#or all of the other actors that were forcibly outed due to this argument. like seriously. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wispvial · 3 years

Note

Fronklin

@catsandwrittenwords and @teenagegothintegrity also asked about Franklin!! the man of the hour...if only he knew how popular he was (ily guys...)

I will try to answer the ones I haven’t rehashed like 500 times

smell: what if I were someone who could assign perfumes to fictional characters? i think that is a talent. i couldn’t do it though. it’s guaranteed everyone in that movie smells horrible because of the heat and I feel Franklin is particularly susceptible to it…he’s visibly the most sweaty and disheveled so...I’ve never liked a character that smells good anyway. I think on his good days he’d wear very Fatherly smelling cologne or something, clean clothes, but misfortune is drawn to him and he wipes gunk off onto his shirt without a care so his shirt is probably pretty gross at the end of the day

otp: pretending no one knows the answer to this. him and nubbins...but maybe bubba should steal him away. what if? he used the chainsaw on him, and you know how he viewed that chainsaw when he used it on stretch...

popular headcanon I don’t agree with: someone should go have some headcanons about him that I can disagree with

fave platonic/familial relationship:

there is only him and Sally! there is so much friction between them...their actors were genuinely pissed at each other, Hooper being a sneaky little gossip between them to further incite their anger, nasty person he was. I recognize that fresh, hot rage and frustration Sally feels at Franklin, because it is unmistakably real, and because I have a sibling myself and remember it. But that annoyance at having your brother intrude on a trip with your friends is more complicated and less sympathetic because they are also carelessly excluding and teasing him due to his disability. Sally makes zero attempt at defending him, and I mean she’s not meant to be an amazing person or hero, just an ordinary person who survives Hell, whose fear the audience feels, and whose tenacity and will to live we become invested in. I don’t feel Sally was fair at all to him, even during the “annoying” flashlight argument sequence. He was already attacked, he doesn’t want to be alone and in the dark. She then yells at him for honking the horn when she was already doing that. (Like her actress’s real life anger just bleeds through and she reacts at everything he does lol. That is understandable. I think Marilyn Burns should have been allowed to punch Tobe Hooper for what she was put through). Sally does not think from his perspective even once, but then again, the narrative itself doesn’t seem to expect the audience to, after a certain point. It wants you to be annoyed by him and lose sympathy.

But that won’t work on me!

So Franklin is kind of the “final girl” of the first half of the movie (we are abstracting this far from simply “girl who survives”). He is the audience surrogate--he is the one who complains about the heat and most visibly afflicted by it, who is repeatedly injured and shows his scrapes, who screams and cries, and who is isolated from and teased by the rest of the group (who are given little to no characterization). Once he is killed, which I think was meant to be a Subversive and unexpected move (he is the only character to be built up at all--but it’s really not subversive at all to discard a disabled character), Sally takes his role as the Unlucky One Who Must Endure. Cut up by the branches she runs through, falling, running into the wrong places and jumping out the windows, screaming in terror all the while...It is easy to tie her being mocked and cut with a knife by the Sawyers to what Franklin experienced. It’s a bit of a role-reversal as I also relate the Sawyers to Franklin as outsiders with morbid interests (huge understatement on the Sawyer’s part). I read something that related Sally being tied to a chair to Franklin--a pretty offensive comparison, to relate being captured and forcibly tied up to him using mobility aid, but I can’t say that this wasn’t what this 70’s ass movie was trying to suggest, though, considering how it addresses the themes of disability.

