#so there’s an internal conflict because building a social support system takes time

[hopesandmountains]

I think one of the key things for any relationship is to discover what your needs are.

Because otherwise you’re going to try and meet those needs in ways that aren’t entirely conscious to you.

Everybody has a need for passion, love, understanding, physical closeness etc. but we all find different ways of meeting that need.

And the most straightforward answer is to find a relationship.

However for those of us with emotional trauma it’s not really always easy or straightforward to find and build a relationship. And honestly that’s not always the priority for everybody anyhow.

The need for passion, love, and intensity can outweigh the need for a long lasting connection, especially when dealing with people who are suffering from trauma or living a life where they constantly feel anxious or overwhelmed.

And of course because a long lasting and intimate connection with someone else can just be a scary thing, especially when trauma or other factors have left you unsure about your connection with yourself.

However the thing is, the solution is not really looking for a causal relationship either. If your need is true passion and investment, whether you admit it to themselves or not, you are placing actual stakes on how things are going to work out and you would be personally hurt if you ever if you were to feel used like just another causal fling.

This is especially true with those who have attachment issues or abandonment issues, because unlike securely attached people who can just walk away, unresolved attachment issues can latch you onto someone even if you hardly know them.

So realizing it or not, it is kind of like a gamble that either things will just work out together in the long run, or that by the time the relationship runs it’s course, that having that passion love and understanding will have left you in a more resourced place where you will not only be able to handle the emotions of separating, but will also be left in a more emotionally secure place that is better then where you started.

And that’s not entirely untrue. Having someone compassionate who truly cares about you can really help you boost your mental health, and if you really work at it while you have those additional resources they are giving you through their care, you can heal yourself and build that emotionally security from within.

But really the therapist answer would be to look for friends, social supports, healthy communities, groups you belong to etc. to use as additional resources to help you heal and build that emotionally security.

And in fairness, the way society is set up doesn’t really make it easy to build a social support group and it’s not always a bad idea to just get to know someone and see where things naturally go.

But it can be more reckless and unsafe. By putting heavy emphasis on passion too early on in a relationship, your risk opening up yourself to someone toxic or not good for you or in the worst case outright abusive.

And this is why it’s important to know your needs, because if you try and meet them in a way that feels familiar to your childhood trauma, it can be a recipe for disaster if you are unconsciously trying to recreate an unsafe environment.

So regardless of what you do I emphasis learning more about yourself, slowing things down, and seeing how you feel at each step. See if past traumas get brought up, if attachment issues start acting up, if what you are feeling is limerence or true connection, if you are considering your own needs in the relationship, if you are voicing those needs in a healthy manner, if you are staying true to yourself or if you are “fawning”.

And it’s not that I want to scare people off from finding connections or meeting new people, I just think it’s really important to understand your needs in a way that you can confident in yourself and confident enough in the relationship to move forward.

And confident enough to objectively consider losing the relationship, confident enough to objectively decide what kind of relationship it is that you want (considering your own needs and not someone else’s), and confident to walk away if that is what is best for you.

So try and volunteer somewhere, join clubs, slowly let yourself be more social to be build that social safety net, and yes please take risks. At some point you will have to address your own vulnerability and that means risking yourself.

And this post is already a lot so the last thing I will stress is just how important it is to understand your own vulnerability so you don’t unintentionally make yourself more vulnerable than you intend to. A lot times when people aren’t comfortable being vulnerable but want to try to be, they can overextend and be more vulnerable than they intend to. And here’s a good video to learn about that.

#attachment styles #attachment theory #anxious attachment #disorganized attachment #relationships #self care #self worth #childhood trauma #personally I am looking for a long term relationship #however that’s more of my value system and my self actualizad self #currently I have been feeling very overwhelmed so my basic needs are prioritizing finding that peace and calm now #so there’s an internal conflict because building a social support system takes time #and that doesn’t mean I have to compromise on my values or what I am looking for #it just means it’s something to recognize #so I can set a goal to get from where I am feeling now #to a place where I can be the idealized self that I want to be #I’ve been too focused on just outwardly doing things that felt aligned with who I wanted to be #however now I want to focus internally and monitor my true feelings and needs #because I need to work with myself to get to where I will be internally at peace while still embodying the self I want to be

[fatliberation]

I’m Abandoning Body Positivity and Here’s Why

In short: it’s fatphobic.

“A rallying cry for a shift in societal norms has now become the skinny girl’s reassurance that she isn’t really fat. Fatness, through this lens of ‘body positivity’, remains the worst thing a person can be.” (Kayleigh Donaldson)

•  •  •

I have always had a lot of conflicting opinions about the body positivity movement, but it’s much more widely known (and accepted, go figure) than the fat liberation movement, so I often used the two terms interchangeably in conversation about anti-fatness. But the longer I’ve been following the body positivity movement, the more I’ve realized how much it has strayed from its fat lib origins. It has been hijacked; deluded to center thin, able, white, socially acceptable bodies.

Bopo’s origins are undoubtedly grounded in fat liberation. The fat activists of the 1960s paved the way for the shred of size acceptance we see in media today, initially protesting the discrimination and lack of access to equal opportunities for fat people specifically. This early movement highlighted the abuse, mental health struggles, malpractice in the medical field, and called for equal pay, equal access, equal respect, an end to fatphobic structures and ideas. It saddens me that it hasn’t made much progress in those regards. 

Today, the #bopo movement encapsulates more the idea of loving your own body versus ensuring that individuals regardless of their weight and appearance are given equal opportunities in the workplace, schools, fashion and media. Somehow those demands never made it outside of the ‘taboo’ category, and privileged people would much more readily accept the warm and fuzzy, sugar-coated message of “love yourself!” But as @yrfatfriend once said, this idea reduces fat people’s struggles to a problem of mindset, rather than a product of external oppressors that need to be abolished in order for fat people to live freely.

That generalized statement, “love yourself,” is how a movement started by fat people for the rights of fat people was diluted so much, it now serves a thin model on Instagram posting about how she has a tummy roll and cellulite on her thighs - then getting praised for loving her body despite *gasp!* its minor resemblance to a fat body. 

Look. Pretty much everyone has insecurities about their bodies, especially those of us who belong to marginalized groups. If you don’t have body issues, you’re a privileged miracle, but our beauty-obsessed society has conditioned us to want to look a certain way, and if we have any features that the western beauty standard considers as “flaws,” yeah! We feel bad about it! So it’s not surprising that people who feel bad about themselves would want to hop on a movement that says ‘hey, you’re beautiful as you are!’ That’s a message everyone would like to hear. Any person who has once thought of themselves as less than beautiful now feels that this movement is theirs. And everyone has insecurities, so everyone feels entitled to the safe space. And when a space made for a minority includes the majority, the cycle happens again and the majority oppresses the minority. What I’m trying to explain here is that thin people now feel a sense of ownership over body positive spaces. 

Regardless of how badly thin people feel about their bodies, they still experience thin privilege. They can sit down in a theater or an airplane without even thinking about it, they can eat in front of others without judgement, they can go the doctor with a problem and actually have it fixed right away, they can find cute clothes in their size with ease, they do not suffer from assumptions of laziness/failure based on stereotype, they see their body type represented everywhere in media, the list goes on and on. They do not face discrimination based off of the size of their body. 

Yet diet culture and fatphobia affects everyone, and of course thin people do still feel bad about the little fat they have on their bodies. But the failure to examine WHY they feel bad about it, is what perpetuates fatphobia within the bopo movement. They’re labeled “brave” for showing a pinch of chub, yet fail to address what makes it so acceptably daring, and how damaging it is to people who are shamed for living in fat bodies. Much like the rest of society, thin body positivity is still driven by the fear of fat, and does nothing to dismantle fatphobia within structures or within themselves.

Evette Dionne sums it up perfectly in her article, “The Fragility of Body Positivity: How a Radical Movement Lost Its Way.”

“The body-positive media economy centers these affirming, empowering, let-me-pinch-a-fat-roll-to-show-how-much-I-love-myself stories while failing to actually challenge institutions to stop discriminating against fat people. More importantly, most of those stories center thin, white, cisgender, heterosexual women who have co-opted the movement to build their brands. Rutter has labeled this erasure ‘Socially Acceptable Body Positivity.’

“On social media, it actually gets worse for fat bodies: We’re not just being erased from body positivity, fat women are being actively vilified. Health has become the stick with which to beat fat people with [sic], and the benchmark for whether body positivity should include someone” (Dionne).

Ah, yes. The medicalization of fat bodies, and the moralization of health. I’ve ranted about this before. Countless comments on posts of big women that say stuff like “I’m all for body positivity, but this is just unhealthy and it shouldn’t be celebrated.” I’ve heard writer/activist Aubrey Gordon once say that body positivity has become something like a shield for anti-fatness. It’s anti-fatness that has been repackaged as empowerment. It’s a striking double-standard. Fat people are told to be comfortable in their bodies (as if that’s what’s going to fix things) but in turn are punished when they’re okay with being fat. Make it make sense.

Since thin people feel a sense of ownership over body positive spaces, and they get to hide behind “health” when they are picking and choosing who can and cannot be body positive, they base it off of who looks the most socially acceptable. And I’m sure they aren’t consciously picking and choosing, it comes from implicit bias. But the socially acceptable bodies they center are small to medium fat, with an hourglass shape. They have shaped a new beauty standard specifically FOR FAT PEOPLE. (Have you ever seen a plus sized model with neck fat?? I’m genuinely asking because I have yet to find one!) The bopo movement works to exclude and silence people who are on the largest end of the weight spectrum. 

Speaking of exclusion, let’s talk about fashion for a minute.

For some reason, (COUGH COUGH CAPITALISM) body positivity is largely centered around fashion. And surprise surprise, it’s still not inclusive to fat people. Fashion companies get a pat on the back for expanding their sizing two sizes up from what they previously offered, when they are still leaving out larger fat people completely. In general, clothing companies charge more for clothes with more fabric, so people who need the largest sizes are left high and dry. It’s next to impossible to find affordable clothes that also look nice. Fashion piggybacks on the bopo movement as a marketing tactic, and exploits the very bodies it claims to be serving. (Need I mention the time Urban Outfitters used a "curvy” model to sell a size it doesn’t even carry?)

The movement also works to exclude and silence fat Black activists.

In her article, “The Body Positivity Movement Both Takes From and Erases Fat Black Women” Donyae Coles explains how both white people and thin celebrities such as Jameela Jamil profit from the movement that Black women built.

“Since long before blogging was a thing, fat Black women have been vocal about body acceptance, with women like Sharon Quinn and Marie Denee, or the work of Sonya Renee Taylor with The Body Is Not An Apology. We’ve been out here, and we’re still here, but the overwhelming face of the movement is white and thin because the mainstream still craves it, and white and thin people have no problem with profiting off the work of fat, non-white bodies.”

“There is a persistent belief that when thin and/or white people enter the body positive realm and begin to repeat the messages that Black women have been saying for years in some cases, when they imitate the labor that Black women have already put in that we should be thankful that they are “boosting” our message. This completely ignores the fact that in doing so they are profiting off of that labor. They are gaining the notoriety, the mark of an expert in something they learned from an ignored Black woman” (Coles).

My next essay will go into detail about this and illuminate key figures who paved the way for body acceptance in communities of color. 

The true purpose of this movement has gotten completely lost. So where the fuck do we go from here? 

We break up with it, and run back to the faithful ex our parents disapproved of. We go back to the roots of the fat liberation movement, carved out for us by the fat feminists, the queer fat activists, the fat Black community, and the allies it began with. Everything they have preached since the 1960s and 70s is one hundred percent applicable today. We get educated. We examine diet culture through a capitalist lens. We tackle thin, white-supremacist systems and weight based discrimination, as well as internalized bias. We challenge our healthcare workers to unlearn their bias, treat, and support fat patients accordingly. We make our homes and spaces accessible and welcoming to people of any size, or any (dis)ability. “We must first protect and uplift people in marginalized bodies, only then can we mandate self-love” (Gordon).

Think about it. In the face of discrimination, mistreatment, and emotional abuse, we as a society are telling fat people to love their bodies, when we should be putting our energy toward removing those fatphobic ideas and structures so that fat people can live in a world that doesn’t require them to feel bad about their bodies. It’s like hitting someone with a rock and telling them not to bruise!

While learning to love and care for the body that you’re in is important, I think that body positivity also fails in teaching that because it puts even more emphasis on beauty. Instead of saying, “you don’t have to be ‘beautiful’ to be loved and appreciated,” its main lesson is that “all bodies are beautiful.” We live in a society obsessed with appearance, and it is irresponsible to ignore the hierarchy of beauty standards that exist in every space. Although it should be relative, “beautiful” has been given a meaning. And that meaning is thin, abled, symmetric, and eurocentric. 

Beauty and ugliness are irrelevant, made-up constructs. People will always be drawn to you no matter what, so you deserve to exist in your body without struggling to conform to an impossible and bigoted standard. Love and accept your body for YOURSELF AND NO ONE ELSE, because you do not exist to please the eyes of other people. That’s what I wish we were teaching instead. Radical self acceptance!

As of today, the ultimate message of the body positivity movement is: Love your body “despite its imperfections.” Or people with “perfect and imperfect bodies both deserve love.” As long as we are upholding the notion that there IS a perfect body that looks a certain way, and every body that falls outside of that category is imperfect, we are upholding white supremacy, eugenics, anti-fatness, and ableism.

#body positivity #bopo #body posi #body positive #body acceptance #fat acceptance #fat activism #fat liberation #anti fatness #anti blackness #anti fat bias #lookism #beauty standards #self acceptance

[queeranarchism]

Hey! I saw your post about how hiveminds are represented poorly, where you then talked about how anarchists form a consensus among large groups. I was wondering how this process of forming a consensus typically works, because I always thought people did have a vote.

Most anarchist communities don’t vote. Because whenever we vote, a majority gets what they want and a minority doesn’t. And this could mean there is dissatisfaction, which leads to internal strife, anger, bitterness, mistrust. Or worse this could mean there is injustice when a minority doesn’t get the safety, resources, access, fulfillment, they need. And that’s not what we want. For many anarchists, voting is a tool of injustice through which minority interests are suppressed. Instead, anarchists use:

1. Consensus: decisions that impact everyone are made by using a variety of techniques to get to an agreement that everyone can agree on. Consensus processes often consist of small gatherings in which affinity groups and minority caucuses talk among themselves, followed by large gatherings in which the conversation goes on until there is agreement among all (established through hand-raising or some other technique. Basically a vote that requires 100% yes).

2. Autonomy: decisions that mainly impact you and your affinity group can be made without consulting anyone. Decisions that only impact your neighborhood require a consensus within the neighborhood, etc. Basically no one not impacted by your decisions can get in your way, unless you start harming and oppression others.

3. Emergency agreements: most anarchist communities have some system in place through which some people can make fast decisions. When there’s a fire, or a flood, or an eviction, you gotta act fast. Often a what-if plan has been made in advance using consensus and that what-if plan is implemented with the use of temporary leaders or temporary voting followed by a review and re-establishment of consensus.

Consensus is the least understood of those 3 concepts because very few people can imagine acting in a community based on good faith, where no one wants their favorite option to win and everyone wants an outcome that works best for everyone. Consensus requires trust, flexible positions, really listening to minority voices and being able to settle for a less than perfect option because you recognize the needs of other people.

Electoral decision making cultivates competition, only listening to large groups who have the voting power to achieve a majority, encouraging faithfulness to a fixed position to build a majortiy and basically the opposite of all these cooperative attitudes. So if you’ve raised in majority decision making, it’s not surprising that it’s difficult to imagine people acting differently.

