#they love each inherent but there's the constant underlying fact that if they were not on voyager they would not be together

[ronon-dex]

'extreme risk' is maybe. the most heartbreaking voyager ep yet? it wasn't perfect, tom and chakotay could be construed as acting ooc. but janeway's quiet conversation with b'elanna in the medbay, being so gentle with her while still remaining firm. b'elanna describing the numbness she's experiencing then laughing off a diagnosis of clinical depression. her relying so much on physical violence as a way to see the truth of the world, and this fact being so integral to her as a person that even the man she trusts most on that ship had to use it to help her. the palpable distance between her and tom, the way they're in this relationship like they're in voyager. clinging together out of necessity and trauma. this whole thing being a reminder that there is significant loss waiting for this crew even if they make it back. despite them making it back.

#st voy #star trek #star trek: voyager #st #voyager #st voyager #b'elanna torres #kathryn janeway #chakotay #tom paris #i was flabbergasted at how non interested tom seemed #and then i tried to put it in context. like ok she's been isolating herself from him for weeks. maybe months #they love each inherent but there's the constant underlying fact that if they were not on voyager they would not be together #like they share passion and a sense of justice outside of starfleet #but other than that they're like night and day. tom as janeway's protégé and b'elanna as chakotay's. #neither of them quite living up to the expectations of their mentor #it's fascinating how complex it is. they're not lovebirds. that will never be b'elanna #god there's so MUCH TO ALL OF THEM #this fear of family and dependence when it's already happened! she's trying to run but the bonds are in place! #yanking at janeway tom chakotay even harry and seven!!!! #they had her dead to rights and i still don't think she's accepted that #5x03 #day 26364774 of this show making me crazed

[idreamtofmanderleyagain]

Five years ago, the women on this site who treated me like trash over loving Labyrinth and shipping Jareth/Sarah were almost always obliviously consuming Radfem propaganda, or were out and out Radfems/Terfs themselves.

They were the types of people who casually threw the word “pedophile” around against grown women who shipped an adult Sarah with Jareth, aka literally one of the most popular ships for women in fandom for 30 years.

Pretty much invariably, these women had serious sex-negative anxieties, which included a severe paranoia about any and all kink and fetish, and porn in general. I saw a lot of shocking, fear-mongering propaganda surrounding sexual expression. Pretty much invariably, their method of approach involved immediate personal shock-value attacks on anyone they perceived to be “bad.”

Today, you can look at the way some people react to other popular so-called “problematic” ships and recognize the same toxic, fear-mongering rhetoric coming from women who consider themselves regular, trans-inclusive feminists. Sometimes it even manifests in the words of very well-meaning people (including myself here), who feel the need to talk about specific issues that pertain to their own experiences of trauma and oppression.

The people who shit on Labyrinth often seem to not really be able to comprehend that the Goblin King, like the film itself, is canonically a representation of a teen girl’s psyche, a soup of fears and anxieties and desires and dreams. He’s not a literal human adult preying on a literal child, and to read the film that way seriously undermines the entire point of the film. 

When I (and people of many fandoms) say “This is fiction, calm down,” I’m not just saying it’s not real so it cant hurt you and you can’t criticize me. I’m trying to call attention to what fiction actually is - artistic representations of feelings and experiences. The Goblin King is Sarah’s fiction. Therefore, he can be anything she or any woman who identifies with her wants him to be, including her lover when she’s grown and ready for such a thing.

I once took an alarming dive into Beetlejuice fandom to see what content was there (the cartoon was a favorite when I was little). Chillingly, what you’ll find is an extremely wounded fanbase, with a sharp divide between the older women who had long been shipping BJ/Lydia because of their love for the cartoon series (and whom were previously the vast majority of the Beetlejuice fandom), and a massive amount of young people riding the wave of the musical fad who had decided that the entire old school Beetlejuice fandom was populated by literal pedophiles. 

I saw death threats. Suicide baiting. Constant, constant toxic discourse. It did not matter how the BJ/Lydia fandom dealt with any particular issues that would exist in their ship, in fact I’m certain that the people abusing them cared very little to even consider if they were trying to handle it at all. The only thing that mattered was that they were disgusting subhuman scum asking for abuse. If you have at any time reblogged recent Beetlejuice fan art or content from fans of the musical, you have more than likely been engaging positively with the content of someone participating in toxic fandom behavior.

Nobody is really sticking up for them, either, as far as I saw. It’s really hard to imagine how painful it must be to have such a large group of people explode into into your relatively private fandom space to tell you that you are evil, vile, and deserve constant abuse, and also you are no longer allowed into the fandom space to engage in it’s content. But I think there’s something very alarming indeed about this happening specifically to the BJ fandom, and I’ll explain why. 