But I think Sally does care about him. She cuts up the sausage, she’s a bit playful with him...in the script she is more concerned, telling Jerry she thinks he’s scared. I love to think of them hanging out, actually getting to enjoy the other’s company. TCM was in its conception an adult Hansel and Gretel, so wouldn’t it be cool if they both survived and grew closer as a result?

position he sleeps in: I’m just going to say he grips the shit out of a body pillow. I think that’s cute

crossover AU: what if he were in another slasher movie…say, A Nightmare on Elm Street! I like ANOES a lot because the early movies were invested in the victims. They are vulnerable, not taken seriously by the adults, and never treated as deserving of their fate, and Freddy (again, the early version) was really a horrid, uncool, unlikable beast they must grow to overcome. What about Dream Warriors, where he has the power of his mind and all that? He could unleash all his repressed rage on Freddy and like, shoot him in the head with an airgun. Maybe dissect him. Smash him to a pulp. He could have so much fun :)

fave outfit: he has one outfit. I like that his jeans have pin stripes. What if he wore a sweater vest…

anyway. fwanklin hardesty, everyone. please clap

#ask #tcm #franklin hardesty

34 notes · View notes

quicklyseverebird · 5 years

Text

Question for pro-choicers cont

*previous post inserted since the poster has apparently blocked me from reposting. Or maybe tumblr is acting up again….*

pro-abortion-rights

You claim that abortion is murder and, in the same breath, that you intend no moral judgment about the intentionally cherry-picked most repugnant of the reasons people commit murder. How convincing! The joke is that you have the exact same moral hierarchy since you too believe that bodily autonomy may be exercised for bigoted reasons.

Imagine not understanding the concept of “for the sake of argument.”Pro-choicers don’t actually concede the point on fetal personhood, they assume it for the sake of argument with anti-abortionists because it doesn’t actually matter either way. It’s an argumentative tactic, not a concession, but keep imagining you’ve scored the point if it helps you feel better.

Lethal self-defense may be used to prevent death or great bodily harm. You want to talk about great bodily harm? I have a four-inch scar across my lower abdomen from a C-section to deliver the three-year-old that’s playing next to me right now. Earlier in my pregnancy I had a brief cancer scare whose treatment I was going to put off until after birth to avoid harming the fetus. And mine was a HEALTHY pregnancy–I was lucky enough that it wasn’t cancer, and I had no more than the “normal” symptoms in pregnancy. I worked out every day, climbing 15 flights of steps. I still had to write much of my Ph.D. thesis in bed because sitting up was so hard and when my due date came I was in labor for three days, feeling like I was being ground under a wheel the whole time, and in the end I had to get an emergency C-section. I had a hard time moving for weeks. And this was with all the latest technology available.

Great bodily harm? You bet your ass, son. I took on all of this willingly because I wanted a baby with all my heart and that was the only reason I could bear it. Forcing ANY of the above on someone who doesn’t want it when it can be safely prevented is fucking monstrous. “Imagined peril?” Yeah, right. I’m sure I’m imagining my entire pregnancy and birth and the kid. And mine was, again, a healthy pregnancy where almost everything went well and I had access to the best medical technology and humane medical care. No one can tell when something is going to go wrong in pregnancy and childbirth, and even if nothing goes “wrong” it is significantly taxing and injurious on the body.

Hmm soooo your analogy of abortion to putting a gun to someone’s head is total bullshit and you’re not okay with pregnant people changing or otherwise impacting their OWN bodies in order to end their pregnancies, either? So now you’re resorting to the intent to end the fetus’s life instead of the specific method used. Even if the primary intent is to end the pregnancy and the fetus’s death is a corollary to that, much like the person who refuses a blood or bone marrow donation, right? Does your back hurt to carry around the goalposts like that?

No, the people who use desperate and injurious means to try and end their pregnancies are distraught because people like you denied them a safe and dignified abortion. I’ve noticed before that anti-abortionists think women (while keeping the caveat that not all people who can get pregnant are women, not that most of your crowd admits it) have to be literally crazy not to want to have a baby and you’re sure that if we just knew the truth we wouldn’t do it. Nope, some of us just don’t want to have a baby, because some people with uteruses don’t! Get that through your head lol.

Also, self-defense doesn’t require the fetus be at blame in order to be justified, and here is where your fallacious and disingenuous conflation of conceding personhood for the sake of argument and actually conceding personhood does actual harm. We know, like anyone with the most basic understanding of the world knows, that the fetus does not mean harm and cannot mean to do anything. Their lack of intent does nothing to lessen the actual harm of pregnancy, however, because intent does not equal impact.

