of their mouth from a full stitch they managed to put before being caught. They hide this scar with makeup or a concealment stone. No one outside their family knows about this incident or the scars.

Orion hugged Vyn, holding them close and comforting them. He was crying himself feeling like he failed as a father to act quicker. He promised things would get better, and suggested his idea. That Vyn could go live with Grandpa Eryn for a short time and if they liked it there, they could stay. They’d visit and bring them home for holidays if Vyn wanted.

Vyn hesitantly agreed, they figured if anything, their mother would be happy not to have them around. So they moved in with Eryn and the change of pace was scary. A new area full of people who had no clue they existed. They felt so small, alone in a scary new place. Eryn was so warm and loving, happy to finally meet his grandchild, it was new. It felt like their dad, but warmer. Orion was busy and tried his best to make time for Vyn, but Eryn included them in his work so they could spend time and learn things together. Eryn studied Sign language and even asked Vyn to help teach him.

6 year old Vyn moved in fully with Eryn and they were enrolled, part time, in school. (Their mental health needed time before they could fully return to school) they helped out at the food stand and started feeling like a normal kid even if they couldn’t make a noise and had no friends yet. Duo, Eryn’s palisman, kept them company and slept cuddled up to them happily.

Eryn would reassure Vyn, they were more than their curse and that they were loved more than they could imagine. Eryn told them that they could be anything they wanted to be and will grow to be someone amazing.

Eryn proved this point by taking them to a Covention and letting them see the various magic possibilities and sparking Vyn’s love of Bardic magic.

Vyn is pretty good at hiding their depression behind sarcasm in their captions/signing. They struggle with making friends, being awkward and being afraid that they will just irritate them. But Vyn is getting help they need.

#lucas talks (ooc) #bullying tw #depression tw #self harm tw #but bit by bit now // a step each day // i’m slowly starting to find my way. (headcanons) #v; i'm scared of changing // the days stay the same // the world is spinning but only in gray. #family ties; you might have some bruises and a few of scars // but you know you're gonna be okay. [orion and vyn] #family ties; you've made it through the storm this far // you've done this dear // it won't be hard. [grandpa eryn and vyn] #family ties; never ending // condescending // now i just refuse! [jasmyn and vyn]

[bryte-eyed-athena]

Nnedi Okorafor and Africanfuturism

Nnedi Okorafor is a multi-talented and highly awarded Nigerian American author. She writes for both children and adults and is best known for her novels. Nnedi also coined the term “Africanfuturism” which she defines as distinct to Afro-futurism. On her personal blog she writes that she felt the need to coin the term because she thought that Afrofuturism had various definitions that did not fully fit her oeuvre of work. She also thought that this term was being assigned to her incorrectly and she wanted to regain control over how others defined her.

As Nnedi writes, “Africanfuturism is a sub-category of science fiction.” She also introduces the term Africanjujuism as a subcategory of fantasy that “respectfully acknowledges the seamless blend of true existing African spiritualities and cosmologies with the imaginative.”

Africanfuturism is similar to Afro-futurism in the sense that they both center black experiences and themes of science fiction. However, it is different in the sense that it takes place outside of the western perspective. African culture, history, and mythology are all salient in Africanfuturism. It’s vision of the future is also more interested in tech and is much more optimistic since it is focused more on the endless possibilities of the future. Themes of “what could have been” are a major part of Afrofuturism since there is a sense of stolen culture and identity for many African American people. Africanfuturism on the other hand acknowledges and accepts “what has been” and is more concerned with actively envisioning and shaping a better future.

In this piece I want to analyze Nnedi Okorafor’s short story “Spider the Artist'' and the way Africanfuturism makes the story distinct.

[Spoilers below the cut]

illustrations from the Finnish translation “Spider the Artist" published in the sf mag Tähtivaeltaja.