The pop-culture characterization of Beetlejuice, which is heavily influenced by the cartoon series to be clear, has always in my mind been a vaguely ageless being who matches with the psychological maturity of whatever age Lydia is supposed to be. He’s more or less like an imaginary friend, a manifestation of Lydia’s psyche. In fact, I would argue that i think most of us who grew up with the cartoon or it’s subsequent merchandizing before the musical ever existed probably internalized the idea as BJ and Lydia as this ageless, salt-and-pepper-shaker couple beloved by the goth community, similar to Gomez and Morticia. In each version of canon he may be a creepy ghost in the literal sense, but any adult who is capable of identifying literary tropes (even just subconciously) would read cartoon!BJ as an artistic representation of a socially awkward outcast girl’s inner world. Lydia’s darker dispositions and interests, which alienate her from most others, are freely accepted and embraced by her spooky magical friend. BJ/Lydia in the cartoon were depicted as best friends, but to my memory there was always an underlying sense that they had secret feelings for each other, which I identified easily even as a small child. In fact, their dynamic and behavior perfectly reflected the psychological development of the show’s target demographic. They are best friends who get into adventures and learning experiences together, who have delicate feelings for each other but lack any true adult romantic/sexual understanding to acknowledge those feelings, let alone pursue them.

Though I haven’t seen the Musical yet, I’ve read the wiki and I would argue that it embodies this exact same concept even more so for it’s own version of the characters, in that Beetlejuice specifically exists to help Lydia process her mother’s death.

This is not a complicated thing to recognize and comprehend whatsoever. In fact, it looks downright blatant. It’s also a clear indicator of what BJ/Lydia means to the women who have long loved it. It was a story about a spooky wierd girl being loved and accepted and understood for who she was, and it gave them a sense of solidarity. It makes perfect sense why those women would stick with those characters, and create a safe little space for themselves to and imagine their beloved characters growing and having adult lives and experiencing adult drama, in just the same ways that the women of the Labyrinth fandom do. That’s all these women were doing. And now, they can’t do it without facing intense verbal violence. That safe space is poisoned now.

Having grown up with the cartoon as one of my favorites and been around goth subculture stuff for decades, I was actually shocked and squicked at the original Beetlejuice film’s narrative once I actually saw it, because it was extremely divorced from what these two characters had evolved into for goth subculture and what they meant to me. It’s not telling the same story, and is in fact about the Maitland's specifically. In pretty much exactly the same way two different versions of Little Red Riding Hood can be extremely different from each other, the film is a different animal. While I imagine that the film version has been at the heart of a lot of this confused fear-mongering around all other versions of the characters, I would no more judge different adaptations of these characters any more than I would condemn a version of Little Red in which Red and the Wolf are best friends or lovers just because the very first iteration of LRRH was about protecting yourself from predators.

I would even argue that the people who have engaged in Anti-shipper behavior over BJ/Lydia are in intense denial over the fact that BJ being interested in Lydia, either as blatant predatory behavior a la the film or on a peer level as in the cartoon (and musical?) is an inextricable part of canon. Beetlejuice was always attracted to Lydia, and it was not always cute or amusing. Beetlejuice was not always a beloved buddy character, an in fact was originally written as a gross scumbag. That’s just what he was. Even people engaging with him now by writing OC girlfriends for him (as stand-ins for the salt-and-pepper-shaker space Lydia used to take up, because obviously that was part of the core fun of the characters), or just loving him as a character, are erasing parts of his character’s history in order to do so. They are actively refusing to be held responsible for being fans of new version of him despite the fact that he engaged in overt predatory behavior in the original film. In fact, I would venture to say that they are actively erasing the fact that Musical Beetliejuice tried to marry a teenager and as far as I’m aware, seemed to like the idea (because he’s probably a fucking figment of her imagination but go off I guess). The only reason they can have a version of this character who could be perceived as “buddy” material is because...the cartoon had an impact on our pop cultural perception of what the character and his dynamic with Lydia is. 

We can have a version of the Big Bad Wolf who’s a creepy monster. We can have a version who’s sweet and lovable. We can have a version that lives in the middle. We can have a version who’s a hybrid between Red and the Wolf (a la Ruby in OUAT). All of these things can exist in the same world, and can even be loved for different reasons by the same people.

I’ve been using Beetlejuice as an example here because it’s kind of perfect for my overall point regarding the toxic ideologies in fandom right now across many different spaces, including ones for progressive and queer media, and how much so many people don’t recognize how deeply they’ve been radicalized into literalist and sex-negative radfem rhetoric, to the point where we aren’t allowed to have difficult, messy explorations of imperfect, flawed humans, and that art is never going to be 100% pure and without flaw in it’s ability to convey what it wants to convey.