Also your coward’s way to wriggle out of the politically inexpedient specter of forcibly hospitalizing and jailing abortion clients is to infantilize and condescend to women instead of demonizing us. Lmaooooo because that’s so much humanizing. Not. This is what it looks like when you don’t have the strength of your own conviction and resort to sexism instead. Too bad, because your fellow “pro-lifers” are indeed jailing women for miscarriages and suicide attempts (link). I’m sure you’re upset by that because these women are just victims, right? Nah you’re not, you’re just out there electing the people who do this, who cut public support for women and babies (CPCs don’t count lmao like abortion scaremongering, diapers, and useless ultrasounds done by unlicensed personnel are enough support to have and raise a baby?? [link]), who make life precarious for families so fewer people will WANT to have babies, and making sure more women will be injured and die from unsafe abortions. Mission accomplished!

“The joke is that you have the exact same moral hierarchy since you too believe that bodily autonomy may be exercised for bigoted reasons.”

And you got this from my post….how exactly? No seriously, explain this.

“Pro-choicers don’t actually concede the point on fetal personhood, they assume it for the sake of argument with anti-abortionists because it doesn’t actually matter either way. It’s an argumentative tactic, not a concession, but keep imagining you’ve scored the point if it helps you feel better.”

Well since I’ve heard members of your group state outright that they know and accept (with no handy little “for argument’s sake” caveats included mind you) the unborn child is a person, etc, would kind of undermine that notion. Unless you’re now saying you’re lying. And of course, for your whole argument of self-defense to fly, they must be persons/actors as well to defend yourself against… But sure, backpedal if it helps you feel better.

32 hour labor, followed by C-section as well, followed by infection and adhesions here. High five, sister. Yet I remind you, that your entire argument for self-defense involves criminalizing an unborn child. A child that had no say in being where it was or what is happening to it. A natural, biological process. The vast majority of which were placed there consensually. I know you always like to go to the extreme cases of rape, incest, medical emergencies etc to make your point, but those are a minuscule fraction of abortion cases. I’m sorry, you do not get to say, “oops, I didn’t mean that to happen” and then use that, with the natural results of said actions to kill another person. No. You don’t. That is sick and perverse. A life is in your hands because of your own choices. You DO NOT have the right to kill it because you don’t like the consequences. Does that mean discomfort, yes. Does that even mean a chance of medical complications like we both faced? Yes. Life is hard. It means having to deal with the results of your actions, even when those involve pain and discomfort. I don’t get to murder someone because there is a chance I might break my leg. I’m sorry, I do not see murder—and I maintain it is murder, not self defense—as a viable option. The fact you do, I find disturbing.

“Hmm soooo your analogy of abortion to putting a gun to someone’s head is total bullshit and you’re not okay with pregnant people changing or otherwise impacting their OWN bodies in order to end their pregnancies, either? So now you’re resorting to the intent to end the fetus’s life instead of the specific method used. Even if the primary intent is to end the pregnancy and the fetus’s death is a corollary to that, much like the person who refuses a blood or bone marrow donation, right? Does your back hurt to carry around the goalposts like that?”

I’m not okay with people taking actions to deliberately end their unborn child’s life. No. The specific method never mattered, only the outcome and intent. I don’t see how I ever gave you reason to think I believed otherwise. Where did I do so? My goalposts have never moved. Every example you gave was a deliberate attempt to kill their child. It’s no different than whether someone chooses to burn or drown their child after birth. The child ends up dead both ways, the means is secondary. I honestly don’t understand the reasoning behind most of this paragraph. “if the primary intent is to end the pregnancy and the fetus’s death is a corollary to that” Ummm, if the primary intent is to end the pregnancy…that is literally the same thing as killing the fetus, not a corollary. By definition. Did you miss-type this?