The story takes place in an alternate Nigeria where the country is being continuously depleted of its resources and the people are suffering as a direct result. Already we know this is an Africanfuturist story since it is set in Africa and is informed by Nigerian politics and legends. In this story, huge oil pipelines divide the land and they are guarded by dangerous android spiders referred to as “zombies.” They violently attack anyone who even comes in contact with the pipes. Eme lives here with her abusive husband with only her guitar as solace for her soul.

One day, as she is depressed and throwing caution to the wind, she sits near one of the pipes in her backyard and plays her guitar. The music draws a zombie to her who listens as she plays, initially with fear. The zombie does not harm her and often comes back to hear her play guitar. It even weaves its own instrument and plays along with her. Eme decides to name the zombie Udide Okwanka which means “Spider the artist.” The name comes from a Nigerian legend about the Supreme Artist, Udide, who takes fragments of things and transforms them into something new. As they bond over their shared love of music, Eme’s home life gets moderately better since her husband no longer beats her as a result of listening to the sweet music.

This small peace is disrupted when an oil pipeline bursts near the elementary school. It is an opportunity for the community to gather free fuel, especially since the zombies had yet to show up to repair the pipe. Eme’s husband rushes out to tell her the news and that is when he discovers her with Udide. He views this as her fraternizing with the enemy and leaves in disgust. Eme fears that the pipeline burst is a trap and goes to warn her husband. Dozens of people have gathered by the fountain of fuel and are taking as much fuel as they can when the zombies arrive. Eme tries to find Udide among them and she notices that two zombies are about to emit a spark to ignite the fuel. Eme is the sole survivor of the fire because Udide shielded her inside its force field. The story ends with Eme contemplating how she, Udide and her unborn daughter are now caught in the middle of a war between humans and zombies, and their only hope is that the zombies never learn how to cross oceans.

Even though the story is short it is packed with multiple themes to analyze. Right off the bat the audience is presented with domestic abuse and corruption of the Nigerian government. Okorafor made it a point to establish that the current resource crisis is a direct result of the government selling their oil to the big fuel companies like Shell and Chevron. They are responsible for the depletion of the forests and the pollution of their waterways as well as the creation of the zombies. These companies needed some way to protect their precious pipes from the people that they had impoverished. As a result, they created killing machines because they valued property and profit over human life. The response to this was a revolutionary movement called the Niger Delta People’s Movement, of which Eme’s husband is a member. They cut through the pipes and steal fuel as well as protest even though the government and companies are openly killing them off. These conditions are probably what lead Andrew, Eme’s husband, to abuse her. Domestic abuse happens to many different kinds of people in many different scenarios. A lot of the time abusers do not need a reason to be abusive, but the stressful environment depicted here is certainly not helping to make things better. It is shown that domestic abuse rises during times of great strain and it seems like in this community it is just a fact of life since Eme is not the only woman going through this.

In this environment of exploitation, of the land and the people, there are also moments of human connection. Eme recalls memories of her father who was able to unite people with his guitar playing and distract them momentarily from their plight. He taught her how to play guitar and she eventually surpassed his skills. The sharing of music created a bond between father and daughter as well as a healing salve to the rest of the community. When Eme plays the guitar her father gave her she feels herself start to heal. It is also this guitar that connects her to the zombie she later names Udide. Zombies seem to be sentient and they hate humans, but Udide can’t help but to be drawn to the music Eme creates. While the rest of Nigeria is engulfed in a Humans vs. Technology conflict, Eme and Udide are able to connect with each other due to their love of music. Udide’s relationship to Eme reminds me of Eme’s relationship to her father since they both found solace in the guitar and they were both able to surpass the skills of the person who introduced them to music. Here, music is portrayed as an escape either from a hatred of humans or from a bleak and draining existence. Music has the power to both heal and unite.