This includes the rhetoric I’ve seen across the board, from She-Ra to A:TLA to Star Wars to Lovecraft Country. We don’t talk about the inherent malleable, subjective, or charmingly imperfect nature of fiction any more. Transformation and reclamation are myths in this space. Everything is in rigid categories. It is seemingly very difficult for some of these people to engage with anything that is not able to be clearly labeled as one thing or another (see the inherent transphobic and biphobic elements of the most intense rhetoric). They destroy anything they cannot filter through their ideology. When women act in a way that breaks from their narrative of womanhood (like...not having a vagina), then those women must be condemned instead of understood. Anything that challenges them or makes them uncomfortable is a mortal sin. There is an extraordinary level of both hypocrisy and repressive denial that is underlying the behavior I’m seeing now. Much like toxic Christian conservatism, these people often are discovered engaging in the same behaviors and interests that they condemn behind closed doors (or just out of sheer cognitive dissonance). As an example, one of the people who talked shit to me about Labyrinth was a huge fan of Kill La Kill, which to my knowledge was an anime about a teenage girl in like, superpowered lingere (hence why I stayed the fuck away from that shit myself). Indeed, they even allow themselves plenty of leeway for behavior far worse than they condemn others for, and create support systems for the worst of their own abusers. 

Quite frankly, I’m tired. Instead of talking about theoretical problematic shit, we need to start talking about quantifiable harm. Because as far as I can tell, the most real, immediate, and quantifiable harm done because of anybody’s favorite ships or pieces of media seems to consistently be the kind that’s done to the people who experience verbal violence and abuse and manipulation and suicide baiting and death threats from the people who have a problem.

#Beetlejuice #Labyrinth #toxic fandom

[space-malex]

I didn't like all the fighting between Benji and Victor either, it frustrated me, but I honestly think that was a deliberate writing choice. A bad one, I might add. There was this interiew with the showrunner who basically said that people don't like to watch couples be happy together for too long because that becomes boring real fast (I don't agree with this, especially because drama can be created in other ways, not just through relationship issues, but it was this interview that made me start dreading the second season). So I guess he decided there should be barely any happiness and mostly misery. I don't even blame people for prefering Rahim at this point. The writing for Rahim (and Rahim/Victor) was much better than for Benji (and Benji/Victor). I just don't think they thought this through very well and maybe underestimated how this could affect the audience, because most of us (?) tend to prefer more happiness and less misery, especially when it comes to queer couples, because believe me, I've definitely watched enough misery in queer cinema to last me a lifetime.

Oh I so get you there. Queer misery is just…way too prevalent still and it’s 2021. The thing is, for me, I never felt that the writing for Victor and Benji was that developed, even in season 1.  Victor had a crush on Benji, it turns out the feelings were reciprocated, and they got together. And then we time jumped two and a half months. We never really got to see development. They hooked up and then we fast-forwarded into a serious relationship without ever getting to see how we got there. It felt unearned to me. So while I did not dislike venji at the time, while I thought they were cute, I wasn’t like…invested.

And then we got s2 which essentially made Benji an antagonist without any character development or insight into his life outside of Victor. Doesn’t exactly make me love their relationship. I agree that people can enjoy some conflict but don’t want to see constant arguing. There were a lot of things that I defended Benji for because I totally understood where he was coming from. Like I understood his frustration with Isabel for sure. But a couple of things he said were just…way too much for me. He made Victor feel guilty and ashamed for liking basketball for one. Like sports are inherently straight or heteronormative and Victor shouldn’t enjoy them? Like it’s some kind of compulsory heterosexuality thing and he was actually making fun of him in front of his friends. And then he made Victor feel like a burden on their relationship because everything is new for him. It was just…so unkind. He made the decision to date a baby gay. He should know the ramifications that go along with that and not make Victor feel bad about it. 

As for Rahim, I fell in love with him the moment we met him. But I assumed he was going to have a friendship with Victor and that was it. But then they started having these little moments. And I liked it.  I felt an unspoken connection there, even before they talked about their families. There’s something fun and playful about them. But they are also so quiet and soft and understanding with each other. They listen to one another. They feel comfortable opening up and are interested in what the other has to say. I like the way the development of their relationship happened, even if it’s still early. It wasn’t based on basic lust or physical attraction. Instead, it’s based on friendship and mutual understanding and liking each other as a person. Yes there is attraction involved, obviously, but it’s not where their feelings sprung from. They just connected.

I don’t know where Victor‘s head is at right now. I think he loves Benji. And I think he wants to make it work with him. But I also think he does have feelings for Rahim and he knows it. I think we see little things as early as 2x07 but Victor is so wrapped up in Benji that I think he doesn’t quite realize it at first. He keeps brushing it off and changing the subject. Partly out of denial but also partly distracted bc of his other relationship drama. But during 2x09 he definitely realizes there’s something there. I mean we get like 5 or 6 separate moments where they’re just LOOKING at each other like that for a prolonged period of time (and don’t get me started on the Simon/Bram karaoke parallel, Bieber song and all). And then, look at the way Victor reacts it 2x10 when he walks into the living room to talk to Pilar and Rahim is there. He gets immediately awkward and kinda shy and doesn’t really know what to say. There is absolutely no reason to act that way when someone is simply your friend with no underlying feelings. 