Unless you mean re: the gun analogy. Okay then if so. No, I do not think refusing a blood/marrow transfusion is the same as actively killing another life. Is there a fine distinction? Absolutely. Lack of action vs deliberate action. Ethics is hard, like life. There are grey areas. Do I believe a person, capable of providing blood or marrow to help another person, should do so if they can? Absolutely. I’m listed as an organ donor, was a blood donor for years, and was recently tested to see if I could donate a kidney. Do I feel the state has the right to force that? No. That is not the same as, “I don’t want the discomfort and difficulty this other life might bring me, because of actions I took, therefore I will make a conscious decision to end its life rather than deal with the known, understood consequences.”

“No, the people who use desperate and injurious means to try and end their pregnancies are distraught because people like you denied them a safe and dignified abortion.”

“A safe and dignified abortion.” Wow. Just...wow. When you reach for the moon, you really go for it! And no. You don’t get to pawn other people’s bad decisions, born of a whole spectrum of backstories and circumstances, onto the pro-life crowd. That’s intellectually dishonest and you know it. Their reasons are legion. And I sincerely doubt any of those underlying issues would be solved by abortion. Please, can your brush get any broader before you need a crane to lift it?

“Nope, some of us just don’t want to have a baby, because some people with uteruses don’t! Get that through your head lol.”

Then…simple solution… Don’t take action that can result in the creation of another life. Get that through your head lol.

“Also, self-defense doesn’t require the fetus be at blame in order to be justified… Their lack of intent does nothing to lessen the actual harm of pregnancy, however, because intent does not equal impact.”

I see. So it gets to die because you were…scared/etc? It’s not to blame, but you don’t like the consequences, so yup, it has to die. Yes. That sounds so much better. “intent does not equal impact.” When your intent ends with another life’s ending, that’s a very real impact and a very real harm. But that’s okay here because...you want it to be? Who needs the self-defense argument more, I wonder? The mother or the child? Seems like the only rule here is the argument from power. Where the person with power gets to determine what is right. That’s a scary hill to take your stand on.

“Also your coward’s way to wriggle out of the politically inexpedient specter of forcibly hospitalizing and jailing abortion clients is to infantilize and condescend to women instead of demonizing us. Lmaooooo because that’s so much humanizing. Not.”

Coming from someone whose position is to, in essence, demonize and dehumanize unborn children in order to justify killing them for the sake of your own convenience like every genocidal advocate ever, this rings a little hollow. Especially with the body count you’ve racked up so far. Nice straw man though.

And wow, one cherry-picked account of a terrible miscarriage of justice and a CA law to crack down on centers providing help and alternatives to abortion (though I do concede that using misleading, and deliberate lies to ‘fight the good fight’ is wrong, and any center that does it—“half” according to that article--should stop immediately.) Wow, you got me there! /end sarcasm

Yes, we’re people too, who also make mistakes, and we form a huge spectrum of views of what is acceptable and what is not in this cause, just like your side does. If I cared to enter the mines, you know very well I could come up with plenty of counter cherry-picked examples from your camp. Women being lied to about their pregnant state, their options, the nature of their pregnancy and the very real medical risks of abortion, deliberately pushing abortions for monetary gain, husbands/boyfriends/parents forcing them to have abortions, and so on. Do I need to do so, or do you have the intellectual honestly to admit those happen too?

Sexism? Oh please. At least be original with your slogans.

But if you want to compare notes, only one of our sides is responsible for supporting and enabling 45.7 million dead babies between 1970 and 2015 in the US alone. The body count is clearly in your favor. And I know you can’t possibly be so naïve as to think diapers or those crisis centers are all the pro-life movement do. Or do I really need to link to the lists of many many many other programs and help made possible by our side? And what do you put your money to anyways? Oh yeah, pink pussy hats and placards. One side promotes and encourages life, one side promotes murder and death and spreads known lies about the “millions of babies killed in back-alley abortions!” (see https://www.hli.org/resources/doesnt-legal-abortion-save-women-filthy-back-alley-abortion-mills/ ) See! I can use hyperbole and innuendo too! :D

#insert meaningless list of woke catchphrase and slogans without understanding what they mean or how they are applied