Seeds for Change described the consensus process as follows

The problem, or decision needing to be made, is defined and named. It helps to do this in a way that separates the problems/questions from personalities.

Brainstorm possible solutions. Write them all down, even the crazy ones. Keep the energy up for quick, top-of-the head suggestions.

Create space for questions or clarification on the situation.

Discuss the options written down. Modify some, eliminate others, and develop a short list. Which are the favourites?

State the proposal or choice of proposals so that everybody is clear.

Discuss the pros and cons of each proposal — make sure everybody has a chance to contribute.

If there is a major objection, return to step 6 (this is the time-consuming bit). Sometimes you may need to return to step 4.

If there are no major objections, state the decisions and test for agreement.

Acknowledge minor objections and incorporate friendly amendments.

Discuss.

Check for consensus.

Seeds for Change mentions that when despite multiple attempts there is no consensus, the group as a whole can:

Allow the person most concerned to make the decision.

Leave the decision for later or take a break.

Ask everyone to argue convincingly the point of view they like the least.

Break down the decision into smaller areas. See which ones you can agree on and see what points of disagreement are left.

Identify the assumptions and beliefs underlying the issue. Get to the heart of the matter.

Imagine what will happen in six months, a year, five year’s time if you don’t agree. How important is the decision now?

Bring in a facilitator. If your group is unable to work through conflicts or if similar issues keep coming up, think about bringing in a professional facilitator or mediator who is trained in conflict-resolution techniques.

& when consensus can’t be found at all and a few people consistently disagree, those who disagree with the most popular option can choose:

Non-support: “I don’t see the need for this, but I’ll go along with it.”

Standing aside: “I personally can’t do this, but I won’t stop others from doing it.”

Veto/major objection: A single veto/major objection blocks the proposal from passing. If you have a major objection it means that you cannot live with the proposal if it passes. It is so objectionable to you/those you are representing that you will stop the proposal. A major objection isn’t an “I don’t really like it “ or “I liked the other idea better.” It is an “I cannot live with this proposal if it passes, and here is why?.!”. The group can either accept the veto or discuss the issue further and draw up new proposals. The veto is a powerful tool and should be used with caution.

Leaving the group: If one person continually finds him/herself at odds with the rest of the group, it may be time to think about the reasons for this. Is this really the right for them to group to be in? 

Consensus decision making is tricky and can be flawed. Conversation facilitators often hold more power than they’re willing to admit, talented public speakers can have more impact than those anxious about speaking in a group, long crowded meetings are not accessible to all, dogmatic cliques can sabotage the process by misusing the veto, etc. Measures need to be in place to counteract this, or true consensus becomes impossible.

It’s also important not to let consensus eclipse ‘autonomy’ or to nitpick every minor decision. The answer ‘what are we having for lunch?’ shouldn’t be a consensus process. It should be ‘whatever people want, & those who want the same thing can make lunch together’. Similarly, if the question is ‘do we want a new water filter in the community garden?’, you might wanna avoid long conversations and rephrase that question to ‘Are there enough people here willing to help me build a water filter in the garden and no one who objects to a new water filter?’. Let enthusiasm to do new things thrive.

This is doubly true in a situation like an occupation, blockade, autonomous zone under pressure, etc. Resistance requires flexibility and surprise, which can not come from consensus. A resistance movement that doesn’t allow its affinity groups to roam free and exploit opportunities won’t live long.

Your movement will die if you try to do everything by general assembly and limit the power of autonomy. In my opinion, one of the most common failures that I’ve seen in anarchist organizing in Europe has been to try to limit the autonomy of its affinity groups, try to do everything by large scale consensus meeting, and when that got too time-consuming and had authority issues, switch to more voting instead of more autonomy and better consensus processes.

Some reading:

Peter Gelderloos - Consensus:  A New Handbook for Grassroots Social, Political, and Environmental Groups. (print)

Seeds for change - Consensus Decision Making https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/seeds-for-change-consensus-decision-making

C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein - On Conflict and Consensus: a handbook on Formal Consensus decisionmaking https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/c-t-butler-and-amy-rothstein-on-conflict-and-consensus-a-handbook-on-formal-consensus-decisionm#toc8

The Inefficient Utopia or How Consensus Will Change the World        https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/curious-george-brigade-the-inefficient-utopia-or-how-consensus-will-change-the-world        

#queeranarchism #consensus #encar-murogue

[southeastasianists]

The history of military rule, armed conflict and the influence of gender norms mean that women and men live, work and socialize in different ways. Women are generally expected to stay at home and concern themselves with household affairs. And yet, since the early days of the coup, women have been visible opposing dictatorship and participating in protests through, for example the pots and pans campaign, civil disobedience movement and neighborhood vigilance groups.  They are frontline protestors and activists on social media. Images of women have proliferated on social media giving them unprecedented visibility. It is inspiring to see sheer numbers of women such as teachers who are usually seen as apolitical become politically active and taking risks by participating in the protests. Women of different ages and social backgrounds have been at the heart of these protests.

Since Myanmar’s independence in 1948 until 2010, the country was ruled by successive military regimes with the military playing a key role in Myanmar politics even in its democratic transition after the 2010 elections. Military rule has reinforced “the authoritarian, hierarchical and chauvinistic values that underpinned male-dominated power structures“.  Because of the close links between the military and perceptions of male supremacy, this makes discussions and progress towards women’s rights and their participation in public life difficult to envisage for many.  Under the military one party state, the civil and political rights of all citizens were decimated and women experienced violence through the use of rape as a tool of war. Even during the transition to democracy, with the adoption of a new constitution, Myanmar remains a masculine state with its male-dominated institutions where there is no belief in women’s equality with men, or support for women to become leaders and politicians. Women remain notably under-represented in all aspects of public and political life in Myanmar’s democratising state. Women comprise 13.6 per cent of elected MPs in the lower house and 13.7 per cent in the upper house at the national level following the 2015 elections, and only 0.5 per cent of women elected at the village level.

For women’s organisations and networks, which made some gains during the transition, the return to the military regime is a blow to progressing the gender equality agenda. Women’s organisations and networks such as Gender Equality Network (GEN) and Women’s Organisations Network (WON) have rejected the military regime by boycotting the Myanmar National Committee on Women (MNCW), the national machinery for gender equality. Membership of GEN and WON to MNCW was approved under the NLD government, for the first time opening up space for women’s voices to be heard at a policy level. Previously that space was occupied by state-sponsored women’s organisations. Most members of these organisations were wives of generals, thereby reinforcing rather than upsetting patriarchal power.  Despite their gains in this space, GEN and WON refuse to work with the military regime. “We have zero trust on the military council’s promise of fulfilling human rights because we believe women’s rights and gender equality only survive in a democratic system not under military rule” said May Sabe Phyu, the director of GEN.

A number of women’s organisations and networks also have boycotted the Technical Working Groups (TWGs) established to support implementation of National Strategic Plan for the Advancement of Women 2013–2022 (NSPAW). In statements rejecting the TWGs, the women’s groups explained that they do not recognize the military council as the legitimate governing body, therefore cannot support its administration. By taking away women’s voices from the policy and political processes of the military regime, they challenge the legitimacy of the State Administrative Council (SAC) formed by the military. Simultaneously, they channeled their voices through open letters to international bodies such as UN Human Rights Council and ASEAN member states, and demanded the restoration of democratic rule in the protests.

The military has reinforced the idea of its protective role as the norm by emphasizing its duty to “protect democracy“, “constitution” and its intention to form a “true and disciplined democracy” in its claim of mass electoral fraud in the 2020 election as the justification for the coup. In fact, the military has nurtured its self-image as the “guardian” of the state throughout its patriarchal rule. The military-guided constitution includes references to women principally as ‘mothers’, which not only reinforces a gendered stereotype, but also contends that their reproductive roles are in need of protection (Section 32). The Race and Religion Protection Laws (2015), passed under the military backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP)’s government, is an example of controlling women’s bodies and limiting their religious and personal freedoms, in the name of ‘protecting’ women.

During the protests, women from Kayah State have been effectively challenging the norm, imposed by the military, that women need protection and the military as the protection. In their rally, women carried bras and sanitary pads as symbols of opposition to the coup. Norms perpetuate ideas that women’s inner clothing, such as bras and pads, is dirty; that women are impure during menstruation; and that women’s roles should be located in the private sphere. By bringing these items into the public sphere, they challenge patriarchal norms and shame the military. Their poster declares that “the military can no longer provide protection for us, not even at the level of a pad” –a timely and relevant narrative as the number of women and men killed in crack-downs across the country increases day by day. In this context, Karenni women have challenged the norm that the military is the protection/protector for the women and all of the people. At the same time, they challenge the norm of women being private sphere.

Women are also challenging other gender norms such as “hpon,” which gives higher authority and status to men. This perceived inherent spiritual superiority leads to men attaining positions of power and influence in political and religious institutions. In the prevailing culture, men tend to avoid walking under women’s drying htamain or longyi (sarong), as they believe that this can harm their hpon. So women are required to hang their htamain lower than men’s clothing and at the back of the house. Protestors have subverted this superstition  and turned women’s under garments into an effective protection/defense strategy by hanging women’s htamain in the lines across the street and building htamain barricades to induce fear and lower the masculine status of the security force. Images of security forces trying to remove these htamain shared on social media show that this strategy challenges deep-seated misogynistic/patriarchal beliefs held by the military, and demonstrate that the htamain has been turned into an empowering symbol of resistance.

Women saw this strategy used widely by women and by men, and began to consider it time to directly challenge patriarchal norms, misogyny and sexism rooted in the dictatorship. A group of young women protestors called for a nationwide htamain movement on 8 March, International Women’s Day (IWD), urging people to use women’s htamain as flags. Their slogans, “fly the htamain flag, end the dictatorship,” and “our htamain, our flag, our victory” became the IWD’s theme in Myanmar. Using the htamain as the flag flying high in the marching, women have effectively challenged the private/public roles and patriarchal norms that limit women’s potential.

Phyo Nay Chi, an activist in the campaign, said “we want to highlight the significance of women’s participation in the fight against the dictatorship so we use htamain as the flags during our marches, and as a symbol of our victory over the dictatorship and patriarchal norms.” The night before the movement the SAC passed an emergency law making hanging htamain on the street illegal. Despite this, the women’s action was successful in many areas of Myanmar. There were many posts on social media young men wrapping htamain around their heads and bodies and holding htamain flags in support of the campaign.

This is a revolution in the making, opposing the misogynistic dictatorship as well as its underlying patriarchal ideology. Myanmar women now stand at a unique and revolutionary moment in their history. Although norms and experiences are diverse, women find common ground fighting the dictatorship and the patriarchal ideology. Women in Myanmar need to seize this moment to define a shared vision that also celebrates their differences.  How can we create our own, context-specific notions of equality and rights, breaking the patriarchal discourse that has dominated Myanmar’s recent history?

#Southeast Asia #Burma #Myanmar #Gender Issues #Protests #Military Junta

[mrs-nate-humphrey]

So not to be dramatic, but if you could get a degree in discourse-ology, the topic of my master’s thesis would definitely be “Which political candidates did the characters of the CW’s Gossip Girl (2007-2012) support?” I’m doing this in order from most to least obvious, and considering both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

[ little ivy interjection here: i haven’t changed ANYTHING, except adding a screencap of the title + the submission, because that made me laugh & more people deserve to see it, and putting this under a read more because that’s how i generally try & organise stuff on this blog. so this submission is exactly as it was when i received it! also while we’re at it, anon, this MADE my day.]

Blair Waldorf: “Hillary Clinton is one of my role models. I do not break treaties, you ass!” (04x13) There’s no question that Blair would go hard for Hillary in 2016, she praised her on multiple occasions throughout the series. Blair’s a classic American neoliberal, third wave Democrat-type: she’s decently progressive when it comes to social policies, and would be decidedly supportive of causes like gay marriage, racial equity, and women’s reproductive rights, but she’s still very much in favor of maintaining the status quo when it comes to capitalism and the hegemonic structure of power that, lets face it, heavily favors her own class interests. To use the American healthcare system as an example: Blair would have been all for the Affordable Care Act, and is largely supportive of the idea of creating a public option - but single payer, nationalized health care? It just wouldn't work in a country like the United States for “X” reason (although the real reason, deep down, is that she doesn’t want to see her tax rate go up in any meaningful way). So she’s thoroughly for Clinton in both the 2016 primaries and the general election, she maybe even comes out with a line of high-end “I’m With Her” merchandise if she’s still CEO of Waldorf Designs, and is personally heartbroken when Clinton loses.

Flash forward to the 2020 primaries. Blairhates Donald Trump, like emotionally, viscerally hates him - his misogyny, his incompetence, and his blatant tackiness are a direct repudiation of her beliefs, and the fact that he’s representing Manhattan society and the Upper East Side to the world in such a godawful way is frankly embarrassing. So in a certain sense, her strategy, like frankly many Americans at the time going into the 2020 Democratic primaries is, “Which one of these candidates has the greatest chance at beating Donald Trump?” I see Blair being rather conflicted at first, but ultimately going for either Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris. She has a certain admiration for Elizabeth Warren given her professional background, but her policies are a bit too progressive for someone like Blair. Buttigeg is fine, but not especially thrilling. Biden, quite frankly, doesn’t seem like he has any real chance at winning, although I think he’d be Blair’s third choice after Harris and Klobuchar. I can see her leaning more towards Harris ultimately - although, after the “Amy Klobuchar throws staplers at her interns!!” rumors start spreading, Blair cannot help but, at a personal level, kind of respect her for that. When Biden unexpectedly takes South Carolina and then the Democratic nomination, Blair is a bit disappointed, but not overly so, and quickly marshals her financial resources into supporting and fundraising for him for the remainder of the election. At least it’s not Sanders - or Bloomberg. As a New Yorker, of course Blair’s opinion is “Fuck Michael Bloomberg”.

Chuck Bass: Now here’s where it gets interesting. Chuck, as you said, isn’t stupid - there’s no way he falls for the “build the wall” crap or any of Trump’s rhetoric, he knows it’s a bullshit farce and sees right through it. But you know what he definitely is? Deeply greedy and deeply selfish. I’m hardly the first person to point this out, but Chuck Bass is, in many ways, the fictional equivalent of the Donald Trumps and Michael Bloombergs and Brett Kavanaughs of the world - new money billionaire who inherited his wealth from his father working in the real estate industry, who despite his lack of business acumen and deeply problematic history with women, has managed to coast through life failing upwards with absolutely no social or legal accountability? I mean, back in 2010, Forbes Magazine actually did a real interview with the fictional Chuck Bass in which they outright compare him to Donald Trump. I couldn’t tell you if the Gossip Girl writers meant to write Chuck as their Trump analogue - I mean, they did invite Jared and Ivanka onto the show, after all - but the parallels are just too strong to ignore. All of which is to say, not only did Chuck Bass vote for Donald Trump, he held exclusive political fundraisers for him and was probably a substantial donor to his campaign. Now, did Chuck distance himself publicly over time as the political climate became increasingly caustic and public sentiment towards Trump plummeted even further? Perhaps, perhaps not. It really depends on if the board of Bass Industries felt like being connected to Trump was a liability or an asset - but privately, I imagine Chuck once again voted for him in 2020, because the one policy Donald Trump did effectively execute during his tenure in office was massive tax cuts for billionaires, and for someone like Chuck Bass, that’s the only political policy that really matters. He wouldn’t wear a red hat and wouldn’t be caught dead within sniffing distance of a MAGA rally and the hoi polloi, but dude is basically the image of what the kind of rich conservatives backing the Trump administration for personal gain look like. On the off chance that the distastefulness of it all got to be a little much for even Chuck post-2016, perhaps he might switch his vote to Bloomberg. But I highly doubt Chuck would be politically invested in anything other than his own wallet to such an extent that he wouldn’t vote for Trump, no matter how much it would no doubt completely infuriate Blair.