I think that is why I don’t think the ending is a tragic one even though it is a dramatic one. Okorafor leaves things open ended, but she doesn’t remove the possibility of hope. Udide was able to break away from the hatred of humans that was programmed into them thanks to its sentience and I think this provides hope that the conflict between humans and zombies could end. The zombies eventually collectively broke away from the purpose they were programmed with and stopped protecting the pipelines. If the zombies and humans realized they were both being exploited they could turn their efforts against their common enemy; the companies and government. Music was the bridge that united Eme and Udide. It formed a protective bond between them which means that it has the capacity to do the same for all the other zombies and humans. They have the ability to tug at the heartstrings of humans and zombies the same way they pluck their guitar strings. Even in the darkest of times people can always stop and listen to the music.

#afrofuturism #africanfuturism #nnedi okorafor #spider the artist #tw: domestic abuse mention

[vampireqrow-moved]

um its my birthday so wait until 12:01am pst to block me if u hate this post 🥰🥰

long story short the pansexual label is redudant and actively harmful (its far from the worst problem bisexuals face but it is one issue) and i dont hate anyone who identifies as pan because A) those ppl are bi like me and B) i used to identify as pan myself.

if thats enough for you to block me and make a callout post for me then i cant stop you but pretty please either read this whole thing or just wait a few minutes for my bday to end 🥰🥰

anyways im kicking off this point with some personal experiences bc i love to talk to myself. i got introduced to the pan label at maybe 10ish years old, and started identifying with it pretty much right away. i heard about it before bisexual and it was pitched as attraction to all genders and of course trans people. i was of course a trans ally! i had trans friends! i was trans also but hadnt figured it out yet! the way i had heard of it, there was no bisexual, there was no need for bisexual, and identifying differently was excluding trans people, which I was certainly against. being bisexual was trans exclusionary and why would i exclude trans people? the 'hearts not parts' slogan was thriving around this time and i genuinely said it and meant it.

as i started to become more online, mostly through roleplaying websites and tumblr here, i started hearing of bisexuality. it was supposedly an older term, so older people still used it, but it was common knowledge that pansexual was the better, inclusive label and younger people should adopt the new inclusive language instead of the old and transphobic words like bisexual. /s

and then bi and pan solidarity was all the rage! pansexual wasnt erasing bisexuality, why did anyone ever think that? bi and pan were two separate and complete identities that were valid and had to be respected or youre a mean exclusionist. and an asexual person, hearing people labelled exclusionist always meant they were excluding people from the lgbta community who rightfully belonged, denying peoples lived experiences, and generally telling people theyre wrong about their sexuality because theyre too young. and all of those things were bad and had hurt me, so it would be ridiculous to change labels and support "pan exclusionists" because they were just as bad as ace and aro exclusionists, and they were all the same people. or so it seemed to me at that time.

then, 'hearts not parts' began getting called out for blatant transphobic by insinuating that pansexual was the only identity that loved people for their "hearts" and personalities instead of those gross gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and even straights who only saw people for their "parts". (STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE NOT OPPRESSED. I AM MERELY POINTING OUT THAT PANSEXUALITY WAS SHOWN AS ABOVE ALL OTHERS.) many pan people, including myself, began to denounce the slogan and insist pansexuality wasnt transphobic, there had just been a coincidence that a transphobic slogan was everywhere and a huge part of people's explantions of and associations with pansexuality. hint: it wasnt a coincidence.

from my perspective, this is when i began to see people discussing dropping the word pansexual. that seemed to be a huge step from getting rid off a transphobic slogan, and these people were just meanies who hated microlabels. and i like microlabels! as a genderfluid person, and someone who has friends who use specific aro and acespec labels, ive seen how people can use them to name specific experiences while still acknowleging their presence underneath umbrella terms like aromantic, asexual, nonbinary, lgbta, and for some people, queer.

pansexuals dont do that. they dont label pansexuality as a specific set of experiences under the bisexual umbrella, they see themselves as a separate identity, and even if they started to, the history of biphobia and transphobic undeniably linked to the existence of pansexuality in enough to stop being worth using. but i digress. pansexualitys shiny new definition that many people cling to is that pansexual is attraction to all genders. bisexual is two or more genders.