1 note · View note

fashiontrendin-blog · 6 years

Text

The Conversation I Wish We Had After Aziz Ansari

http://fashion-trendin.com/the-conversation-i-wish-we-had-after-aziz-ansari/

The Conversation I Wish We Had After Aziz Ansari

One night in September 2017, a woman we know as “Grace” went on a date with actor and writer Aziz Ansari. The evening has been rehashed and disputed many times over since it took place; now, in the quiet that follows, what can we say we’ve learned? What we know for certain is that if Ansari weren’t famous, if Babe.net hadn’t gone after Grace’s story, and if we weren’t living through the public reckoning that is the #MeToo movement, this simply would have been another bad date in the litany of bad dates women have endured for years, with Grace’s pleasure disregarded and consent assumed due to the fact that she agreed to the date and let him pay.

“Apparently there is a whole country full of young women who don’t know how to call a cab,” wrote Caitlin Flanagan for The Atlantic, whose “hot take” — though it’s one I fundamentally disagree with — illustrates an opinion shared by many, which is that #MeToo has now crossed the threshold into hysteria, with women equating Ansari’s aggressive sexual overtures with the repeated, systemic, and career-destroying sexual assaults perpetrated by people like Harvey Weinstein. The argument was a red herring that pulled many into a semantic argument. As Samantha Bee put it: “We know the difference between a rapist, a workplace harasser and an Aziz Ansari, but that doesn’t mean we have to be happy about any of them.”

So the conversation following Babe.net’s story, which could have centered on the nuances of consent, became a debate about what does and doesn’t constitute a sexual crime. But there are other parts of this worth digging into, like the intricacies of gender power dynamics, the unbalanced ways we teach and talk about pleasure and consent, the experiences — from confusing to dehumanizing to traumatizing — we’ve tucked away as a result of our sexually illiterate culture, and our collective language that defines “bad sex” for men as “sex in which my orgasm did not arrive at the proper time or with the most pleasing velocity.” “Bad sex” for women, meanwhile, is defined as sex that ranges from an indifferent partner to one who systematically hacks away at their defenses until they’re too exhausted to do anything but submit.

The #MeToo movement was founded by Tarana Burke to empower and give voice to the survivors of sexual crimes. Thankfully, and unsurprisingly, it has incited a broader cultural conversation. That conversation has launched an overdue reckoning, one that means coming to grips not only with the terrifying pervasiveness of sexual assault, but also the kind of sex we have to steel ourselves through — the kind we’d never call assault but would also rather forget — and all the toxic mechanisms that make that kind of sex universal. In addition to discussing the legal trespassing of our bodies, we are also now addressing the emotional trespassing — what Rebecca Traister defined as “a vast expanse of bad sex — joyless, exploitative encounters that reflect a persistently sexist culture and can be hard to acknowledge without sounding prudish,” sex that leaves young women “wondering why they feel so fucked by fucking.”

But as the counterproductive noise following Grace’s story has proven, now is the moment we need to ask: what is the best way to talk about bad sex?

Don’t Call it a “Gray Area”

Our need to create some sort of “continuum of trauma” is understandable — giving a thing a name is one of the ways we try to understand our world — but our fumbling attempts to “grade” sexual assault could actually be contributing to the problem.

“I think it is incredibly important to keep the idea of what we’re talking about broad,” says Gina Scaramella, executive director of the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC). “Calling [Ansari’s reported behavior] a ‘gray area’ minimizes it, rather than calling it what it is: manipulative, coercive and aggressive.”

Our tendency to play down sexually coercive behavior contributes to a culture in which survivors end up shouldering the blame. “So many of the people who call our hotline feel the need to apologize,” Scaramella says, “to say that what they experienced wasn’t that bad. Survivors feel like they didn’t do enough, weren’t smart enough, that because what they went through wasn’t ‘rape’ as they understand it, they should have been able to fight back. This language just serves the status quo, and it is a mask for problematic behavior that needs to get addressed if we want to develop a better understanding of sexual dynamics.”