Dan Humphrey: As the unofficial king of the hipsters, Dan has been a Sanders supporter since before it was cool. Seriously, Bernie Sanders appeals to Dan intrinsically on every level - his policies, his rhetoric, even his aesthetic - the rumpled old man with wild hair wearing mittens and railing against the upper class is the sort of thing that’s basically political catnip for someone like Dan Humphrey. Not only would Dan vote for Sanders in both the 2016 and 2020 primaries, he’d go out and be one of the celebrities campaigning for him. This would definitely lead to him butting heads with Blair, and she would no doubt call him out on supporting someone like Sanders when Dan himself is now a millionaire, who made his money from writing stories about the upper class. The fact that in 2017 he apparently gets married to Serena, a billionaire heiress, and may or may not have been engaged to her back in 2016 when the Democratic primaries were happening might cause him a bit of cognitive dissonance, but really, just because he’s climbed up the socio-economic ladder now doesn’t mean his values have really changed, have they? (Debatable.) In any case, in both the 2016 and 2020 general elections, Dan would definitely vote for Clinton and Biden respectively - although he’d be significantly more disgruntled about it than Blair would be switching from Harris to Biden. I don’t think Dan would be a “Bernie bro” in the way that term is used, but he’d definitely chafe against Clinton’s past policy decisions, and would probably make some snippy Tweets about her during the election. Nevertheless, once it became clear that Trump was going to be the Republican nominee and was a serious threat, I think Dan would change his tone and start encouraging his fans and followers to vote for Clinton. Likewise, in 2020, Dan would probably become one of the Sanders supporters doing outreach for Biden, having become more politically pragmatic following the experience of living under the Trump administration.

Vanessa Abrams: Much like Dan, Vanessa is a progressive, although unlike Dan, Vanessa’s activism is more focused around specific issues and less around specific politicians. I can see Dan and Vanessa being in roughly the same place in 2016, and given that the only real choices were between Sanders and Clinton in the primaries (RIP to Martin O'Malley), Vanessa would no doubt go for Sanders. Whereas Dan might campaign for Sanders directly however, Vanessa would instead focus her time and resources around advocacy for specific causes that are important to her, like climate change and racial justice, and would probably use her platform as a filmmaker and documentarian to advance those causes. I could very much see her getting involved with movements like Black Lives Matter and organizations like the Sunrise Movement, and taking part in protests, marches, and sit-ins. When the 2020 Democratic primaries come around, I could see her possibly switching from Sanders to Warren for a while (and Dan would definitely argue with her about it if she did), but I can also see her switching back to Sanders after Warren amended her support for single-payer, “Medicare for All”. She’d definitely vote for Clinton and Biden in the generals, but not enthusiastically.

Nate Archibald: For someone whose family business is politics and who, in 2017, is apparently a candidate in the New York City mayoral election, Nate seems to be rather removed from politics. As Vanessa puts it in 02x19, “The only thing Nate’s ever voted for is American Idol.” Still, as Editor-in-Chief of The Spectator, Nate kind of has to have an opinion, and in that respect, I see him gravitating towards the type of center-left “establishment” candidates that he and his family would no doubt have close ties with. In the Gossip Girl universe, the Vanderbilts are portrayed as being a lot like the Kennedys, and I think Nate’s policies as a mayoral candidate would really reflect that. In 2016, he would vote for Hillary Clinton in both the primaries and the generals without much of a second thought - after all, she’s the obvious choice, and there’s no way a candidate like Donald Trump could actually beat her, right? Actually, optimistically, maybe that’s why Nate decides to jump into the mayoral race in 2017 - previously, he had been for all intents and purposes politically apathetic, but seeing someone as genuinely vile as Donald Trump ascend to the office of the presidency stirs him out of that apathy, and he wants to make a positive difference in the only way an incredibly privileged white man from a politically prominent family knows how. So he runs as a Kennedy-esque center left candidate, further left of someone like Hillary Clinton, but more moderate than someone like Elizabeth Warren - sort of like Kamala Harris, now that I think about it. I have no idea if he would actually be able to beat Bill de Blasio given the major incumbency advantage de Blasio would have, but who knows. Come the 2020 Democratic primaries, I think Nate would probably just vote for whoever he believed was most likely to beat Donald Trump. I don’t see him having any sort of clear preference - maybe he would gravitate towards Biden on the basis of him being the most established candidate, or maybe he would gravitate towards Harris on the basis of her campaigning as the “moderate progressive” candidate. I could also seeing him liking Andrew Yang, come to think of it. In any case, he would most definitely support Joe Biden in the generals. How involved he’d be in supporting him really depends on whether or not Nate actually gets elected to mayor - if he was the mayor, he’d definitely endorse him and probably donate to him, but I think he’d be too wrapped up in his own political responsibilities to really do much more than that. If, however, he lost the election and was still the Editor-in-Chief of The Spectator, I can see Nate getting more involved alongside the rest of his family, officially endorsing him in The Spectator, hosting political fundraisers for him, and maybe even campaigning for him. The Vanderbilts in the Gossip Girl universe (I have no idea what the family’s actual political beliefs are in real life) definitely seem to me like they’d be Biden supporters, and I imagine they’d use their political clout to try and get Biden in, and more importantly, Trump out.

Serena van der Woodsen: Oh Serena. Look, she knows it’s important, okay? It’s just, she’s been really busy lately, and she doesn’t really like to think about politics, and hey, remember that fundraiser she did with her mom for last month’s philanthropic cause du jour? Serena’s a Democrat, vaguely, but if you tried to really pin her down on her political beliefs she’d probably just change the topic. So who does she vote for in 2016? The truth is, she doesn’t. Not in the primaries, not in the general, not at all. She meant to, okay, Blair’s definitely been pestering her to send in her mail-in-ballot for weeks, but she just got distracted and forgot. Serena really strikes me as the kind of person who doesn’t enjoy thinking or talking about politics, save for perhaps a few specific issues, and she has a sense that everything will work itself out eventually and she doesn’t really need to participate. And then the 2016 election happens, and holy shit, she didn’t vote. Blair and Dan might have spent early 2016 bickering with each other over Clinton versus Sanders, but the one thing they can definitely agree on is “What the fuck, Serena?!?!” They both reminded her like, a million times, how could she possibly forget?! Serena feels really bad about it - she didn’t think it was such a big deal, she didn’t think Donald Trump could actually win! - and so she starts overcompensating whenever the topic of politics comes up, maybe even joins Vanessa at a few protests and marches, even though she’s still sort of clueless about the actual issues at hand. She does vote in the 2018 midterms, although only in the general election - straight blue ticket, all the way down. She takes a picture of herself at the voting booth wearing an “I Voted!” sticker and posts it on Instagram, tagging both Dan and Blair in the post (who already voted weeks ago using mail-in ballots, but it’s the thought that counts). Flash forward to 2020, and she really needs to make a decision about who to vote for in the primaries… but there’s just so many choices. Everything seems so scary and stressful and real in a way now that it didn’t back in 2016, and she can’t just ignore it and assume things will work out for the best like she did back then. So who does she vote for? Well, Serena always wins, so she votes for Biden. Conspiratorially, both Dan and Blair privately wonder if her voting for Biden isn’t on some cosmic level the reason for his unexpected victory, even if they know there’s no logical way that’s possible, right? But it would be such a Serena thing to do… In any case, Serena’s just happy her candidate won, and would probably host political fundraisers for him with her mom’s circle of philanthropic friends. Assuming she and Dan are still married at this point, she offers to help him do political outreach to Sanders supporters to get them to vote for Biden, which he sweetly dissuades her from given that most Sanders supporters would probably dislike her on principle.

So that’s how, in my opinion, the main cast would vote, ordered roughly in how confident I am about that analysis. You could make the argument that perhaps some characters would vote or act differently based on whether or not they’re dating or married at the time - like, would Chuck openly fundraise for Trump when Blair is a dyed-in-the-wool Clinton supporter if they’re married? (He totally would.) But I tried to consider them purely on the merits of their personalities and values, and not on the particularities of their situations at the time (with the exception of Nate, just because him being in office or not would obviously make a huge difference in regards to how politically involved he’s going to be).

I wish I put as much effort into my actual university essays as I did on Gossip Girl political analysis.

#meta #gossip girl #anon you're literally a legend #i cannot believe you submitted this to my little blog when you could've like...... #sent it in to vox or something #it's just SO good? #also honestly 'i wish i put as much effort into uni as i did into gg meta' is like #THE BRAND on my blog so #*raises a glass* cheers! #i don't even have words i just think you're objectively correct about ALL of this #gg politics #submission #i am LITERALLY flattered to receive this gem thank you so much? #no no flattered is the wrong word: honoured is better #but i really appreciate it is all

[system-of-a-feather]

Please don’t say you *want* DID /OSDD

I am sure a large majority of the people that follow this blog and that this will reach probably should already know this and probably do already know this, but I’ve recently seen “Subliminals to Get Dissociative Identity Disorder” coming up and people claiming how they want it to “try a new coping mechanism” or “help them with their depression” and I really do understand the draw and the idea towards how DID / OSDD might seem easy or an enjoyable escape to serious mental health issues. 

I really do - prior to understanding my condition - I (or at least someone in the system since I know it from our old journal notes) said “Wow haha I wish I had someone who could take over my life and give me a new life” and “I wish I could just become someone else”

The idea of having “internal friends” and “internal parts” that can support you and regularly know what you need and can help you and be a great wonderful family and all that is relaxing and enjoyable. Having people that you know are “stuck with you” might help with social anxiety or depression or abandonment issues and having those parts to talk about interest with might sound great. Honestly, they are some of the highlights of having good communication with a part and similar. Those are the aspects a lot of systems like to show because a lot of systems don’t want to show the ugly ugly moments. 

It’s not easy, fun, comfortable, or safe to talk about all the dangerous and negative moments that come with it or the active struggle and stress that comes just casually and usually with this disorder.

Its not a fun hug box of family members and friends all the time and it sure as hell didn’t start that way. Our system talks and has a lot of aspects in order so from time to time if you read this blog, we might sound like a loving family that shitposts at one another and supports eachother through the worst time - and yeah we do because we spent years trying to understand one another and find a method that worked - but the conflicts that come with it, the loss of autonomy, the loss of individual self, the arguments about how 12+ “different people” (as that is what it feels like even thoguh it is parts) are supposed to share one single life where not every dream and goal can be met, the regular upheval of trauma and unplesant memories, the realization of just how much trauma is the basis for most of our very existence and consciousness, the general C-PTSD symptoms, the time loss, the lack of awareness of what had happened the day, so on and so forth.

Some alter’s don’t work well with the system. Some alters don’t establish boundaries with other alters. Some alters intentionally or otherwise take advantage of others. Some alters hurt the body. Some alters cause more trauma. Some alters just don’t function well. Some alters never “get to live” their life. 

I know it sounds helpful to have people living in your head and to be able to not exist when you are depressed, stressed, lonely, etc - but there is so much loss that comes with the disorder to get that break. It is a disorder brought upon by childhood trauma - a disorder where the prerequisite is practically having lost your childhood and the result is spending your adulthood trying to fix it.

It really isn’t fun and it isn’t easy and behind a lot of smiles, hugs, and mutual appreciation, there is a lot of struggle, difficultly, loss, debilitation, and pain that comes from it. I don’t hate having DID because I’ve adjusted to it and its the life that I am used to and the only life I know and I never had a choice to have it or not, but that doesn’t mean it is something you should want or desire. It isn’t a choice people have to make. 

You can’t choose to have DID and saying you got DID intentionally is just rude and insulting to those of us who had it forced upon us through repeated childhood trauma.

Please don’t say you want to have DID. Please don’t “intentionally become a system.”

If you want DID, I understand where you are coming from, but please know that it is romanticizing and idealizing a really really hard thing to deal with and please know there are a lot better ways to handle and cope than to try to dissociate from yourself. 

LARPing and acting has shown to help people with PTSD and depression to get a place where they don’t have to feel like themselves and where they can build connections with others. Pick up an art form, write a story to express yourself. I know it is probably hard, but please find something else to try to cope. Reach out to a friend if you can, talk to a professional if you can. 

Just please don’t say you want DID. It really isn’t half as nice as it sounds.

#alter: riku #okay to reblog #did #actuallydid #actuallyosdd #dissociative identity disorder #subliminal #subliminal tw #subliminals tw

[punkofsunshine]

The (Informal) Miniature Anarcho-Solarpunk Manifesto

The integration of communalism into a classless system away from the main caste-esque system of hierarchy around the world is very costly when viewed from a consumer lens, but is essential in the degradation of the overbearing hierarchy that the main populace is subjected to and thusly become numb to the pressures placed upon them from an early age, spiral into endlessly consuming for a sense of being in a world that doesn’t care if you’re alive, to them you’re just a replaceable cog in the profit machine. The goal of the communalist, socialist, solarpunk, etc. should not be to live in their own bubble, but to expand their influence exponentially through participation with the outside world, turn a commune into a city as it were. Less people in a place that has dictated control by the state and the consumers within, the less control the state and capital have over people. A migration of people increases quality of life and food consumption, luckily food growth can be optimized to accommodate many people when given according to need as opposed to given to whomever has the money to afford produce. One must also keep in mind, the debt accrued is now a community responsibility, so the members will do everything in their power to keep people functioning in the community, that must include people paying off debts. Who are you if you let a fellow worker suffer on their own? Who are you to let a human such as yourself be subjected to the violence of the state in its many forms? Pushing back against such oppression is why we ascribe to this ideology, so we can taste freedom and save the earth from ourselves.

No individual is solely responsible for the pollution and poverty. Multiple corporations and their figureheads are. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Bernard Arnault, Qin Yinglin & family, Michael Bloomberg, The Koch family, Jim Simons, Alaian & Gerard Wertheimer, Mark Zuckerburg, Amancio Ortega, Larry Ellison, Warren Buffett, the Walton Family, Steve Ballmer, Carlos Slim Helu & family, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Francoise Bittencourt Meyers & family, Jack Ma, Ma Huateng, Mukesh Ambani, Mackenzie Scott, Beate Heister & Karl Albrecht Jr., David Thomson & family, Phil Knight & family, Lee Shau Kee, François Pinault & family. Sheldon Alelson, The Mars family, Elon Musk, Giovanni Ferrero, Michael Dell, Hui Ka Yan, Li Ka-Shing, He Xiangjian, Yang Huiyan & family, Joseph Safra, Dieter Schwarz, Vladimir Potanin, Tadashi Yanai & family, Vladamir Lisin, Ray Dalio, Takemitsu Takizaki, Leonid Mikhelson, etc. (Forbes) The list could go on, but I’m not about to list four-hundred people, the people have to change what the ruling class refuses to, hijacking corporate manufacturing and removing police of their power is essential. The police are targets due to the fact they protect corporate interests and stunt progressive growth, all of the people listed above refuse to let power be taken from them, there are too few people willing to make attempts to go after them because what would happen to their favourite source of consumption if that happened? What would happen to convenience? It would disappear, they don’t want to have to make things themselves, such is the first world’s entitlement. Doing without the convenience to save the environment should be a priority, things aren’t going to just get better on their own just because you installed solar panels and an eco-friendly water filtration system. The extent of the work that needs to be done is tremendous and must be organized efficiently and with regard to equivalency of power.