which. frankly? doesnt make any sense. my guess is that its supposed to be inclusive of nonbinary genders and those a part of cultures who historically have not had a binary gender system in the first place. i cannot speak for the latter group, but as a nonbinary person, its not inclusive. anyone can be attracted to nonbinary people. literally anyone. theres no way to know if everyone you meet is nonbinary or not. whether or not a nonbinary person reciprocates those feelings and is interested in pursuing a relationship is completely up to the individual, regardless of the sexualities of the people involved.

bottom line is that you cant number the amounts of genders someone can be attracted to, thus rendering those definitions pointless. people can be attracted to all kinds of people regardless of gender, even if they are gay, a lesbian, or straight. all people can date thousands of nonbinary genders if all people involved are interested and comfortable with it. numbering the genders you can be attracted to diminishes the post of nonbinary, as it is not a third gender, it simply any experience not fitting within the western concept of the gender binary (if the person so chooses to identify as such. if you cant tell already, the nonbinary experience is varied between every single nonbinary person.) important to note also that no widely accepted bisexual text defines bisexual as attracted to exclusively two genders or even the "two or more genders". i know this is used a lot but please read the bisexual manifesto. its free online i promise.

some people also claim pansexuals experience "genderblind" attraction while bisexuals feel differently attracted to different genders. this is very nitpicky for whats supposed to be two unconnected idenities, but thats only part of the problem. this definition is also not in any widely accepted bisexual texts, and bisexuality has never excluded those who experience genderblind attraction. i am in fact a bi person who experiences genderblind attraction. this does not mean i am not bisexual. it simply means i experience bisexuality differently than other bisexuals, and thats wonderful! no broad communities like bisexuality are expected to all share the same experience. we are all so different and its amazing were able to come together under the bisexual flag.

last definition, or justification i should say, is that yes these definitions are redundant and theyre the same sexuality, but people prefer different labels and thats okay. i agree in principle. people can define themselves as many things like homosexuals or gays or lesbians or queers or even other reclaimed slurs, while still not labelling themselves under the most "common" or "accurate" labels.

but pansexuality isnt the same as bisexuality, which may sound silly but hear me out. it has been continually used as a way to further divide bisexuals, who are already subject to large amounts of lgbta discrimination. "pansexuality was started by trans people who were upset with transphobia within the bisexual community! it cant be transphobic OR biphobic!" except of course that it can and it is. to say that trans people cant be transphobic is absurd. transmedicalism is right there, but thats not what im getting at. all minorities can have internal and sometimes external biases against people who are the same minority as them.

pansexuality was started as a way to be trans inclusive at the expense of labelling bisexuality as transphobic when its not. transphobia is everywhere, and bisexuals are not exempt. instead of working on the transphobia within the community, the creators of pansexuality decided to remove themselves from it to create a better and less tainted word and community, and the fact that pansexuality is intended to replace bisexuality or leave it for the transphobes goes to show a few things. pansexuality and bisexuality are inherently linked because the pan label is in response to the bi label. due to its origins, it is inherently competing with bisexuality and it cant be "reclaimed" from its biphobic roots. pansexuality is not a whole, separate, and valid label. its a biphobic response to issues within the bisexual community.

to top off this post, heres something a full grown adult once said to me. in person. she was my roommate. "i feel like im pan because im attracted to trans people. trans women, trans men, i could definitely date them. but not nonbinary people because thats gross and weird." she saw pan as trans inclusive and defined herself that way as opposed to bi which is shitty!

also a little extra tidbit about my experiences identifying as pan. i saw myself as better than every bi person. all of them. even my trans and bi friends. whenever they brought up being bisexual i would think to myself "why dont you identify as pansexual? its better and shows people you support trans people." because i was made to believe bisexuality didnt and was therefore inferior. thats the mindset that emerged from my time in the pansexual community. i am so sorry to all of my bisexual friends even if they never noticed. i love you all and hope you have a great day. this also goes to any bisexuals or people who identify as bi in anyway, such as biromantic or simply bi. love you all.

ummm yeah heres some extra reading i found helpful and relevant. here and here. also noooo dont disagree with me and unfollow me im so sexy 🥴🥴🥴

#if u have follow up questions ill probably answer them 2morrow #if u ask something just be nice its my birthday 🙄🙄 #anyways time to tag this lol ! #pansexuality #biphobia #transphobia #q slur #long post #my post #ask to tag maybe??