I completely understand people wanting venji to work out. Like…it’s been Victor’s main love story for two seasons. But I also think some people are very in denial about the fact that there are mutual feelings between Victor and Rahim. They not only don’t want Victor dating someone else, they don’t want him to even feel something for someone else. So they refuse to admit it. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Sorry for the rant! Anyway, I agree on the arguing being on purpose but not a good decision if they are intending to make Benji and Victor continue their relationship without major changes. But, if they are intending on demonstrating that they really aren’t made for each other, I think they’ve done a good job. I guess it all depends on what you think the writers intend for venji/vahim in s3. 

#anon #shut up kelli #ship drama #lv discourse #vahim

[beautifulterriblequeen]

B2:S - Chapter 4

Much of this series will be about the differences and additions in the novel version, and how they contribute to my understanding of story canon. But there will be character appreciation, the odd theory and headcanon, and suchlike as well.

Here be Viren being villainous, Rayla, Claudia, Soren, and Callum, and tons of culture clash themey stuff

and a tw: animal death, Claudia why

Spoilers for Book Two: Sky below.

Viren's scenes in Book Two: Sky are all amazing because they're full of worldbuilding and character building details. I love to study the word choices used from his perspective. They're so tasty. Like how he forced a servant, and also Soren, to carry his messages to the rookery, so that he never had to go himself. I'm really curious why Viren is forcing a servant, whose job is literally to serve, here. He really only has to ask. Maybe he was mean about it on purpose, or maybe he picked a servant who was afraid of birds just to flex on them. Whatever the reason for the word choice, Viren doesn't seem to like servants' jobs, it seems, especially when they take him somewhere with poop on the floor. It makes it all the more ironic that he sweeps Runaan's cell clean himself, then, humbling himself before he finally figures out the mirror.

Viren's secretive, right down to his very carefully chosen words to those around him, but his true thoughts shine through even more clearly in the book than in the show. He knows he's been sneaking and hiding stuff, and he knows that some of those actions would be called treachery. Stealing the king's seal to forge royal documents is up there on the treacherous list, but it's apparently not there alone. Ah, Viren, such a villainous delight. What have you gotten up to?

The way he thinks of and treats Crow Master is ageist and classist, but certain lines also hint that Viren has spent a lot of time memorizing the finer points of proper courtesy, and he expects others to have done the same. There are many reasons someone might put forth such effort: a commoner trying to better himself to be noticed by a kind prince is a nice version. A sociopath learning to fake caring about rich people so he can blend in with them is less nice. Superconveniently, the skills a young, earnest Viren might use to feel worthy of Harrow's attention will serve him just as well when dark magic ravages his empathy and he has to lie to everyone about how dead he is inside in order to keep his position of power. Until he's not lying anymore and he straight up threatens poor Crow Master with death unless he sends illegal mail for him. There's the Viren we know and uhhhhhh

Rayla and the blue rose! It's so fun to see inside her head here. She acted swiftly in the last chapter to save herself from Claudia's sleep spell, but now that she has to lie there, that thorn really hurts! She wishes she maybe had a different plan instead of playing asleep.

I hope Rayla only calls Claudia's voice "awful" because of association. I love Claudia's raspy voice! It's so neat! Rayla immediately recognizes it as Claudia's, from the castle and identifies her as a dark mage, with a clanky-metal warrior beside her. She gets mad at Soren for apparently calling killing a sport, even though that's not what he said at all. Soren's using an unfamiliar, maybe old-fashioned term, and Rayla's taking it very literally. It's like Viren and Runaan are arguing through them. A fun little example of culture clash.

Also digging the fact that Rayla knows what sleeping breathing looks like, as opposed to awake breathing, for the purposes of faking someone out. Did she just. Perch in a tree over Runaan and Ethari as they napped after a picnic and watched them sleep, or did Runaan help her sneak around the Silvergrove to spy on sleeping elves for training purposes? Also, raise your hand if you've faked sleep breathing to fool someone. that's not just me right

Rayla's sass is a constant delight. Whenever she's up against an enemy, she is outwardly fearless and full of witty taunts and comments, and I love her so much. where could she have learned this from I also love that she can't help but flex on Soren about her technique. It seems that her attitude is part "never show fear" and part "humans are liars."

Claudia and Soren were trying to kill Rayla to save the princes from her. But Rayla was also intent on killing both of them right back. And she wasn't ever gonna tell Callum and Ez about that. Woah. First Harrow, now this. That whole "death and secrets" thing really sank in with her, didn't it? Crack voice in the back of my brain: Ethari does know Runaan stabs people, right, he does know that?

Interesting change of detail from show to book: in the show, Claudia overheats Rayla's swords with some green splattery goo from a little glass jar. In the book, uhhh. She grabs a live bird and squishes it to cast the spell. Eew. Really making a point of dark magic's inherent violence today, I see. Got it.

"Rayla, pipe down." Callum still has a ways to go on how to win friends and influence people here. Everyone's shouting, he's interrupted to save Rayla's life (or so he thinks), and when Rayla shouts that his friends tried to kill her, he tells her--and no one else--to pipe down. Followed soon by "but a 'good' elf." Ahgod. He doesn't think he's taking sides, but he's got two humans versus one elf, and he's a human himself, and his underlying biases are showing. He's 14, and he's willing to learn, though--and he really does learn and grow over time. But this version of this scene was just. So. Painfully. Awkward.