The world is in the process of ending due to all the turmoil we put it through, but the fact we’re more worried about comfort and convenience is very telling of what kind of culture western society has, instead of trying to fight those who destroy the environment and oppress us, we’re eager to mimic them. Why? Because they have and we have not. Such is the downfall of the consumerist mind. A majority of Americans think like consumers, not citizens, which is very telling because the anti-communist culture moted it be after the second world war. (Vox) There’s no telling where the zeitgeist is headed, but there’s political radicalization on both sides of the spectrum, sadly the other side of the spectrum is what we fought against, fascism, nazism, and authoritarianism. 2016 through 2020 were the worst years in terms of hate crimes committed on minority groups since the 60’s which is really saying something, neo-nazi groups sprung up and made themselves the focus, where there are fascists, there will always be anti-fascists or to be informal, antifa. I, the author am a background informant for the loose collective known as antifa, our job is simply to let people know where rallies are going down, we use pseudonyms and VPNs so we cannot be tracked. So why am I telling you this? Isn’t this supposed to be about what we can do to rebel against the systems that oppress us? Yes, and I’m getting there. There’s a reason I’m talking about fascism, and that is the fact fascism and capitalism are linked together.

Fascism/imperialism has been described as “capitalism in decay” by Vladimir Lenin due to the fact that neoliberalism is capitalism functioning as normal, communism post-capitalism, and fascism is capitalism going away slowly. It is an unjust and evil way of looking at the world, but once capitalists sense danger to their power, they fund fascism just so they can keep their power for longer. Anti-fascist action is also anti-capitalist action, for every nazi destroyed, we are one step closer to freedom. For every capitalist institution raided and demolished, we are one step closer to freedom. The city isn’t made of buildings that you can buy from, it’s made of the people who live there, so when the BLM protests occurred and stores were “looted” and burned, that was a form of praxis that hasn’t happened in years it was truly inspiring to see the people of Oregon (among other places) fight the police, fight back the alt-right, give capitalists the middle finger, create autonomous zones, and keep people from getting evicted during the pandemic. That is what communalism is partly about, supporting each other in the face of adversity no matter the cost of personal wellbeing, it’s the pinnacle of mutual aid.

Revolutionary action is one-hundred percent essential in securing future freedoms for not only generation Y, but generation Z and subsequent generations. As a member of generation Z, I feel fear, anger, and dread when it comes to climate change and the fact our generation will have to clean up the messes of the former generations when it comes to pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, unsustainable farming practices, soil health degradation, deforestation, the melting of polar habitats, natural disasters, etc. The weight of the world falls upon our shoulders and we realize this as a truth or we reject reality and follow in our parent’s footsteps and do nothing about it, it’s up to us, the most depressed and angry generation in the U.S.’s rather short history to right the wrongs made by former generations when most of us can’t even find motivation to get out of bed in the morning. I am writing this manifesto in my bed as I have been for the past week when I remember to write it down. It’s not enough to just write a theory however, put practice in it and it becomes more than just a talking point. It becomes a movement, how far you want to take it depends on you, but I do not condone violence against any of the people in the list above for strictly legal reasons. It is not absurd to think that we don’t have a snowball's chance in hell to stop the impending climate disaster that is about to fall onto us, because that assumption is correct. The best we can do is rebuild afterwards then hope and pray the next generation continues our work to restore the planet and maybe move outside our solar system, god willing.

I’ve tried writing a short solarpunk novel, I realized that the fiction may be important for outreach, but I was trying to add personal political theory to a narrative that’s supposed to be about a character’s internal conflicts as opposed to what I’m doing now, informal political theory, which is why I’m addressing you, the reader. I’ve read and listened to political theory in the past, and it’s incredibly dry and hard to pay attention to, don’t get me wrong, it’s important when you’re a part of various movements such as eco-socialism, communalist-anarchism, and anarcho-solarpunk, but I think it’s more important to connect with a reader or listener to make sure they understand the message before saying “do some praxis.” That is the goal here, not to be the leftist, humane version Ayne Rand, but instead instill in people a hope for the future that learns to do without mass manufacturing, that learns to make their own food sustainably, that learns that we all have a right to food, clean water, housing, medical treatment, and clean air without having to pay for all of those things. I may not be a part of the bottom percentage of people, but if I were my point would still stand strong, the notion that you have to work to get basic necessities is immoral on many levels, but in “free market” economies that’s the standard and I was as blind to it as most people before I found solarpunk, it started out by liking the aesthetic, but I started thinking about what we do to our planet and realized this isn’t just a bunch of pretty pictures, this is an idea for a utopian future entrenched in equality, sustainability, environmentalism, and anti-corpocracy.

Many people say that socialism has never worked, they give reasoning such as “Income inequality expands under socialism.” Which is just capitalist projection, during the 2020 pandemic, which is still ongoing at the time or writing, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. “. . . in the months since the virus reached the United States, many of the nation’s wealthiest citizens have actually profited handsomely. Over a roughly seven-month period starting in mid-March – a week after President Donald Trump declared a national emergency – America’s 614 billionaires grew their net worth by a collective $931 billion.” (USA Today) The middle class, which skyrocketed post-feudalism/post-monarchy has been getting erased by the ruling class, which is the goal of capitalism. Capitalism is rooted in the aristocracy or the bourgeoisie and was created to have control over the masses without having a direct economic power structure overhead. Things may have gotten better for the growing middle class and the poor marginally, then the industrial revolution kicked in and everything went downhill from there. Pollution began with burning coal, the car came along, now it’s coal and oil, and so on until today where we have access to truly world-altering technologies, but what’s holding us back are the people who continue to exploit non-renewable resources for profit and solely profit. The betterment of mankind isn’t on the mind of the capitalist, they can avoid global catastrophe, they aren’t the peasants, they’re the monarchs. Why do you think billionaires fund space travel and cryogenics research? It’s not to better the rest of the world, it’s to get the hell out of dodge after global warming takes its toll and they have no more workers willing to fill their pockets by letting their labor be exploited. As I said above, it’s up to my generation to fix the mess they made. Maybe we’ll learn a lesson, or maybe we’ll die in the process, either way the situation is dire and action needs to be taken.

Who will take action? Well, if you made it this far into the manifesto without falling asleep or getting angry at the things I have to say, it’s you, me, and everyone else who cares, is tired of selling their soul, and wants freedom. Freedom, not via the dollar, but via being human. It matters not your ethnicity, skin colour, religion (or lack thereof), sexuality, gender, or anything else; you matter, the world matters, and it takes all of us to save it.

-A manifesto by Aeron Fae Greenwood

#solarpunk #manifesto #communalism #anarchism #egalitarianism #hope for tomorrow #zerowaste #food production #praxis #socialism #revolution #written by yours truly #climate change #climate justice #climate crisis #climate activism #i ramble #anti capitalism #anti authoritarian #antifa #anti fascism #blm #eat the rich #eat the government #eat the patriarchy #take action

[theculturedmarxist]

Over the past few weeks, the occupation of the capitol building by pro-Trump demonstrators has legitimated a raft of security measures. The War on Terror is now the War on the Internet. In the wake of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, liberalism has become aware of the danger posed to it by the internet. On the internet, discourse proliferates rapidly, in an uncontrolled and unmediated way. Many web users begin to develop positions which are incompatible with liberal pluralism, which paint their political opponents as enemies who must be comprehensively destroyed. During the 90s, 00s, and early 10s, the internet was not treated seriously by liberal theory. The triumph of the populists in the mid-10s forced liberalism to reckon with it. Now liberalism is trying to change the internet into something compatible with liberalism.

Liberalism is grounded on the idea that instead of having a state which is committed to one particular moral theory, religion, or worldview, the state will be committed to the “freedom” or “liberty” to create and choose one’s own values. These values are constructed through civil society organizations. There is a plurality of these organizations, offering a menu of different values. Traditionally, they include churches, universities, unions, social clubs, and so on.

The more intelligent liberal theorists recognize that it is possible for these civil society organizations to promote values which are hostile to pluralism, and therefore hostile to freedom as liberalism understands it. Max Weber condemned these organizations and their followers as “immature”, because in his view, they fail to recognize that their freedom to choose their illiberal values itself depends on the freedom which the liberal state secures. Much later, John Rawls called these same people and organizations “unreasonable”.

To deal with this, clever liberal theorists encourage the state to regulate civil society. By policing out organizations which are “immature” or “unreasonable”, liberalism offers a curated discourse, in which citizens are free to choose from among values which all happen to be compatible with the liberal state. The freedom, then, is a freedom to be liberal, to submit to the liberal state, because the liberal state has a monopoly on what counts as “mature” or “reasonable”.

Of course, if we become widely conscious of this, liberalism begins to look totalitarian, and the freedom it promises begins to look illusory. To make curated pluralism credible as genuine pluralism, the state must not be seen to enforce the curation. The curation must appear to be the natural consequence of reasonable, mature arguments winning out over unreasonable, immature arguments.

This is easily achieved during periods of liberal consensus, when liberalism has managed to create sufficient social stability that there are very few people who attempt to advance illiberal ideas. But when this consensus begins to break down, liberalism must find a way to regain control over civil society. This typically begins in finding a way to purge civil society without being seen to purge it.

The Red Scare is the classic example of this. It was not illegal, per se, to be a communist in the United States in the post-war era. But being seen to be a communist was toxic to advancement within most private organizations. Remaining inside communist organizations resulted in being blacklisted from other desirable organizations, and this caused those communist organizations to decline. In this way, the communist organizations were dramatically weakened without the need for formal state censorship.

Beginning in the 70s, there was another set of assaults on illiberal organizations which were deemed to be incubation spots for illiberal views. The state began gradually undermining the unions through clever “right-to-work” laws, which appeared to expand individual rights while in practice greatly diminishing the presence of the unions in society and consequently the contribution to value pluralism which the unions had made.

After 9/11, we went on a crusade against illiberal Islamic organizations. This crusade mostly took place outside the borders of the country, but it also directed a great deal of negative attention toward Islamic organizations operating within the borders of liberal states. Germany and France have begun an overt effort to bring Islam within the state’s religious regulatory system, in an effort to domesticate and liberalize Islam. If this effort is successful, Islam will become broadly indistinguishable from Christianity in these countries. It will not be banned, but the choice to be a Muslim or a Christian will become largely aesthetic and nonsubstantive.

Post-2016, the internet is the new threat to liberal reason. The internet began not as part of civil society, but as a rogue reincarnation of the public realm. In a public realm, private organizations do not exist side by side, giving people a choice about values. Instead, value disagreement plays out in a shared space. This public disagreement is much harder to contain within the silos of the many distinct civil society organizations which make up liberal pluralism. Over time, it grows more and more antagonistic, as different ideas compete for supremacy within the public realm.

This online public realm is principally responsible for our ability to articulate opposition to neoliberalism. This opposition manifests in both left-wing and right-wing varieties, but both varieties are incompatible with the liberal project because they suggest that a series of aesthetic choices, a “marketplace of aesthetics”, is insufficient to protect morally important values, like justice, truth, community, God, and so on. These left and right wing thinkers do not identify freedom in having a choice among superficially different but substantively identical values. They identify freedom with discrete things, like “ending exploitation and wage slavery” or “submitting to God”.

This is why, historically, old fashioned republics with public realms experience much more intense internal conflict. Liberalism seeks to avoid that internal conflict by replacing public realms with civil society. In the case of the internet, this means that the internet must be regulated without being seen to be regulated. This means the state cannot straightforwardly dictate what kind of speech is acceptable online. But it can partition the internet among a series of tech companies, and those tech companies can do that work for them. The tech companies are forced to do this work because their autonomy from the state depends on their willingness to do it. If they refuse to domesticate the internet, the media will be intensely hostile to them, and the state will regulate them and trust bust them. Over the last five years, this situation became increasingly clear to the tech companies. They have no choice but to play this role.

As the tech companies comply, we will be told that the internet is still free because we have a choice of which social media outlets to use. But all of these social media outlets will prohibit illiberal content. The choice will be aesthetic, and the tech companies will become new civil society organizations. These civil society organizations will be managed top-down by extraordinarily wealthy oligarchs, with ordinary members having no say in what kind of speech is permitted or banned. These oligarchs will, however, frequently ban content that high-profile influencers dislike, because this will enlist those users to support the private censorship regime. In this way, the influencers will mediate between the users and the tech oligarchs, and the tech companies will mediate between the citizenry and the state.

In this way, liberalism will reshape the internet into something compatible with it. It will make the internet intensely boring, and it will destroy this round of attempts to resist neoliberalism, in both its left-wing and right-wing forms.

It will be aided in this by influencers who have credibility with radicals. Currently there is immense pressure on right-wing influencers to break with Trumpism and aid this domestication. The left-wing influencers have, by and large, already complied:

Free advice – if you are losing tens of thousands of followers the moment Twitter starts taking down Neo-Nazis and violent insurrectionists, maybe don’t advertise that! Also maybe people are unfollowing you out disgust for your support of a coupist bc they care about our country https://t.co/zw64FS8gmf

It will work by labelling everything that is illiberal “fascism”. This process is already in motion and it is unlikely to be reversed.

#the internet #internet culture #liberals #liberalism #biden administration #nothing will fundamentally change #fascism #totalitarianism #censorship #social media #social networking #liberal ideology #pure ideology #cultural hegemony

[newstfionline]

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

12 killed, dozens wounded in weekend shootings across U.S. (NBC News) At least 12 people were killed and dozens more were wounded over the weekend in gun violence and mass shootings in five states. The shootings in Minnesota, Ohio, New Jersey, Georgia and South Carolina come amid a yearlong rise in nationwide gun violence and record firearm sales. It isn’t clear why the number of shootings over the last year has risen so dramatically. Experts have said the coronavirus pandemic and its impact on mental and physical health, social services and more are likely to have played a significant role.

Southern Baptist decline continues, denomination has lost more than 2 million members since 2006 (Religion News Service) The nation’s largest Protestant denomination continues to get smaller. There were 14 million Southern Baptists in 2020, according to a new report released Thursday (May 20) by Lifeway Christian Resources, which compiles official denominational statistics. That number is down 435,632 members since 2019 and 2.3 million from 2006, when the Southern Baptist Convention reached 16.3 million members. The biggest decline in the report was seen in baptisms, a key measure for the evangelical denomination. In 2020, baptisms were down by about half, to 123,160, the lowest number since 1919. Southern Baptists, long known for denominational infighting, have seen several high-profile departures of leaders in the past year, including Bible teacher Beth Moore, ethicist Russell Moore, and a number of Black pastors.

NYC mayor: Public schools will be all in person this fall (AP) New York City schools will be all in person this fall with no remote options, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced Monday. The roughly 1 million students who attend traditional public schools will be in their classrooms with some version of the coronavirus protocols that have been in place in the current academic year, including mask wearing and COVID-19 testing, de Blasio said. “It’s time. It’s really time to go full strength now,” he said. The mayor said parents would be invited to visit their children’s schools starting in June to get “reacclimated” to the idea of in-person school.