[dwellordream]

“...Today, most – though by no means all – free countries (along with a number of rather unfree ones) have shifted from mass conscription based militaries to professional, all-volunteer militaries. The United States, of course, made that shift in 1973 (along lines proposed by the 1969 Gates Commission). The shift to a professional military has always been understood to have involved risks – the classic(al) example of those risks being the Roman one: the creation of a semi-professional Roman army misaligned the interests of the volunteer soldiers with the voting citizens, resulting in the end (though a complicated process) in the collapse of the Republic and the formation of the Empire in what might well be termed a shift to ‘military rule’ as the chief commander of the republic (first Julius Caesar, then Octavian) seized power from the apparatus of civilian government (the senate and citizen assemblies).

It is in that context that ‘warrior’ – despite its recent, frustrating use by the United States Army – is an unfortunate way for soldiers (regardless of branch or country) to think of themselves. Encouraging soldiers to see themselves as ‘warriors’ means encouraging them to see their role as combatants as the foundational core of their identity. A Mongol warrior was a warrior because as an adult male Mongol, being a warrior was central to his gender-identity and place in society (the Mongols being a society, as common with Steppe nomads, where all adult males were warriors); such a Mongol remained a warrior for his whole adult life.

Likewise, a medieval knight – who I’d class as a warrior (remember, the distinction is on identity more than unit fighting) – had warrior as a core part of their identity. It is striking that, apart from taking religious orders to become a monk (and thus shift to an equally totalizing vocation), knights – especially as we progress through the High Middle Ages as the knighthood becomes a more rigid and recognized institution – do not generally seem to retire. They do not lay down their arms and become civilians (and just one look at the attitude of knightly writers towards civilians quickly answers the question as to why). Being a warrior was the foundation of their identity and so could not be disposed of. We could do the same exercise with any number of ‘warrior classes’ within various societies. Those individuals were, in effect born warriors and they would die warriors. In societies with meaningful degrees of labor specialization, to be a warrior was to be, permanently, a class apart.

Creating such a class apart (especially one with lots of weapons) presents a tremendous danger to civilian government and consequently to a free society (though it is also a danger to civilian government in an unfree society). As the interests of this ‘warrior class’ diverge from the interests of the rest of society, even with the best of intentions the tendency is going to be for the warriors to seek to preserve their interests and status with the tools they have, which is to say all of the weapons (what in technical terms we’d call a ‘failure of civil-military relations,’ civ-mil being the term for the relationship between civil society and its military).

The end result of that process is generally the replacement of civilian self-government with ‘warrior rule.’ In pre-modern societies, such ‘warrior rule’ took the form of governments composed of military aristocrats (often with the chiefest military aristocrat, the king, at the pinnacle of the system); the modern variant, rule by officer corps (often with a general as the king-in-all-but-name) is of course quite common. Because of that concern, it is generally well understood that keeping the cultural gap between the civilian and military worlds as small as possible is important to a free society.

Instead, what a modern free society wants are effectively civilians, who put on the soldier’s uniform for a few years, acquire the soldier’s skills and arts, and then when their time is done take that uniform off and rejoin civil society as seamlessly as possible (the phrase ‘citizen-soldier’ is often used represent this ideal). It is clear that, at least for the United States, the current realization of this is less than ideal. The endless pressure to ‘re-up‘ (or for folks to be stop-lossed) hardly help.