Consent Is Complicated

That said, when it comes to consent specifically, acknowledging supposed “gray areas” — or, better put, the spectrum across which unwanted sexual behavior exists — might help the law catch up. Sexual assault laws vary from state to state. The most progressive, like the “Yes Means Yes” law in California, look for “affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity,” while in Mississippi, a claim of sexual battery requires proof that the perpetrator was intending to rape; indeed “rape” itself is still defined as the intent to “forcibly ravish any female of previously chaste character.” Jeannie Suk Gersen, the John H. Watson Jr. professor of law at Harvard Law School, says consent is becoming more of a touchstone in legal assessments: “The idea that someone needs to be physically forced has been de-emphasized when considering whether [an encounter] was an assault,” she says.

Using consent (as opposed to force) as the litmus test is certainly a more nuanced way of looking at sexual assault; it isn’t, however, necessarily more straightforward.

“What the courts are grappling with now is how we define consent,” says Gersen. “Some of those definitions are veering toward the idea that someone has to say or indicate ‘no,’ and others veer more toward a positive agreement, which could be verbal or nonverbal. Some statutes for college campuses require verbal consent given at every stage, but even that is difficult to resolve. Does one kiss count? The second kiss? Touching an arm?”

Subjectivity complicates matters further: What is coercive to one party may have seemed consensual to the other. “The internal feeling of coercion may not actually mean that the other person is trying to coerce,” says Gersen, “especially in cases where there is an imbalance of power. The law recognizes that two people can have very different subjective experiences, so the debate becomes whose subjectivity to recognize.” And while this is blisteringly difficult to negotiate, it is necessary — anyone who cares about due process understands that intention has to matter in a court of law. “If you hit someone with your car,” says Gersen, “it matters to our legal system if you intended to kill or if you were just being negligent. And it should.”

But the legal system is not currently designed to empower victims of sexual assault, nor is it entirely reliable. According to RAINN, six out of 100 rape cases will result in jail time. “It’s a false narrative, this idea that if it was ‘real’ rape, serious and forcible, then it will be punished,” says Scaramella. “Even if you have physical evidence and the victim is the ‘perfect’ victim and the offender is the ‘perfect’ offender, these cases rarely result in a conviction.”

The More Conversation, the Better

What the pundits and critics who rail against the excesses of the #MeToo movement don’t seem to realize is that when it comes to issues of sexual consent, any conversation is good conversation. BARCC has reported a 34% increase in hotline volume, an indication that more individuals are comfortable coming forward. “Our job is to say [all claims of assault] are worthy,” says Scaramella. “It’s all part of the same risk areas, areas of social change and social norms that need to get addressed, advancements around equality that need to get talked about.”

Gersen agrees. “What we’ve got now is the perfect storm of controversy on a really, really important social issue that we need to get more savvy about. The tools are there for us to put something together that reflects our social conscience about what is proper and fair — it’s just a matter of us working it out. It’s going to be a painful process, but it is a process.”

The Value of Talking About Bad Sex

When I think about “bad sex,” I think about the five years I spent single in New York, the men I met and went home with. I think about the moments I realized that our expectations of the night had diverged and that the effort required to extract myself seemed exhausting, risking violence at worst, annoyance at best. Allowing the act to take place would be easier, making whatever noises and contortions would get him off fastest. It’s a strange kind of detachment, unsettling and sad, to look up at a man and realize he has no idea you’re there. It was sex that looked nothing like what I wanted, but I didn’t know how to ask for what I did want or how to say no. It is not an experience I would wish on anyone, and yet it was what I came to think of as ordinary.

Sure, sexual violence may not be eliminated by a more nuanced and open conversation around consent, power and pleasure, but that doesn’t mean the conversation isn’t critically important. There’s no reason to wait for more Graces to tell their stories or more famous men to fall. This conversation is long overdue. As Emma Gray wrote in The Huffington Post, “[Bad sex] is a kind of sex that is not only worth talking about, but necessary to talk about. Behavior need not fall under the legal definition of sexual assault or rape to be wrong or violating or upsetting. And when nearly every woman I’ve spoken to about the Aziz Ansari story follows up our conversation with a similar story of her own, it’s worth thinking about why that is.”

Collages by Louisiana Mei Gelpi. Photos by Fairfax Media via Getty Images

0 notes