Mexican parents clean reopening schools where thieves took even toilet doors (Reuters) Wiping away dust from bookshelves and mopping grimy floors, teachers and parents across Mexico are sprucing up vandalised schools ahead of the nationwide reopening on June 7. Mexico has kept state schools shut since March 2020, when students and teachers abandoned them after the coronavirus pandemic triggered the first nationwide lockdown. Since then, between 40% to 50% of all Mexican schools have reported vandalism or theft, according to trade union officials. Alfonso Cepeda Salas, secretary general of the National Educational Workers Syndicate trade union, or SNTE, told newspaper Excelsior last week that power lines, computers, screens, and even doors to toilets have been stolen. "We come to support the school so that everything is clean for the return of children to classes," said Rosa Miron, one of several mothers cleaning a school in Mexico City.

Why you may see a NYPD motorcade in Sao Paulo's streets (AP) Stunned by the swirl of red lights and blaring sirens, confused pedestrians who spot a New York City Police Department motorcade screaming down the streets of Brazil's biggest city may need a second to get their bearings. Behind the spectacle is a group of Brazilian fans obsessed with one of the world's most recognizable police forces, whose hobby is refurbishing NYPD cars and motorcycles, inspired by nostalgia for cop movies and shows such as "Law & Order." "To tell you the truth, it creates some confusion sometimes," said Fabio Denzin, who owns not just a Ford Crown Victoria painted as a NYPD car, but also a van and motorcycle. "People even think that it is the real police from New York on patrol, as if they came to Brazil to help the local police."

EU calls for probe after plane diverted to arrest journalist (AP) Western leaders decried the diversion of a plane to Belarus in order to arrest an opposition journalist as an act of piracy and terrorism. The European Union and others on Monday demanded an investigation into the dramatic forced landing of the Ryanair jet, which was traveling between of the bloc’s two member nations. The airline said Belarusian flight controllers told the crew there was a bomb threat against the plane as it was crossing through the country’s airspace and ordered it to land in the capital of Minsk. A Belarusian MiG-29 fighter jet was scrambled to escort the plane. Raman Pratasevich, who ran a popular messaging app that played a key role in helping organize massive protests against Belarus’ authoritarian president, was on board and he and his Russian girlfriend were led off the plane shortly after landing. The plane, which began its journey in Athens, Greece, was eventually allowed to continue on to Vilnius, Lithuania. Western leaders forcefully condemned the move. A group of the chairs of the foreign affairs committees of several Western countries’ legislative bodies called it an act of piracy. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the plane’s diversion was “shocking,” while Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda called it a “state-sponsored terror act.” (Washington Post) European leaders on Monday agreed to impose sectoral sanctions on Belarus and to bar E.U. airlines from flying over the country’s airspace, dealing a potentially crushing blow to the economy. E.U. leaders asked the bloc’s foreign policy team to draw up a list of targeted economic sanctions to impose “without delay," and said that the country’s national airline would be barred from the European Union.

Turkey’s drones (Foreign Policy) Poland become the first NATO member to purchase Turkish drones, Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said on Saturday. The contract for 24 armed Bayraktar TB2 drones is due to be signed by Polish President Andrzej Duda when he travels to Turkey next week. The sale underlines Turkey’s status as the world’s fourth largest drone producer and comes after its unmanned aircraft were seen as crucial in securing victory for Azerbaijan in its war with Armenia last year.

India virus death toll passes 300,000 (AP) India crossed another grim milestone Monday of more than 300,000 people lost to the coronavirus as a devastating surge of infections appeared to be easing in big cities but was swamping the poorer countryside. India’s death toll is the third-highest reported in the world, accounting for 8.6% of the nearly 34.7 million coronavirus fatalities globally, though the true numbers are thought to be significantly greater. From the remote Himalayan villages in the north, through the vast humid central plains and to the sandy beaches in the south, the pandemic has swamped India’s underfunded health care system after spreading fast across the country.

Samoa’s first female leader locked out of her own swearing-in ceremony (Washington Post) The first woman elected prime minister of Samoa showed up for her swearing-in ceremony on Monday to find her opponents had locked the doors to prevent her from taking office. Fiame Naomi Mata’afa and her followers pitched a tent on the statehouse lawn, where she took the oath of office instead. The bizarre scenes capped six weeks of election turmoil that escalated into a constitutional crisis over the weekend as Mata’afa’s fierce rival refused to cede power. “This is an illegal takeover of government,” Mata’afa said Sunday of the efforts to keep her from office. “Because it’s a bloodless coup, people aren’t so concerned or disturbed by it.” “Samoa is a young democracy,” said Iati Iati from Victoria University of Wellington. “What you have then is a number of institutions whose power has not been accurately defined, so you have the head of state pushing the limits of his power, you’ve got the speaker coming in with his, you’ve got the courts asserting their power and you’ve got the prime minister saying he won’t listen to the courts.”

Regret (CJR) Ronen Bergman reports, for the New York Times, that some Israeli officials privately now regret the decision to bomb the building housing the AP’s offices last weekend. “In light of the international furor over the airstrike, some high-ranking officials in government and the military now call it a mistake, arguing that Israel needs the media to be open to hearing its version of events, and the bombing made that harder,” Bergman writes. “One official said that while the airstrike was justified militarily, the doubters had been right, and the harm done to Israel’s international standing outweighed any benefit from destroying the Hamas equipment” officials say was inside the building [and which everyone except the Israeli military denies was present].

Before Rage Flared, a Push to Make Israel’s Mixed Towns More Jewish (NYT) Years before the mixed Arab-Jewish city of Lod erupted in mob violence, a demographic shift had begun to take root: Hundreds of young Jews who support a religious, nationalist movement started to move into a mostly Arab neighborhood with the express aim of strengthening the Israeli city’s Jewish identity. A similar change was playing out in other mixed Arab-Jewish cities inside Israel, part of a loosely organized nationwide project known as Torah Nucleus. For decades, hard-line Israeli nationalists have sought to shift the demographics of the occupied West Bank by building Jewish settlements, undermining the prospect of a two-state solution to the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With West Bank settlement firmly entrenched—about 450,000 Jews now live among more than 2.6 million Palestinians—Torah Nucleus supporters see Israeli cities as a new horizon. Most of the world considers Jewish settlements in the occupied territories a violation of international law, but this was an attempt to create change within Israel’s recognized boundaries. And many cast it as the new Zionism.

For Gaza shop owners, building back could take years (Washington Post) Naji Dwaima’s family is known as “the watch family” in Gaza. On Sunday morning, he sat on a folding chair and stared at the spot where his watch store used to be. It was buried under 12 stories of rubble, destroyed by Israeli missiles. Gaza was already one of the poorest corners of the region. Before the coronavirus and airstrikes hit, an estimated 80 percent of the population relied on international aid, according to Oxfam International. Youth unemployment, estimated at 50 percent, was perhaps the highest in the world, the group said. More than 525 businesses were damaged or destroyed in the fighting, the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated, including at least 50 factories and hundreds of small businesses, the backbone of Gaza’s commercial life. Rebuilding those will take international aid and the willingness of owners to start over. Dwaima, 46, said he came to sit by his ruined shop in part because he didn’t know, after 26 years of 13-hour days, six days a week, how else to spend his time. “This is as much my home as my home,” he said. “All of my impressions, all of my dreams are attached to this place.”

Volcanic eruption, ensuing chaos kill at least 15 in Congo (AP) Torrents of lava poured into villages after dark in eastern Congo with little warning, leaving at least 15 people dead amid the chaos and destroying more than 500 homes, officials and survivors said Sunday. The eruption of Mount Nyiragongo on Saturday night sent about 5,000 people fleeing from the city of Goma across the nearby border into Rwanda, while another 25,000 others sought refuge to the northwest in Sake, the U.N. children’s agency said Sunday. Goma ultimately was largely spared the mass destruction caused by the volcano’s last eruption in 2002. Hundreds died then and more than 100,000 people were left homeless. But in outlying villages closer to the volcano, Sunday was marked by grief and uncertainty.

Pope to Vatican’s own media workers: Who reads your news? (AP) Pope Francis challenged the Vatican’s own media employees Monday to essentially justify their continued work, asking them how many people actually consume their news in a critique of the office that costs the Holy See more than all its embassies around the world combined. Francis appeared to use the occasion to lay down the gauntlet at a fraught financial time for the Holy See. Facing a major pension funding shortage and a projected 50 million euro ($61 million) deficit this year, Francis has ordered salary cuts from 3% to 10% for Vatican employees, both lay and religious. In his visit with media employees, he said their work was good, their offices nice and organized, but that there was a “danger” that their work doesn’t arrive where it is supposed to. He warned them against falling prey to a “lethal” functionality where they go through the motions but don’t actually achieve anything.

#headlines #news

[starryeyedastro]

Forecast ~ Week of September 6th 2020

🚀 This is a general forecast of the current planetary transits. To see how they will affect you personally, check your natal chart to see which houses (areas of your life) they fall in, or if they’re aspecting your angles or natal planets.

Remember that these are just quick run-downs/summaries of the energies present and not necessarily things that will happen to you.

What’s going on?

September 6th - Venus into Leo, Venus Sextile Mercury

September 9th - Mars Stations Rx, Sun Trine Jupiter Rx

September 11th - Sun Opposite Neptune Rx

😻 September 6th - Venus into Leo

The planet of love, pleasure and treasure will travel through the sign of Leo until October 2nd. During that time, it will sextile Mercury in Libra (6th - 13th of September), square off with Uranus in Taurus (12th - 19th of September) and form a trine with Mars and Black Moon Lilith in Aries from September 25th - October 1st.

Venus in Leo has a taste for decadence and the high life -- the finest things that money can (or can’t) buy. Venus in Cancer was all about showering love to family and cozy home decor, while Venus in Leo wants to have friends over, and entertain with the finest wines and a decadent charcuterie. 

Use this energy to muster the confidence to express yourself, and display your creativity for all to admire. This includes spending a little more time making yourself look and feel like a million bucks, or refining your aesthetic to reflect your inner glow.

Confidence is King/Queen, but so is graciousness. Freely give out sincere compliments on someone’s hair or outfit, while also knowing you look fabulous.

🤟 September 6th - 13th - Venus in Leo Sextile Mercury in Libra

This transit is great for making new friends. Mercury in Libra loves making new friends and asserting itself in a social atmosphere, and Venus in Leo wants to love and be loved back with the same warmth and generosity. 

Warm feelings towards others can be easily communicated with grace and social charm. Cooperation, with a respectful give and take of energies. Being able to communicate in a kind, friendly and expressive way.

If you’re in a relationship or just work closely with other people, communication will flow easily between you and the other person. 

💪 September 9th - Mars Stations Rx

Unlike Venus and Mercury Rx, which are dimmed because of their closer proximity to the Sun, Mars is actually more amped up during its retrograde period because it's opposite the Sun. It’s like looking at a ‘full moon’ version of the planet! This lends even more power to everything Mars-related. Because it’s Rx, this power is focused more internally. (Retrograde planets are like ‘introverts’, while they’re ‘extroverted’ during direct motion.) It will go direct again on November 13th (Friday the 13th!)

You can use this amped up, internalized Mars in Aries energy to hype yourself up. If you’re usually shy and reserved, but you want to put yourself out there more, this energy will help you make it happen. You’ll have more inner strength and willpower to make your dreams a reality.

With the persistent squares between Mars Aries and the Capricorn gang (Saturn, Pluto and Jupiter), we’ll keep finding ourselves running up against limitations (Saturn) volatile shadiness (Pluto) and the hunger for more (Jupiter), from authority figures/government/the system (Capricorn). While these aspects can and do cause strife and tension, this is also a golden opportunity to use our strengthened sense of self and willpower to make positive changes in these areas.

Your outward actions might pack less of a punch with a Mars Rx, BUT you’ll be able to forge an iron will, and carve out your own courage and individuality, so just focus on building yourself up right now. You may find yourself more able to work in a team with other people when you’re more secure within yourself. 

Make a plan of action for when Mars does go direct, but don’t necessarily wait until November 13th to take important actions. You can counter negativity better with a good defense during this time, without going on the offense. If you play it like this, you’re more likely to come out on top when Mars goes direct.

🤸 September 7th - 12th - Sun Trine Jupiter Rx

This energy feels amazing, like anything is possible and you can make it happen. With this earthy trine, Jupiter is optimistic because it knows how capable you can be if you take the proper actions in the real world. You just KNOW there’s a way around any obstacle, and you will find it.

Sometimes you have to play the game by the rules if you want to win, and if you do, this transit will back you up. But just because you’re playing by the rules doesn’t mean you don’t have your own agenda. Sun in Virgo can give you the level-headed flexibility to make things work for you.

This is another great aspect for making friends and interacting with people in general, because it can help you build more self-confidence. With this earthy energy, this self-confidence can help you make positive changes to your health or finances. 

- While you should celebrate yourself, this isn’t the time to rest on your laurels. Keep your eyes open for opportunities that can lead to bigger paychecks. Look to bosses and people in authority who are feeling extra generous. Ask for a raise/promotion or check out new job opportunities as soon as Jupiter goes direct.

- Also, this aspect can bring opportunities for personal and spiritual growth. Staying grounded, and safe is a major part of this energy.

🙊 September 9th - 14th - Sun Opposite Neptune Rx

One unfortunate thing about this transit is that if it seems too good to be true, then it is. Don’t take anything at face value. Not a good time to agree to anything long term. 

You might want to play vague yourself to “play it safe” but this isn’t a good idea either. Make your intentions clear. Don’t be ambiguous or deceitful, because it can and will backfire on you. 

Beware of the lies you tell yourself. Sometimes we think things that aren’t true about ourselves or other people, and this can obviously lead to unnecessary conflicts. Pay attention to your knee-jerk thoughts and ask yourself if they hold up to logic.

Under this energy we can be more susceptible to overdosing on drugs with the need to escape. Find healthy or well-controlled ways to escape reality. Lose yourself in your favorite music, books, art and movies. 

Thanks for reading! I’ll be back next week with more. If you like my forecasts, feel free to send me a ko-fi donation. Any and all support, moral or monetary is appreciated. 🖤

#planetary aspects #current planets #weekly astrology #weekly forecast #astrology forecast #astrology #planetary transits #astrological transits #mars retrograde #weeklyhoroscope #horoscope #free horoscopes

[swordoforion]

Orion Digest №15 - Revolution vs. Imperialism in the Formation of Federation

Discussion of principles and tenets can only carry us so far - inevitably, if we are to change the world for the better, we must turn out thoughts to the implementation of theory. Due to the range of political climates and economic systems throughout the world, there will be a variety of strategies for bringing about change in each individual nation, but there are a few basic, universal ideas that we can strike at.

World federalism implies the existence of a world federation, and the less strict the requirements are, the more cooperative the nations of the world will be in joining said organization. However, if you try to be more specific with what is permitted within nations, and approach a more practical and moral level of regulation, less receptive countries will back out, refusing to cede over authority. You can always give up there and either not pursue federation or ease up on requirements, but compromise in the face of climate and humanitarian crises is not an option we should entertain.

The formation of a world federation, in practice, would likely see only a few nations joining if we go towards the stricter side of the spectrum - a group of nations that are directed to reduce their environmental footprint and implement or represent democracy in both economy and government, as well as protecting fundamental human rights. To truly accomplish the goal of human rights being protected and the implementation of democratic economy, the entire world would need to be part of such a federation (or at least, the entire industrial world). So the question becomes then how we would deal with non-member nations, especially ones that do not stand for their citizens.

The obvious answer, at first, is diplomacy - any conflict can be avoided with proper communication, though the level of understanding that communication involves can be incredibly difficult to obtain due to biases and confusion. If we could negotiate with other nations without compromising our principles, we could likely build our world federation with some compromise and collaboration. If there is a diplomatic solution to things, it should always be our first priority to take it.