I feel like this version was part of a larger theme I'm seeing throughout the first half of the book, emphasizing that Callum comes from years of having a crush on Claudia, and it takes many scenes with Claudia and with Rayla to shift through several gears with each of them in order to facilitate the possibility of breaking with Claudia and then also of falling for Rayla, in a way that feels organic within the structure of the story being told.

Also Callum super has a type and it's Girls Who Will Commit Murder. I don't make the rules.

Rayla's defense just attacks Callum's word choice: "What do you mean, 'but a good elf'? Do you know any bad elves?" And I just. Rayla, honey. You're not in any better of a spot than Callum right now. Your mentor literally stabs people to death. You're both literally assassins. Some humans could accept most elves, but they might draw the line at assassins.

But this tiny clash in the midst of this war, this single exchange of words, is such a great microcosm, the war made personal. It's early enough in their adventure and their growth that they're still sounding a lot like their parents. And that includes Claudia! She demands to know how an elf can be good, and Callum allows that it's possible for good elves to exist, but he has to be the one to say it, not the actual elf behind him. And the actual elf behind him insists that her kind are all good, thank you very much, and implying otherwise skirts very close to "humans are liars."

It's quite a tangle, but having the main characters tangled up like this shows us that as they untangle themselves in their own personal situations, they're learning things about human and elven hearts, about relationships and family, and those things are universal truths which they can use to help them understand other people's troubles, as well as the larger issues involved in the war they're trying to stop.

Callum assessing--and then reassessing--his confidence level. It's adorable, and it serves to show that his first scrambling attempt to make peace, in which he messed up a little but at least no one died--won't be his last. He's not really sure how this is gonna go. Everything is new. But he's dedicated to peace, and he's not giving up. He did just run in between Soren and his target while Soren was holding a sword.

He keeps doing that. Standing in front of people who have their weapons raised in his direction. And he does it with a ridiculous amount of chill. Is this Sarai's influence on him? Considering that Harrow has kept his distance, maybe so! I'd love that.

This chapter ends with some fun relationship drama when Callum gets butterflies in his stomach at being around Claudia again. She tucks a strand of hair behind his ear, and he forgets all about telling her about smashing her primal stone. He instantly worries that Rayla saw her gesture, which of course she did. Callum's nervousness and Rayla's glare feel to me like they're supposed to fit into a tactical box instead of a romantic box, but I can see how it could be interpreted the other way. Callum just intervened in a fight that Rayla completely intended to end by secretly killing Claudia and Soren, so in Rayla's mind, she's probably convinced that Callum intervened to save his girlfriend's life, while he's sure that he just saved Rayla's. She's probably angry because Claudia's gesture is making her think that Callum only seemed to be trying to save Rayla when his true intention was to save Claudia all along.

Dun dun dunnnnnnn.

#b2:s #book two: sky spoilers #book two: sky #tdp spoilers #tw: animal death #soren #tdp claudia #rayla #callum #runaan #ethari #viren #sarai

[lavenderafro]

Patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit in our nation. Yet most men do not use the word “patriarchy” in everyday life. 

Most men never think about patriarchy—what it means, how it is created and sustained. Many men in our nation would not be able to spell the word or pronounce it correctly. 

The word “patriarchy” just is not a part of their normal everyday thought or speech. Men who have heard and know the word usually associate it with women’s liberation, with feminism, and therefore dismiss it as irrelevant to their own experiences. 

I have been standing at podiums talking about patriarchy for more than thirty years. It is a word I use daily, and men who hear me use it often ask me what I mean by it.

Nothing discounts the old antifeminist projection of men as all-powerful more than their basic ignorance of a major facet of the political system that shapes and informs male identity and sense of self from birth until death. 

I often use the phrase “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe the interlocking political systems that are the foundation of our nation’s politics.

 Of these systems the one that we all learn the most about growing up is the system of patriarchy, even if we never know the word, because patriarchal gender roles are assigned to us as children and we are given continual guidance about the ways we can best fulfill these roles.

Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. 

When my older brother and I were born with a year separating us in age, patriarchy determined how we would each be regarded by our parents. Both our parents believed in patriarchy; they had been taught patriarchal thinking through religion. 

At church they had learned that God created man to rule the world and everything in it and that it was the work of women to help men perform these tasks, to obey, and to always assume a subordinate role in relation to a powerful man. 

They were taught that God was male. 

These teachings were reinforced in every institution they encountered– schools, courthouses, clubs, sports arenas, as well as churches. Embracing patriarchal thinking, like everyone else around them, they taught it to their children because it seemed like a “natural” way to organize life.

As their daughter I was taught that it was my role to serve, to be weak, to be free from the burden of thinking, to caretake and nurture others. 

My brother was taught that it was his role to be served; to provide; to be strong; to think, strategize, and plan; and to refuse to caretake or nurture others. 