But encouraging soldiers (or people in everyday civilian life; we’ll come back to that in the last post in this series) to identify as warriors – individual, self-motivated combatants whose entire identity is bound up in the practice of war – does real harm to the actual goal of keeping the cultural divide between soldiers and civilians as small as possible. Observers both within the military and without have been shouting the alarm on this point for some time now, but the heroic allure of the warrior remains strong.

...But as I noted above, we’ve discussed on this blog already a lot of different military social structures (mounted aristocrats in France and Arabia, the theme and fyrd systems, the Spartans themselves, and so on). And they are very different and produce armies – because societies cannot help but replicate their own peacetime social order on the battlefield – that are organized differently, value different things and as a consequence fight differently. But focusing on (fictitious) ‘universal warriors’ also obscures another complex set of relationships to war and warfare: all of the civilians.

When we talk about the impact of war on civilians, the mind quite naturally turns to the civilian victims of war – sacked cities, enslaved captives, murdered non-combatants – and of course their experience is part of war too. But even in a war somehow fought entirely in an empty field between two communities (which, to be clear, no actual war even slightly resembles this ‘Platonic’ ideal war; there is a tendency to romanticize certain periods of military history, particularly European military history, this way, but it wasn’t so), it would still shape the lives of all of the non-combatants in that society (this is the key insight of the ‘war and society’ school of military history).

To take just my own specialty, warfare in the Middle Roman Republic wasn’t simply a matter for the soldiery, even when the wars were fought outside of Italy (which they weren’t always kept outside!). The demand for conscripts to fill the legions bent and molded Roman family patterns, influencing marriage and child-bearing patterns for both men and women. With so many of the males of society processed through the military, the values of the army became the values of society not only for the men but also for women as well. Women in these societies did not consider themselves uninterested bystanders in these conflicts: by and large they had a side and were on that side, supporting the war effort by whatever means.

And even in late-third and early-second century (BC) Rome, with its absolutely vast military deployments, the majority of men (and all of the women) were still on the ‘homefront’ at any given time, farming the food, paying the taxes, making the armor and weapons and generally doing the tasks that allowed the war machine to function, often in situations of considerable hardship. And in the end – though the exact mechanisms remain the subject of debate – it is clear that the results of Rome’s victory induced significant economic instability, which was also a part of the experience of war.

In short, warriors were not the only people who mattered in war. The wartime social role of a warrior was not only different from that of a soldier, it was different than that of the working peasant forced to pay heavy taxes, or to provide Corvée labor to the army. It was different from the woman whose husband went off to war, or whose son did, or who had to keep up her farm and pay the taxes while they did so. It was different for the aristocrat than for the peasant, for the artisan than for the farmer. Different for the child than for the adult.

And yet for a complex society (one with significant specialization of labor) to wage war efficiently, all of these roles were necessary. To focus on only the warrior (or the soldier) as the sole interesting relationship in warfare is to erase the indispensable contributions made by all of these folks, without which the combatant could not combat.

It would be worse yet, of course, to suggest that the role of the warrior is somehow morally superior to these other roles (something Pressfield does explicitly, I might add, comparing ‘decadent’ modern society to supposedly superior ‘warrior societies’ in his opening videos). To do so with reference to our modern professional militaries is to invite disastrous civil-military failure. To suggest, more deeply, that everyone ought to be in some sense a ‘warrior’ in their own occupation sounds better, but – as we’ll see in the last essay of this series – leads to equally dark places.

A modern, free society has no need for warriors; the warrior is almost wholly inimical to a free society if that society has a significant degree of labor specialization (and thus full-time civilian specialists). It needs citizens, some of whom must be, at any time, soldiers but who must never stop being citizens both when in uniform and afterwards.”

- Bret Devereaux, “The Universal Warrior, Part I: Soldiers, Warriors, and…”

#writing #warfare #bret devereaux #ancient #roman #medieval #history #the universal warrior