Beyond that, if we should seek to make our federation complete, we would need to expand to include other nations to ensure protections, which is where we reach our chief moral dilemma. Imperialist nations in the past have attempted to conquer territory and other peoples through warfare and excessive force, which has resulted in the destruction and exploitation of cultures and populations. Today, warfare is used as a tactic for entities to acquire resources at the expense of innocent civilians and pre-existing government structures - the final and most vile expression of capitalist and nationalist greed is to take from others no matter the cost.

At the same time, our goal in the creation of a eco-centric and socialist world federation is to ensure, as always, the survival and prosperity of humanity, which means that all of humanity must have inalienable rights and that we are directed on a path that allows Earth to recover and saves us from certain extinction. In this potential divide, where we have a world federation up against industrial superpowers and non-democratic nations, leaving them be would abandon our central goal, and would leave the problems we face only half-solved. And if there are people who still suffer and a planet that is still dying, halfway is not good enough, and it will never be.

We cannot give up until we accomplish our goal, but we also cannot allow ourselves to subscribe to the same barbaric imperialism that has brutalized large swathes of the world and ended millions of lives. But war is not the only lesson history has to teach us, and it remains the best teacher, for if we truly want to establish a federation that benefits the people, we can play to the strengths of the common citizen as well.

Some of the most impactful and formative events of the last few centuries have been revolutions. A revolution, by definition, is the "forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system", and is typically done by the distressed citizens of a nation who have become dissatisfied with their respective system of government, and wish not to make changes through the natural process of governing but through quicker and more decisive action; the abolition of the system entirely as opposed to gradual modification. Some revolutions are of a colony trying to gain independence, however, others consist of a nation revolting against the government itself, with the goal being unfinished until a new system is put into place.

Revolutions are bloody, especially depending on the temper of the rebels and the defenders, but the morality of a revolution is much different. In a war, one can separate themselves from the enemy, because they are a different people, a different culture - they are alien, and so we can tell ourselves the lie that it is not immoral to kill them, to take what they have and destroy their will. It's still a lie, as they are our fellow humans, but one that is easier to swallow. But a revolution pits you against your people - can you bring yourself to devastate your own land, to destroy your own citizens? The government no longer has all of the country behind it, for it has to contend against its own strength, divided.

A moral leader will not use such excessive force against their own people, though moral leaders can often be in short supply. The revolution is often in the name of the people and the country, a form of restoration as opposed to simply having a foreign entity impress themselves onto the nation. So while still a war, it is one that is much harder to fight from a moral stance on the part of the defender. On the other hand, for the people, revolution can be considered a rallying cry - if common people are standing up against the government, they will be likely to make changes that benefit other citizens, using revolution as their engine of change. Depending on the previous state of their nation, such an upheaval may easily garner sympathy and support from those who feel solidarity with the revolution.

Returning to our thought experiment, in a world where a progressive world federation has established itself and is facing several nations that refuse to come to the terms, war may not be a moral option, but if the citizens of said nations were to decide for themselves to bring about change, it would potentially avoid many of the problems of imperialistic conquest - expending the resources of the burgeoning federation, providing fuel for nationalist rallying, alienating the nation towards the victor, etc. Instead, if they decided to revolt and establish a system that agreed to the conditions, they could join the federation and benefit from the shared resources and coordination. In the case of such a revolution, the greatest weapon of a federation would not be the capacity to make war, but to choose a specific side to support.

The important thing about cooperating on a international scale is that it must be voluntary, but the desire to unite does not depend on the governments of Earth; it depends on the will of the people. And if we are able to provide an offer of mutual prosperity, of protection, both social and economic - it will be an offer appealing to citizens of other nations, and whether through diplomacy and democracy, or a more assertive demonstration of their interests, those people will decide for themselves whether to take it.

- DKTC FL

#world federalism #world federation #revolution #revolutionary #war #politics #imperialism #anti-imperialism #anti-imperialist #anti-nationalist #nationalism #world politics #practice #theory #orion #sword of orion #orion digest #no. 15 #issue #essay #politics essay #political essay

[phgq]

Multi-sector peaceably launches Yes for Peace on Int’l Human Rights Day

#PHinfo: Multi-sector peaceably launches Yes for Peace on Int’l Human Rights Day

Yes for Peace holds peace and human rights-oriented event kickoff in front of the UP Carillon Tower in Diliman, Quezon City (Photo courtesy of Mr. Ernesto A. Alcanzare)

CALOOCAN CITY, Dec. 13 (PIA) -- Following strict health protocols set by the World Health Organization, representatives of various sectors had peaceably assembled on International Human Rights Day to officially launch the historic Yes for Peace-Bayanihan ng Bayan para sa Kapayapaan, Kaunlaran at Kasaganaan at the Andres Bonifacio Centennial Carillon Tower located in the Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines system.

The kickoff, a stark contrast amid the reportedly dwindling noisy and insolent protests and marches of anti-government forces to commemorate the global human rights event on Dec. 10, calmly called for the promotion of peacebuilding efforts, such as answering the Yes for Peace questionnaire to boost peace education, asserting the right to peace, and calling for an end to all armed conflicts in the country.

In his speech, Commissioner Yusoph Mando of the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) said, “Unfortunately, peacebuilding is still not the default response to conflict.”

“We need everybody’s help to tell others about how we can tackle conflict and end violence,” Mando added. 

For his part, Cosanie Derogongan, Director of the Bureau of Peace and Conflict Resolution (BPCR) of the NMCF said, “We believe that we can achieve a just, comprehensive, unifying and sustainable peace without destruction to property and deaths, including unarmed civilians.”

“The armed conflicts can only be stopped if the will of the people can verifiably be documented through the people’s referendum component of Yes for Peace to debunk the self-declaration of armed rebels that they are fighting for the rights and interests of the people,” Derogongan added.

In his message, Undersecretary Severo S. Catura, Executive Director of the Presidential Human Rights Committee (PHRC) underscored, “Peace is a human right, even as a society that is at peace is its ultimate aim.”

“There can never be real, tangible and felt development without making our people feel secure and it is our duty to uplift the people’s welfare,” Catura quoted a statement made by President Rodrigo Roa Duterte during the first State of the Nation Address (SONA).

Catura, who started his career at the Office of the Peace Commissioner (OPC) which eventually became the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) recalled, “This campaign is already more than thirty years old.  We remain steadfast and firm in supporting its call because the advocacy of our office is for each individual to have the right to peace.”

Red tagging

After careful deliberation and negotiations with UP Diliman Chancellor Fidel Nemenzo and Vice-Chancellor for Community Affairs Aleli B. Bawagan, the kick-off activity inside the UP Diliman campus was approved dispelling some allegations that UP is anti-government and will not permit non-leftists to openly express their advocacies inside the campus.

The full support of the university was felt by event organizers.  Personnel from its Community Maintenance Office prepared the venue while the management of the UP Theater readily provided electrical power for the sounds and lights used in the event.  Normal fees for rental and electrical consumption were likewise waived.

Alpha Dasmarinas, Chief Financial Officer of Yes for Peace, Incorporated was elated, “Thank you UP for the full support that you have given to for this simple kick-off event.”

“May you continue to support our campaign and take is as your own in the days to come pursuant to your Board of Regents Resolution offering UP as venue and as mediating institution during its 1056th meeting,” Dasmarinas said in gratitude.

Asked by the PIA-NCR, Ernesto Angeles Alcanzare, lead organizer of Yes for Peace–Bayanihan ng Bayan and Chief Executive Officer of Yes for Peace Incorporated said, "Curiously, some well-meaning, but obviously misinformed supporters of the Duterte administration have reportedly red-tagged Yes for Peace over various social media platforms simply because it decided to use the color red as the background of its propaganda tarpaulins and because they allowed the UP Community to display the messages 'Defend Academic Freedom' and 'No to Red-Tagging'."

He explained, “The use of gold on red in our campaign tarpaulins is based on the Chinese belief that these colors bring fortune and good luck especially during events such as these.  After all, the use of these colors is not exclusive to the communists.”

“As for the tarpaulins of the UP Community, these are commonly held beliefs among constituents, including its alumni to which I belong.  Red-tagging the whole university because of a very noisy albeit small minority is unfair,” he lamented.

“Moreover, who can in his right mind refuse a very gracious host to post a commonly held message in your event even if it seems to have taken the scene away from the central messages of one’s event?” he added.

Alcanzare said it is in this light that he appreciated the wisdom of President Duterte who saw all through the non-partisan and inclusive nature of Yes for Peace when he wrote in his message, “I recognize this noble undertaking of Yes for Peace–Bayanihan ng Bayan because it promotes a newfound culture of harmony and cooperation among our communities…  I am amazed how anybody can be so bigoted and narrow-minded to accuse and judge Yes for Peace as part of the over-all plan to destabilize and bring down the government.”

“Please let me take this opportunity to inform all those who have jumped the gun to unfairly accuse us of being leftists that we categorically but respectfully denied the display of a red tarp bearing the message ‘ABOLISH NTF-ELCAC’,” Alcanzare said of a group handing them a prepared banner prior to the event launch.

“I am sure that had we allowed them to do their bidding, they would have joined us and trebled the number of participants,” he said, “Actually, they conducted a rally right across the street and waited for us to march to the Oblation Plaza, a thought that did not even cross our minds.”

For her part, Evelyn Canete Evangelio, National Executive Director of Alpha Phi Omega International Philippines Inc then suggested, “We might as well change the colors used in campaign tarpaulins to Blue and Gold to satisfy the call for blood by bashers who have displayed the propensity to accuse anybody of being a communist by sheer color of preference.”

“After all, APO is into this campaign pursuant to our founder’s vision for us to convince leaders of the world to resolve conflicts in a more humane and legal manner than by war,” Evangelio added.

For his part, Mama S. Lalanto, al Haj, Chairman of Yes for Peace, Incorporated and a past president of APO Phils declared, “The Yes for Peace is an inclusive campaign. We do not discriminate anybody by virtue of race, religion and political beliefs. This is reflected in our logo which bears the primary and secondary colors of the elementary color wheel.”

“Any color of preference by any donor is acceptable for as long as it is used in good faith and communicated to us prior to the production and distribution of the campaign materials,” Lalanto emphasized.

To recall, the The Yes for Peace–Bayanihan ng Bayan para sa Kapayapaan, Kaunlaran at Kasaganaan, a multi-sectoral peace and development campaign was incorporated into the Sectoral Unification, Capability Building and Mobilization (SUCBEM) cluster of the National Action Plan of the National Task Force to End the Local Communist Armed Conflicts (NTF ELCAC) submitted by National Security Adviser Secretary Hermogenes C. Esperon, Jr. and approved by President Duterte in 2019.

However, upon the advice of Esperon, the campaign design was refined, per the approved plan by the Yes for Peace, Incorporated, which was registered with the Securities and Exchange to give a juridical identity to empower the proponents to enter into agreements with government institutions and non-government organizations for the transparent implementation of the campaign.

The consultation and refinement process were made parallel to the preparations of the whole-of-government to get all agencies on board in the good governance pillar of NTF-ELCAC. The process took over one year.

Prior to the issuance of EO No. 70 by Duterte, Yes for Peace was calling “Resume Peace Talks Here” in contrast to the insistence of left-leaning forces that were shouting “Resume Peace Talks” even as the President was trying to convince communist leader Jose Ma. Sison to come home to the Philippines so that peace talks to resume.

Unfortunately, Sison who initiated the armed revolution and protracted war to bring down the government vehemently refused citing concerns for his life and security.  On record, Sison has been blaming Duterte for killing the peace talks.

“Had the peace talks resumed with UP as venue and mediating institution, could the final peace agreement have been crafted and signed within three months which was the time frame declared by Joma Sison?” Alcanzare asked.

With the inevitable and final collapse of the peace talks because of Sison’s refusal to give in to the President’s firm and unmovable position that it be held here, Yes for Peace searched for cost-effective and resource-efficient means to document the Filipino people’s consensus on the three calls of the campaign. (PIA NCR)

***

References:

* Philippine Information Agency. "Multi-sector peaceably launches Yes for Peace on Int’l Human Rights Day." Philippine Information Agency. https://pia.gov.ph/news/articles/1061619 (accessed December 13, 2020 at 02:45PM UTC+08).

* Philippine Infornation Agency. "Multi-sector peaceably launches Yes for Peace on Int’l Human Rights Day." Archive Today. https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://pia.gov.ph/news/articles/1061619 (archived).

#Philippines #News #Filipino #Pinoy #Tourism #Politics #Culture #Editorial #Environment #Society #History

[angstywritingpromptsforwriters]

My Guide to World Building

1.      Characters (Main and Secondary)

First off I usually start with the main characters and the important secondary characters. I develop them in a way that I do not yet completely consider the setting that they are in but I focus on what kind of character they are, so like;

-          personality

-          What they look like in order to not forget about that later. (If their appearance is unimportant for the story or will not get mentioned at all, then it’s not important and I don’t think about it.)

-          What kinds of family relationships do they have, for example, do they have siblings? Does that influence their character? What kind of relationship do they have with those siblings or their parents? Do they have a big family or a small family? What kind of social status do they have and does that influence the character?

-          Also, most importantly, what kind of motivation do they have? For example, if I have a character who is very shy, it might be a motivation for them that they want to be more outcoming, more outgoing.

  2.      General Setting

The next step is to make a general setting of the world.

-          Which time period am I writing in; modern, future, medieval…?

-          Then the basic kind of culture in which the story takes place. Is it a city, is it a kingdom, is it a small town?

-          Next, the political setting; if it is a city, is it part of a kingdom? Is it part of a country? Does it have a King? Does it have a government? And what kind of government is it?

Because all of that effect the kind of culture I am writing about. After politics I consider possible conflict.

-          Do they have a civil war currently, do they not?

-          Are they very peaceful or are they possibly at war with another country?

 3.      Connecting World and Characters (Part 1)

The next step would be to place those characters that I have, into that general setting. I decide from which kind of social stand they are, are they rich, are they poor, how does that fit into this culture and setting? You can also start and develop the character’s history at this point. For example, what is their life story and how does that connect to the kind of culture they are living in?

 4.      Main Culture

Next, I work out the main culture that I’m writing about. For example, if I am writing in the main city of a Kingdom, I would focus on developing that Kingdom further.

-          Do they have internal conflicts; political conflicts, religious conflicts, social conflict, any kind of conflict that a country can have with itself.

-          Then, do they have an internal possible plot? For example, in Game of Thrones you have the external possible plot of different Kings and Queens raging war against each other in order to reach the Iron throne and you have the internal possible plot of Winterfell struggling with power structure and betrayal in their own family. It is an internal plot because it is inside this one culture/inside this one country and doesn’t necessarily affect the world that is around them.

 5.      Connecting World and Characters (Part 2)

Connect what you have worked out again to the characters. How is that connected to them and are they possibly even directly or indirectly influencing this internal plot of their culture/country? Like, are they politically or socially involved? And if not, why not?

 6.      General Plot Points

The next step would be to write down possible general plot points while considering what the characters would do. Don’t be like “Oh I want to have a war.” Having a war in your story for no reason at all, is not worth it, because if you don’t have a character who is willing to go to war, this war wouldn’t make much sense to be developed as a main plot point. You could still have it in the background as a political and social conflict, but not as something your characters directly interact with. So what you want to do is develop a line of plot points that could happen throughout your story. In Lord of the Rings for example, those could be “Frodo finds the ring – He meets the group – They start their travel – Mines of Moria – Boromir dies” That is very basic but still gives you a general outline of what you want to do in your story.