I was taught that it was not proper for a female to be violent, that it was “unnatural.” 

My brother was taught hat his value would be determined by his will to do violence (albeit in appropriate settings). 

He was taught that for a boy, enjoying violence was a good thing (albeit in appropriate settings). He was taught that a boy should not express feelings. I was taught that girls could and should express feelings, or at least some of them. 

When I responded with rage at being denied a toy, I was taught as a girl in a patriarchal household that rage was not an appropriate feminine feeling, that it should be not only not be expressed but be eradicated. 

When my brother responded with rage at being denied a toy, he was taught as a boy in a patriarchal household that his ability to express rage was good but that he had to learn the best setting to unleash his hostility.

 It was not good for him to use his rage to oppose the wishes of his parents, but later, when he grew up, he was taught that rage was permitted and that allowing rage to provoke him to violence would help him protect home and nation.

We lived in farm country, isolated from other people. Our sense of gender roles was learned from our parents, from the ways we saw them behave. 

My brother and I remember our confusion about gender. In reality I was stronger and more violent than my brother, which we learned quickly was bad. And he was a gentle, peaceful boy, which we learned was really bad. 

Although we were often confused, we knew one fact for certain: we could not be and act the way we wanted to, doing what we felt like. It was clear to us that our behavior had to follow a predetermined, gendered script. 

We both learned the word “patriarchy” in our adult life, when we learned that the script that had determined what we should be, the identities we should make, was based on patriarchal values and beliefs about gender.

I was always more interested in challenging patriarchy than my brother was because it was the system that was always leaving me out of things that I wanted to be part of. In our family life of the fifties, marbles were a boy’s game. My brother had inherited his marbles from men in the family; he had a tin box to keep them in. 

All sizes and shapes, marvelously colored, they were to my eye the most beautiful objects. We played together with them, often with me aggressively clinging to the marble I liked best, refusing to share. When Dad was at work, our stay-at-home mom was quite content to see us playing marbles together. 

Yet Dad, looking at our play from a patriarchal perspective, was disturbed by what he saw. His daughter, aggressive and competitive, was a better player than his son. 

His son was passive; the boy did not really seem to care who won and was willing to give over marbles on demand. Dad decided that this play had to end, that both my brother and I needed to learn a lesson about appropriate gender roles. 

One evening my brother was given permission by Dad to bring out the tin of marbles. I announced my desire to play and was told by my brother that “girls did not play with marbles,” that it was a boy’s game. This made no sense to my four- or five-year-old mind, and I insisted on my right to play by picking up marbles and shooting them. 

Dad intervened to tell me to stop. I did not listen. His voice grew louder and louder. Then suddenly he snatched me up, broke a board from our screen door, and began to beat me with it, telling me, “You’re just a little girl. 

When I tell you to do something, I mean for you to do it.” He beat me and he beat me, wanting me to acknowledge that I understood what I had done. His rage, his violence captured everyone’s attention. Our family sat spellbound, rapt before the pornography of patriarchal violence. 

After this beating I was banished—forced to stay alone in the dark. Mama came into the bedroom to soothe the pain, telling me in her soft southern voice, “I tried to warn you. You need to accept that you are just a little girl and girls can’t do what boys do.” In service to patriarchy her task was to reinforce that Dad had done the right thing by, putting me in my place, by restoring the natural social order.

I remember this traumatic event so well because it was a story told again and again within our family. No one cared that the constant retelling might trigger post-traumatic stress; the retelling was necessary to reinforce both the message and the remembered state of absolute powerlessness. 

The recollection of this brutal whipping of a little-girl daughter by a big strong man, served as more than just a reminder to me of my gendered place, it was a reminder to everyone watching/remembering, to all my siblings, male and female, and to our grown-woman mother that our patriarchal father was the ruler in our household. 

We were to remember that if we did not obey his rules, we would be punished, punished even unto death. 

This is the way we were experientially schooled in the art of patriarchy.

There is nothing unique or even exceptional about this experience. Listen to the voices of wounded grown children raised in patriarchal homes and you will hear different versions with the same underlying theme, the use of violence to reinforce our indoctrination and acceptance of patriarchy.

 In How Can I Get Through to You? family therapist Terrence Real tells how his sons were initiated into patriarchal thinking even as their parents worked to create a loving home in which antipatriarchal values prevailed. 

He tells of how his young son Alexander enjoyed dressing as Barbie until boys playing with his older brother witnessed his Barbie persona and let him know by their gaze and their shocked, disapproving silence that his behavior was unacceptable:

“Without a shred of malevolence, the stare my son received transmitted a message. You are not to do this. And the medium that message was broadcast in was a potent emotion: shame. 

At three, Alexander was learning the rules. 

A ten second wordless transaction was powerful enough to dissuade my son from that instant forward from what had been a favorite activity. I call such moments of induction the “normal traumatization” of boys.”

To indoctrinate boys into the rules of patriarchy, we force them to feel pain and to deny their feelings.