 7.      Characters Drive the Plot Points

Also, most importantly, focus this plotline on the characters and not on the world. If your characters would do such a thing, then take it as a plot point. But if they would possibly or probably not do it, then don’t take it as a plot point, because it will only slow the story down or become unimportant to the rest of the plot. You can still keep it as a side plot, but not as a main plot point.

 8.      Make the World Bigger

The next step would be to make the world you have bigger. Decide on generally what kind of world they are living in;

-          is it a big world, is it a small world, is it just a continent?

-          Add other countries, develop other cultures. Are they similar to your main culture, are they different somehow? Do they have the same or another religion, do they have different traditions, a different politics or government system?

-          Then decide on how much of their history is important for your setting. You don’t have to develop all the surrounding countries as well as you develop your own if the history will eventually be unimportant or not even be mentioned.

 9.      External Plot vs. Internal Plot

Then, connect history, politics and future. Basically, connect all the countries together. Come up with history they could share, conflict they could share, next to their own history and conflict. Decide on which part of the internal history of countries will be changed into external history. Let’s take Germany as example. An example of internal history could be when on November 9th 1918 not one but two politicians independently of each other declared Germany as a democratic Republic after forcefully degrading Kaiser Wilhelm II. But a connected external history of Germany would for example be how Russia and Germany decided to divide Poland during WWII.

In that connection, focus on what naturally would be connected. Are the politics connected, the social issues, are they fine with each and do they maybe even have a shared political organization or conscience. (Where they talk to each other, like people should do.)

Also, do they have a possible future that you definitely want to explore somehow. Like, do they want to kill each other, do they want peace, what are the short-run and the long-run goals of them.

 10.  Characters and the World Around Them

The next step would be to connect the characters motivations to the internal and external plot. Where is this character set in this whole world, and where do they want to be at the end of the story. How do history and politics affect this character beyond their own culture. A person is always affected by world politics, subconsciously or consciously. It changes their thinking about their own culture and about other cultures. Your character is not set in a dome in the little setting of this one culture, you want to keep them universal because they are a part of the whole world and can not be taken out of that. Of course, if they are a farmer who grew up with limited education, no news access and no other way of getting information about the world, their personal world is very limited and cut off, but then you also have to work that into the character’s development, personality and further story line.

Also, how do their motivations connect to the world. Do they want (two extremes) want world peace or world destruction. If so, why?

 11.  Detailed Plot

After that, you should work on the detailed plot. Generally, what do you even want to do in your plot.

-          What do you want to tell, what is the goal?

-          How is the culture, politics and history affected by your plot and vise versa.

-          Note down important scenes, important information, characters that will play a role…

Connected to the character;

-          how does the plot influence the character’s development, their personality and their motivation. Do they change throughout the story?

-          Do they have a character arc, where they evolve or maybe even regress, are they suddenly going evil or deciding to go to war? And what are their motivations for this change.

 12.  The Plot Supports the Character!

And most importantly, how does the plot support those motivations, those character changes. You should never try to let the character support the plot, but let the plot support the character. A story is held by it’s characters. Because otherwise it will just seem like you could throw someone else into this setting and it wouldn’t change a bit. Basically, if you could change one character with a completely different character and it would change nothing about the plot, then this character is not worth being in your story, because neither does the character have an effect on the story, nor does the story have an effect on the character. (Same goes for if you could change a plot point and nothing would change or if you could change a character aspect and it wouldn’t change.) If you could, for example, exchange… Harry Potter with Legolas and it wouldn’t make a difference, then their stories plots wouldn’t support the characters and the characters wouldn’t lead the plot. Which would be bad.

 13.  Ending and Characters

Last step would be to decide on an ending for the story. You could of course leave it open, but you should consider what your characters motivations could possibly lead towards and whether or not they should gain that at the end. An ending is very important for the character development. And said development is important for the ending. An ending is defined by how much the character changed and whether or not they continue to have the same motivation and goals, or if those maybe changed as well. If you have an ending in mind, consider if the characters would still or could still achieve this ending, considering their development and hardships throughout the story.

And when you set this all together, you should have a world and a story that supports the character you want to share with the world.

 ~ Taliesin Joan

Please do not copy or repost this without giving me proper credit. Thank you.  To read in better quality and to support me through clicks: https://medium.com/@joan.runkel/my-guide-to-world-building-f91d8dbf07fa?source=friends_link&sk=50d23c6ca551a558ff83cdc4d5f770b8

#world building #wiritng #ideas #writing advice #world building guide #for authors

[trans-advice]

Hey, for the past 5 or so years I have privately identified as nonbinary or not conforming to any gender, and even recently requested that my boss and coworkers use they/them pronouns. About a month ago I stumbled across a "gender critical" blog and started reading it. I know it's a bad idea to engage with trolls, especially when it will impact your sense of self, but I felt restless that my existence was being debated and wanted to hear the other side. Now I am feeling confused (1 o 2 asks)

I’m feeling confused and gross, wondering if all this time I have been actually working against my own feminist beliefs, or if I’m just being naive and getting indoctrinated. Like,I worry about me being a female who simply didn’t subscribe to gender stereotypes, tricking myself into thinking I"wasn’t like the other girls". I have also been wondering about what it means to identify into an oppressed group, and why we can’t talk about it without being dismissed as a dumb TERF. (1 o 2 asks) Thx

— Eve: CW: long post, possibly rambley, could’ve used better editing, transphobia, “gender critical”, recuperation, discussion of “terf” politics, recuperation of liberation movements, politics, oppression, rape culture, anti-fascist, anti-capitalist,

So basically I have tried for almost 4 weeks to write a response detailing this stuff. however it’s gotten too unwieldy. i tried to condense it, but this was as close as i got. it’s practically like 3 drafts back to back. I couldn’t figure out the differences & when i saw similarities it seemed significantly different enough. so I’m not editing any further. here’s a mindvomit. i wish i had this more polished but I can’t do that & i didn’t get a response.

however I’m going to make a history book recommendation, a referral to gendercensus2020, and i need to emphasize that these are much more like personal beliefs & not generally the tone of this blog which aims to give advice & positivity, while this is inherently political, the good bad & ugly. and there are trans people of various persuasions so I don’t want alienate them. i dissecting some ideologies that are transphobic, how they became that, how they got recuperated, and how you can find the same concerns being addressed. I’m answering this because it totally makes sense to me that this is asked in good faith & I want to respect your concerns & show that there are better methods of liberation activism that are trans affirmative, or at least must become & develop into such.

So I’m going to recommend the book “Transgender History (Second Edition)” by Susan Stryker, which I have put on our blog’s google drive account, so hence a link. It goes into the historic common ground between the feminists & LGBT+ peoples. It also gets into historic movements. And on top of that, the first chapter is literally a list of terminology deconstructing gender, which is also helpful for analyzing topics feminism analyzes..

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IvCwNvCJ_EiDmOer4zS8SbFGz4m-WDJ1

another thing you need to know regarding the label lesbian back in the day is that it was a catchall for any woman who didn’t have sex with men. now granted, this was a cisnormative understanding, but basically lesbians included celibate women, asexual women, and of course bisexual women in addition to gay women.

basically the normal advice of wait til you have your own money to have sex, wait til your mid 20s, don’t rely on a man to pay your bills etc, all of this comes from political lesbianism, which was like be celibate or else have sex that doesn’t involve sperm. (granted, communities cannot be monoliths if they want to be ecosystems, like any movement label there are different interpretations made by members of it, and therefore there are some strands that uphold a homonormative appreciation for conversion therapy. perhaps a middle ground for understanding how that happened is that joke about macho sexuality purity “if a man masturbates with his hand, he’s using a man’s hand to get off, then it’s gay.” granted, there was of course a political/economic reason to this, but still, it seems in terms of history that this joke was considered actually legitimate.)

“lesbian” was a catchall for women who didn’t have sex with men. this included ace, celibate & gynephiliac women. part of the reason these communities were conflated again had to do with the economic pressures to get married which I’ll detail a few paragraphs from now. (while this next thought could be incorrect because I did just learn about ‘compulsory heterosexuality" a month ago, I think the vestiges of those economic pressures are basically the gist of “comphet”.) the goal of political lesbian as well as lesbian separatism was to build an economy/get money that didn’t require submission to patriarchy, via marriage, pregnancy etc. so basically in an effort to build like support networks, “men” were shunned as much as possible.

however these networks ended up replicating capitalism, (partly due to oppression against communes & other anti-capitalist activities) which then replicated the oppressions of capitalism. it makes sense that transphobia had formed of assimilation/respectability politics for such feminists. To quote from the criticism section of the Wikipedia article on the women’s liberation movement.

> The philosophy practised by liberationists assumed a global sisterhood of support working to eliminate inequality without acknowledging that women were not united; other factors, such as age, class, ethnicity, and opportunity (or lack thereof) created spheres wherein women’s interests diverged, and some women felt underrepresented by the WLM.[208] While many women gained an awareness of how sexism permeated their lives, they did not become radicalized and were uninterested in overthrowing society. They made changes in their lives to address their individual needs and social arrangements, but were unwilling to take action on issues that might threaten their socio-economic status.[209] Liberationist theory also failed to recognize a fundamental difference in fighting oppression. Combating sexism had an internal component, whereby one could change the basic power structures within family units and personal spheres to eliminate the inequality. Class struggle and the fight against racism are solely external challenges, requiring public action to eradicate inequality.[210] >

birth control helped to liberate women & that accommodation/handicap for reproductive health disabilities (disability is merely inability to do something that’s Normative. so if having a uterus, pregnancy/menstruation/having breasts etc aren’t considered normal, which is especially common in a patriarchal society for these examples, then it’s disability.) It should be said that due to the desire for bodily autonomy to regulate our own body parts, as well as a desire to manage our fertility & sterilization, the transgender movement has a lot in common with feminism’s female-as-disability movement.)

it should also be noted that before the medical transitioning became accessible that us trans people relied a lot more on social transitioning than medical transitioning. it should also be mentioned that the medical procedures are available & used by cisgender people too.

that being said, since both cis females & transgender women were denied birth control etc, there was a very intense fear of impregnation happening & trans women going back in the closet not only to get money under patriarchy but also because life raising a kid is hard. like if you’ve ever seen “the stepford wives” & look at how the ally husband betrays his feminist wife, then that should clue us into how a lack of birth control scared us.

the problem with the school of feminism that emphasizes physiological sex over gender identity (in order to deny the existence of trans people with female-organs or not) is that it doesn’t account for birth control & how that’s affected the landscape, the economy etc, the revolutionary impact of birth control basically. it also ignores that trans people & cis women feminists have the same goals when it comes to getting freedoms about reproductive rights & bodily autonomy. therefore it ends up being transphobic & wanting to run back into the times when we didn’t have abortion access because they want to hurt us.

That being said though, we need to have birth control & more in order to help liberate trans people too, so if somewhere doesn’t have birth control, then we’re not doing well either because it’d pay a lot more to be transphobic (which of course it doesn’t now when we have birth control & various medical & other technologies). i think what I’m trying to say is that similar to disability accomodations clashing with each other, if we of the women’s liberation, the trans liberation, and the gay & lesbian liberation, and the bisexual & ace liberation get stranded then we’re all doomed. granted we might be doing that due to defensiveness with hostility similar to how in the 1980s feminism got very conservative in USA & how some transgender people get spared in systems with strict gender conformity & anticolonialist values, it’d be wrong to say that all our liberations are in conflict with each other. they can be mishandled, but ultimately, safety still tends to favor cisheteropatriarchal people. internalized patriarchal thinking is like internalized queerphobia, and so forth.

I want to emphasize that it is relatively easy for transgender people especially nonbinary people to find gender critical discourse somewhat appealing. Here’s why: TERFs & Gender Critical discourse is agender-normative disability discourse regarding reproductive health & other AFAB organs. (a disability is being unable to do things that society considers normative. so if you can’t drive & your locale de facto requires it, then that’s a disability. also in usa you’ll find that pregnancy & disability are the main things welfare programs prioritize. a pregnancy can be harmful, but can be easier with the right monitoring etc. which again is the same with disability.)

the problem though is that they then insist on misgendering you as one of the binary genders based on objectification of your body (specifically, “morphology”). point being, because you feel dysphoric over being misgendered as something nonbinary as being mislabeled as cisgender, this implies that you are indeed transgender.

https://gendercensus.com/post/612238605773111296/the-gender-census-2020-is-now-open

—

Now to be clear, there are historical economic considerations that made the decisions to specialize on the intersectionality of cisgender AFABs, but the economy & technology has changed. Basically marriage back in the day was economically necessary because there was effectively no birth control available. Therefore, to get child support etc, required getting the father to pay the consequences. However, marriage was very much a chattel property institution, marital rape was still legal, and women couldn’t get credit etc in our own names.

#

At the same time, similar to birth control being unavailable, hormones & other procedures for medically transitioning trans people were unavailable as well, which meant social transitioning & wardrobe etc were the main methods of affirming our gender. however, we sometimes got lucky & had a doctor write us a note affirming our gender & sometimes we got even luckier & govts accepted this. this however required getting labelled sick & begging doctors to give us treatment & getting money for this since insurance companies etc still discriminated against transgender people even when we agreed to have our gender identity situation labelled as sick & medically necessary. (similarly insurance companies still refuse to cover abortions & so do some doctors & hospitals.)

#

So this meant that AFABs were concerned about getting hijacked via impregnation. Because of the patriarchal economics of the whole thing, people were afraid of “the stepford wives” repeating itself in their own lives, where the mind can only handle what the ass can stand would mean trans women would go back into the closet.

#

Granted, that’s a bit misrepresentative of trans women & trans people because trans people & cis women who can get pregnant do have a lot more in common. we take the same meds, go to the same clinics, menopause etc gets taken due to distress over how our bodies work, etc. then again, how would trans AMAB people have gotten the money for child support?

#

historically & still to this day we basically had to beg doctors for the ability to get hormones to get a surgery to get a gender marker change & so on, which granted, what we trans people had available to us varied from locale to locale because it required collaborations of trans people, doctors, and the local govts & especially their police stations. again, before roe v wade abortion providers were super underground & secretive & there were specialized units at police stations for hunting down patients & providers under the charge of “murder”. it’s the same dynamics.

#

seriously trans people & people with bodies that can get pregnant, menstruate, menopause, etc, we go to the same clinics! women’s health clinics take trans patients, planned parenthood takes trans patients, do i need to go any further on how trans people & feminists have the same interests regarding reproductive health?

—

as for political lesbianism:

basically the normal advice of wait til you have your own money before having sex, wait til your mid 20s, don’t rely on a man to pay your bills etc, all of this comes from political lesbianism, which was like be celibate or else have sex that doesn’t involve sperm. (i’m not sure what the conditions were like surrounding not piv sex among the straights, and therefore what the likelihood of avoiding piv sex was. I do know that rape culture was much more heavily normalized than it is now.)

“Lesbian” was a catchall for women who didn’t have sex with men. this included: - ace, - celibate - bisexual - gay women. Part of the reason these communities were conflated again had to do with the economic pressures to get married, (while this next statement could be incorrect because i did just learn about ‘compulsory heterosexuality" a month ago, i think the vestiges of those economic pressures such as weddings are basically the gist of “comphet”.)

The goal of Political Lesbianism as well as Lesbian Separatism was to build an economy that didn’t require submission to patriarchy, such as that of marriage, pregnancy etc. In efforts to build like support networks, “men” were shunned as much as possible.

However these networks, (partly due to lacking radicalization) ended up replicating capitalism, (partly due to oppression against communes & other anti-capitalist activities) which then replicated the oppressions of capitalism. It makes sense that transphobia had formed of assimilation/respectability politics for such feminists. To quote from the criticism section of the Wikipedia article on the women’s liberation movement.

> “The philosophy practised by liberationists assumed a global sisterhood of support working to eliminate inequality without acknowledging that women were not united; other factors, such as age, class, ethnicity, and opportunity (or lack thereof) created spheres wherein women’s interests diverged, and some women felt underrepresented by the WLM.[208] While many women gained an awareness of how sexism permeated their lives, they did not become radicalized and were uninterested in overthrowing society. They made changes in their lives to address their individual needs and social arrangements, but were unwilling to take action on issues that might threaten their socio-economic status.[209] Liberationist theory also failed to recognize a fundamental difference in fighting oppression. Combating sexism had an internal component, whereby one could change the basic power structures within family units and personal spheres to eliminate the inequality. Class struggle and the fight against racism are solely external challenges, requiring public action to eradicate inequality.[210]”

[inqorporeal]

Okay, I'm gonna do a separate post since I don't want to hijack @dad-plo-koon‘s post.

Here's my theory about why Mandalore is the way it is in TCW. Even better, the canon isn't saying I'm wrong. 

Cut for length:

HOkay. SO.

719 years before the rise of the Empire: The Mandalorian Excision. 

Mandalore is doing well -- great, actually, they've never been more productive and they've just opened a few new beskar mines. The settlements on the moon -- Concordia -- and on Concord Dawn (not to be confused with Concordia) have proven to be self-sufficient. Things are looking up!

Except not quite. Mandalore's nearest neighbor is Kalevala. They're absolutely terrified of Mandalore going on the warpath again; Kalevala's likely sent spies to investigate Mandalore's status. What they find is deeply concerning.

Kalevala goes to the Republic -- specifically the Jedi -- for assistance. If Mandalore starts conquering again, Kalevala thinks it'll be the first target on the list. They’re probably not wrong, either. The Jedi and the Mando'ade do not have a fantastic history between them; the Jedi's response is to nip Mandalorian growth in the bud.

The Republic invades Mandalorian space. Technically illegally, but history is written by the victors.

Parts of Concord Dawn and other Mandalorian-held worlds suffer catastrophic bombardment during the fighting, but Mandalore is hit the hardest: half the planet is literally glassed before the end. What's left when the surface cools is a scintillating crystal desert on the southern half of Mandalore, the sand utterly useless for industrial applications without extensive processing. Even the untouched northern half of the planet suffers ecologically as the seas boil off. The planet spends months wracked by deadly weather systems caused by the complete disruption of the existing balance.

The Republic then blockades the sector and occupies it, installing their own government to manage things. The Mando’ade are forced to conceal all outward connections to the Resol’nare: no armour, no weapons, no overt training.

Beskar being as resilient as it is, the southern mines have been sealed at ground level, but below the surface are relatively intact. The Mando’ade try to rebuild, but it's a tough process when you have no outside trade coming in and a hostile power literally controlling what you can and cannot do with your own planet. It’s also physically dangerous -- inhaling glass dust can lead to silicosis and other diseases, as well as any of the compounds in the dust which might be carcinogenic. A huge portion of the southern continent had been used for industry, after all. And with half the planet's lush farmland slagged, they can't locally support the work.

Maybe it started as altruism; maybe it was always the plan.

Kalevala offers assistance in rebuilding. The Republic lets them, because hey, Kalevala was the one that lit this off in the first place. Maybe they feel a little regret? The glass-dust sand is bad for everything -- machines, droids, and people alike -- so they start with force fields and then transparisteel domes that also regulate their internal climate. Kalevala starts by building on top of the southern beskar mine access points and drilling through the melted bedrock, so the material to rebuild can be collected without risking going out on the desert. They bring in extra help from Kalevala. It takes a couple decades to get the dome cities to the point where they can operate without direct assistance from offworld.

The Republic offers no direct assistance during the Reconstruction, but it’s pretty clear who they’re favoring. When they finally back out of Mandalorian space, it’s a Kalevalan regent they leave in charge.

By this point, the Kalevalans who arrived to assist in the reconstruction have settled. Families have been started. The domes are designed for comfort, and with the beskar mines now functioning as commercial sources, there's a financial boom that promises to have the population living well.

Somehow, those proceeds never make it to the northern half of Mandalore. Some of the survivors warned against cooperating with the Kalevalans, and others kept reminding the people set on restoring the south that the Mando'ade don't need a planet in order to have a home: they can have the Resol'nare again, for which these outsiders have no understanding nor respect.

The largest dome in the south, Sundari, schisms from Keldabe. The northerners have a Mand'alor -- or choose a new one, if the previous perished in the Excision (there’s no information either way) -- but they don't understand what it was like to suffer in the desert trying to rebuild -- maybe there was a disagreement during the process on how things should be done. Sundari picks its own Mand'alor -- one of the Kalevalans who had gained a good reputation during the Reconstruction, someone who at least appreciates the local culture.

They set up a local government that's similar to what they're accustomed to on Kalevala -- and why shouldn't they? Their advisors are Kalevalan, and it's not like the southern population is going to resist the policies of a Mand'alor they elected.

Diplomatic discussions open up with Kalevala. See, they didn't just provide assistance out of the goodness of their hearts: they expected repayment. Through a combination of politics and trade deals, Mandalore becomes subject to Kalevala; to take the sting off, it's declared an extension of Kalevalan territory -- rather than a colony, which would have much lower political standing -- and declared a duchy so the planet has self-determination. The southern Mand'alor gains the title of Duke/Duchess. They're still elected, but somehow the role never strays far from the hands of Kalevalan political elites.

Again: maybe this was the plan all along, or maybe it was a bunch of rich people being opportunistic. The end result is the same.

Here’s the thing about the Resol’nare: one of the tenets is answering to the Mand’alor. If you don’t follow the Mand’alor, you’re considered dar’manda -- no longer Mandalorian. If there’s more than one group with their own Mand’alor, things get... sticky.

Tensions are high between south and north -- the New Mandalorians and the True Mandalorians. It's not really surprising the True Mandalorians would be upset: who are these outsiders to come in here, claim our titles, and then sell our world? In an effort to boost the New Mandalorian population, Kalevala offers opportunities to its citizens to help their Mandalorian territories, and to show the Mando'ade that there's a better way to live than constant warfare.

If this looks like a classic example of colonization, that's because it is.

Attempts by the New Mandalorians to subtly colonize the north have only limited success -- they can't prove it was sabotage, but they suspect. The Mando'ade who do go south for whatever reason -- extending friendship, joining family, seeking work, accepting offers from the New Mandalorians, whatever -- find that their appearance sets them apart. The New Mandalorians are nice about it, but enough social pressure happens that those Mando’ade who can't afford to leave feel stifled. Dark hair is bleached to fit in, accents are adopted, Mando'a is only spoken at home and isn't taught in the schools. Mando’ade who aren’t human -- and there are many -- have a particularly difficult time among the New Mandalorians. The Resol'nare is still kept, but only in the privacy of the home.

AND THEN. 

A few hundred years down the line, Mand’alor Jaster Mereel of the True Mandalorians attempts to enact some (overdue and widely demanded) cultural reform. Resistant splinter groups form, most notably Death Watch under the command of Tor Viszla, sparking off the Mandalorian Civil War. Viszla kills Mereel during a battle on Korda Six, leaving Mereel’s adopted son, Jango Fett, to pick up the reins. Death Watch arranges for an ambush on Galidraan that pits True Mandalorians against a detachment of Jedi and ends with Fett being sold into slavery for several years. 

With the True Mandalorians scattered, Death Watch turns their attention on the New Mandalorians, who had remained neutral throughout the conflict.

The Duke is assassinated. His teenage daughter, barely old enough to accept the title the New Mandalorians offer her, goes into hiding from Death Watch’s assassins for a year with her Jedi protectors. Traumatized and blaming anything that could be considered a warlike nature, she completely abolishes part of the Resol'nare. No armour, no weapons, no training at all. Those who protest are offered a shuttle to Concordia or Concord Dawn -- not sending them back north to bolster the decimated ranks of the True Mandalorians. She would clear the True Mandalorians off the north entirely if she could, but achieving that would require the type of violence she abhors. 

Dipping into the meta for a moment: any visual designs are a deliberate choice by the creators. Even in other cultures in TCW where there’s a level of uniformity, there are defined genetic differences in hair colour (not going to get into how everyone’s clothes always use the same palette, because that’s done for a different reason). Satine’s blond hair is noticeably a more natural shade; the bright yellow or “brassy” colour seen on a lot of civilians is the result of a bleach job that hasn’t removed all the natural tint, either by choice or by accident. This is a deliberate artistic choice and the creators are trying to tell the audience something about the culture. There’s no reason for that to be the case unless there’s social pressure behind it to maintain a certain appearance. Particularly since -- one would assume -- Death Watch still maintains the acceptance of non-human species into their ranks, conformity of appearance both expresses the New Mandalorians’ passive resistance to their enemy and internal support for their culture. 

It’s worth noting that the Excision itself was a plot device introduced to the IP in 2010 specifically as backstory for the show.

Mandalore’s implied recent history is one of colonization and cultural genocide, and you can fight me over it.

#star wars #mandalore #i have opinions about this

[aijcw]

Hello

Hi, this is a blog that will be used to track and document my college experiences from my second year on. As of now, I am a Marketing major which is under the business school... Please hold your laughter and scoffing at my major choice (directed at you STEM majors). Currently I have just successfully completed my first year in college. I think that there are several big takeaways from my first two semesters. 

FIRST: Academics always trump extracurriculars

Being able to balance your mental health, academics, and any extracurriculars is extremely important. Coming from an International Baccalaureate Program, I did not think that school would be super challenging for me. I was also able to acquire leadership positions at my high school fairly easily, but as College is a lot bigger, I panicked and jumped at as many possibilities as possible. This included picking up the position of Marketing Director for a residence hall organization, videographer for a Chinese American organization, club rowing, and even a MGC sorority (rushing for the first semester and then becoming historian and webmaster for the second semester). In my first semester, I took 15 credits: Macroeconomics, Experiencing Music, Survey of Calculus 1, a course required by my university, and Introduction to Business. The two hardest courses here then were for sure Macroeconomics and Survey of Calc. But mostly Survey of Calc, as I found Macro to be a relatively easy class that did not require me to study weeks in advance to perform well on the exams. Calculus was hard for me from the beginning to the middle of the semester, I truly did not know what I was doing and was very frustrated about this. However, I was also juggling so many other extracurriculars and organizations that had time commitment requirements. Reflecting back on this, I see that I prioritized my extracurricular organizations and spent a majority of my time completing tasks for my organizations over studying for my exams. Remember when I said that Macro was easy? Yeah, it was definitely a class that came easily to me, but I finished that class 1% off from an A-. After actually dedicating time to my calc class, the information finally started to click and make sense after many many practice problems. However, I also finished that class off 1% away from an A-. Interesting how that works, huh? I still look back at that semester bitterly as I have concluded that had I not been overly involved in so many different organizations, I would have been able to allocate more of my time for studying or going to office hours and might have been able to get an A or an A+ in both of those classes.  As my second semester is coming to an end, I realized that no matter how bitter I was about my almost A’s, that I ran into the same exact problem from my first semester in my second semester. I was still involved in all of the same organizations, excluding rowing, too many events happened late at night for many of my organizations and would conflict with the early practice times (I would sometimes only get 3 hours of sleep). And while yes, I could argue that I still was super involved, this second semester still shows the same result as my first: I prioritize my extracurriculars over my academics. As a person that prided themselves on taking academics very seriously, this first year at college seemed to show a complete 180 from the previous 12 years of schooling that I had done.  That being said, I have turned down all leadership positions in my organizations to better focus on my academics without having the weekly officership requirements. I have also cut down on the organizations that I am involved in to just my sorority, since (lol) that is not something that I want to just drop as it is an organization that I take a lot of pride in and enjoy a lot, much to my parents’ dismay. However, with this next semester and academic school year coming up, I am utilizing more efficient ways to schedule things in and will actually schedule in study times into my schedule. I plan on making use of both my bullet journal and google calendars as I will get visual notifications from both and phone notifications from my calendar events. 

SECOND: Mental health always trumps everything

Sometimes things just don’t work out. Whether it be relationship related, organization related, or school related. The most important thing is that you do what is actually best for you. This second semester as I continued to overexert myself, I actually had a mental breakdown in front of some board members before going to another organization’s events. Earlier that day, my parents had come to visit me to tour where I would be moving to for the next school year. While it was very nice seeing them again, they ended up cutting their visit short because I had little to no energy to actually interact with them. I was so tired from doing a late night event for one of my organizations and had barely gotten any sleep that night. So when they left I took a nap for about 30 minutes before having to get up and go to, you guessed it, a board meeting. As I am about a 24 minute walk from main campus, I ended up crying through those 24 minutes because of how mentally unhappy I was. This is what people like to refer to as “burnout”. I had been to every single required event despite there being a system where I could switch off with other people to go to those events. Why? I enjoy being social, I enjoy supporting friends, and at this point, I was so lonely and sad, that going to these events made me happy because it felt like I was temporarily eased of my sadness and my loneliness. As I type this I realize how sad that makes me sound, oh boy. But yes, burnout is a very real problem that many people can experience given enough time for build up and improper time management. It is okay to say no to things. It is okay to reach out to others when you need help. There is no such thing as over communication. The worst thing about this burnout experience was that I had not communicated with my employer, my organizations, nor my friends about how much I had going on. I only told them after I had my mental breakdown. It felt like a surge of different emotions were coming out of me all at the same time. At first I was sad, and then those sad tears turned into anger. Anger over how my organizations were requiring so much, anger over people that weren’t pulling their weight, and anger over how I had let myself get to this point.   The most interesting thing about this entire experience perhaps, is that I tend to fill my void of sadness or emptiness with work and this time, the work happened to be for my organizations. Something had happened at the beginning of the second semester that had made me really kind of sad. To take my mind off of things I set my mind on something different like my organizations. This actually worked spectacularly well at keeping my sadness away, and so I continued to give my all into each organization. However, towards the end of the semester, I found that I had been hurting myself mentally by exhausting myself so much. You need to take self care days, you need to take care of yourself and learn to love yourself. Only then can you contribute and partake in other external activities. If your mental health and state are not doing well, then there is no way that you can give back to others and give be able to give back well.  Something small that I picked up this second semester was watching little retanking videos before I slept. They were very peaceful and were able to help put me at ease before sleeping.  That being said, I feel like another main contributing factor to my decline in mental health was that I procrastinated... a lot. Very bad yes. All of these factors combined to make one huge toxic cocktail type deal. 

THIRD: Staying proactive and productive can help you

It is so important to keep track of when assignments and exams are due. During this semester, I had a few... surprise... exams come up that were definitely not a welcomed surprise. This would make me stress study for exams and cram for two days straight. This is not fun. Pulling all nighters is not the way to go if you can avoid it. This second semester, I have missed small quizzes because of my lack of planning and scheduling. While I still ended up getting an A in that class, my stress would have been significantly reduced had I planned ahead and stuck to the schedule that I would have made. I feel like this takeaway is pretty straight forward and there isn’t really too much to talk about regarding this topic as it is also pretty self-explanatory. 

#college #freshman #productivity #mental health #academics