My stories took place in the fifties; the stories Real tells are recent. They all underscore the tyranny of patriarchal thinking, the power of patriarchal culture to hold us captive. 

Real is one of the most enlightened thinkers on the subject of patriarchal masculinity in our nation, and yet he lets readers know that he is not able to keep his boys out of patriarchy’s reach. They suffer its assaults, as do all boys and girls, to a greater or lesser degree. 

No doubt by creating a loving home that is not patriarchal, Real at least offers his boys a choice: they can choose to be themselves or they can choose conformity with patriarchal roles. 

Real uses the phrase “psychological patriarchy” to describe the patriarchal thinking common to females and males. 

Despite the contemporary visionary feminist thinking that makes clear that a patriarchal thinker need not be a male, most folks continue to see men as the problem of patriarchy. This is simply not the case. Women can be as wedded to patriarchal thinking and action as men.

Psychotherapist John Bradshaw’s clear-sighted definition of patriarchy in Creating Love is a useful one: “The dictionary defines ‘patriarchy’ as a ‘social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family in both domestic and religious functions’.” 

Patriarchy is characterized by male domination and power. 

He states further that “patriarchal rules still govern most of the world’s religious, school systems, and family systems.” 

Describing the most damaging of these rules, Bradshaw lists “blind obedience—the foundation upon which patriarchy stands; the repression of all emotions except fear; the destruction of individual willpower; and the repression of thinking whenever it departs from the authority figure’s way of thinking.” 

Patriarchal thinking shapes the values of our culture. 

We are socialized into this system, females as well as males. Most of us learned patriarchal attitudes in our family of origin, and they were usually taught to us by our mothers. These attitudes were reinforced in schools and religious institutions.

The contemporary presence of female-headed house holds has led many people to assume that children in these households are not learning patriarchal values because no male is present. They assume that men are the sole teachers of patriarchal thinking. 

Yet many female-headed households endorse and promote patriarchal thinking with far greater passion than two-parent households. Because they do not have an experiential reality to challenge false fantasies of gender roles, women in such households are far more likely to idealize the patriarchal male role and patriarchal men than are women who live with patriarchal men every day.

 We need to highlight the role women play in perpetuating and sustaining patriarchal culture so that we will recognize patriarchy as a system women and men support equally, even if men receive more rewards from that system. Dismantling and changing patriarchal culture is work that men and women must do together.

Clearly we cannot dismantle a system as long as we engage in collective denial about its impact on our lives. 

Patriarchy requires male dominance by any means necessary, hence it supports, promotes, and condones sexist violence. We hear the most about sexist violence in public discourses about rape and abuse by domestic partners. 

But the most common forms of patriarchal violence are those that take place in the home between patriarchal parents and children. The point of such violence is usually to reinforce a dominator model, in which the authority figure is deemed ruler over those without power and given the right to maintain that rule through practices of subjugation, subordination, and submission.

Keeping males and females from telling the truth about what happens to them in families is one way patriarchal culture is maintained. A great majority of individuals enforce an unspoken rule in the culture as a whole that demands we keep the secrets of patriarchy, thereby protecting the rule of the father. 

This rule of silence is upheld when the culture refuses everyone easy access even to the word “patriarchy.” Most children do not learn what to call this system of institutionalized gender roles, so rarely do we name it in everyday speech. This silence promotes denial. 

And how can we organize to challenge and change a system that cannot be named?

It is no accident that feminists began to use the word “patriarchy” to replace the more commonly used “male chauvanism” and “sexism.” 

These courageous voices wanted men and women to become more aware of the way patriarchy affects us all. In popular culture the word itself was hardly used during the heyday of contemporary feminism. 

Antimale activists were no more eager than their sexist male counterparts to emphasize the system of patriarchy and the way it works. 

For to do so would have automatically exposed the notion that men were all-powerful and women powerless, that all men were oppressive and women always and only victims. 

By placing the blame for the perpetuation of sexism solely on men, these women could maintain their own allegiance to patriarchy, their own lust for power. They masked their longing to be dominators by taking on the mantle of victimhood.

Like many visionary radical feminists I challenged the misguided notion, put forward by women who were simply fed up with male exploitation and oppression, that men were “the enemy.” 

As early as 1984 I included a chapter with the title “Men: Comrades in Struggle” in my book Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center urging advocates of feminist politics to challenge any rhetoric which placed the sole blame for perpetuating patriarchy and male domination onto men:

“Separatist ideology encourages women to ignore the negative impact of sexism on male personhood. It stresses polarization between the sexes.

 According to Joy Justice, separatists believe that there are “two basic perspectives” on the issue of naming the victims of sexism: “There is the perspective that men oppress women. And there is the perspective that people are people, and we are all hurt by rigid sex roles.”…Both perspectives accurately describe our predica ment. Men do oppress women. 

People are hurt by rigid sexist role patterns, These two realities coexist. 

Male oppression of women cannot be excused by the recognition that there are ways men are hurt by rigid sexist roles. Feminist activists should acknowledge that hurt, and work to change it—it exists. 

It does not erase or lessen male responsibility for supporting and perpetuating their power under patriarchy to exploit and oppress women in a manner far more grievous than the serious psychological stress and emotional pain caused by male conformity to rigid sexist role patterns.”

Throughout this essay I stressed that feminist advocates collude in the pain of men wounded by patriarchy when they falsely represent men as always and only powerful, as always and only gaining privileges from their blind obedience to patriarchy. I emphasized that patriarchal ideology brainwashes men to believe that their domination of women is beneficial when it is not:

“Often feminist activists affirm this logic when we should be constantly naming these acts as expressions of perverted power relations, general lack of control of one’s actions, emotional powerlessness, extreme irrationality, and in many cases, outright insanity. 

Passive male absorption of sexist ideology enables men to falsely interpret this disturbed behavior positively. As long as men are brainwashed to equate violent domination and abuse of women with privilege, they will have no understanding of the damage done to themselves or to others, and no motivation to change. 

Patriarchy demands of men that they become and remain emotional cripples. Since it is a system that denies men full access to their freedom of will, it is difficult for any man of any class to rebel against patriarchy, to be disloyal to the patriarchal parent, be that parent female or male.”

The man who has been my primary bond for more than twelve years was traumatized by the patriarchal dynamics in his family of origin. When I met him he was in his twenties.

 While his formative years had been spent in the company of a violent, alcoholic dad, his circumstances changed when he was twelve and he began to live alone with his mother.

 In the early years of our relationship he talked openly about his hostility and rage toward his abusingn dad. He was not interested in forgiving him or understanding the circumstances that had shaped and influenced his dad’s life, either in his childhood or in his working life as a military man. In the early years of our relationship he was extremely critical of male domination of women and children. 

Although he did not use the word “patriarchy,” he understood its meaning and he opposed it. His gentle, quiet manner often led folks to ignore him, counting him among the weak and the powerless. 

By the age of thirty he began to assume a more macho persona, embracing the dominator model that he had once critiqued. Donning the mantle of patriarch, he gained greater respect and visibility. More women were drawn to him. He was noticed more in public spheres. His criticism of male domination ceased. And indeed he begin to mouth patriarchal rhetoric, saying the kind of sexist stuff that would have appalled him in the past.

These changes in his thinking and behavior were triggered by his desire to be accepted and affirmed in a patriarchal workplace and rationalized by his desire to get ahead. 

His story is not unusual. Boys brutalized and victimized by patriarchy more often than not become patriarchal, embodying the abusive patriarchal masculinity that they once clearly recognized as evil. 

Few men brutally abused as boys in the name of patriarchal maleness courageously resist the brainwashing and remain true to themselves. Most males conform to patriarchy in one way or another.

Indeed, radical feminist critique of patriarchy has practically been silenced in our culture. It has become a subcultural discourse available only to well-educated elites. Even in those circles, using the word “patriarchy” is regarded as passé. 

Often in my lectures when I use the phrase “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe our nation’s political system, audiences laugh. No one has ever explained why accurately naming this system is funny. 

The laughter is itself a weapon of patriarchal terrorism. It functions as a disclaimer, discounting the significance of what is being named. It suggests that the words themselves are problematic and not the system they describe. I interpret this laughter as the audience’s way of showing discomfort with being asked to ally themselves with an antipatriarchal disobedient critique. This laughter reminds me that if I dare to challenge patriarchy openly, I risk not being taken seriously.

Citizens in this nation fear challenging patriarchy even as they lack overt awareness that they are fearful, so deeply embedded in our collective unconscious are the rules of patriarchy. 

I often tell audiences that if we were to go door-to-door asking if we should end male violence against women, most people would give their unequivocal support. 

Then if you told them we can only stop male violence against women by ending male domination, by eradicating patriarchy, they would begin to hesitate, to change their position. Despite the many gains of contemporary feminist movement—greater equality for women in the workforce, more tolerance for the relinquishing of rigid gender roles—patriarchy as a system remains intact, and many people continue to believe that it is needed if humans are to survive as a species. 

This belief seems ironic, given that patriarchal methods of organizing nations, especially the insistence on violence as a means of social control, has actually led to the slaughter of millions of people on the planet.

Until we can collectively acknowledge the damage patriarchy causes and the suffering it creates, we cannot address male pain. We cannot demand for men the right to be whole, to be givers and sustainers of life. Obviously some patriarchal men are reliable and even benevolent caretakers and providers, but still they are imprisoned by a system that undermines their mental health.

Patriarchy promotes insanity. It is at the root of the psychological ills troubling men in our nation. Nevertheless there is no mass concern for the plight of men. In Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, Susan Faludi includes very little discussion of patriarchy:

“Ask feminists to diagnose men’s problems and you will often get a very clear explanation: men are in crisis because women are properly challenging male dominance. Women are asking men to share the public reins and men can’t bear it. Ask antifeminists and you will get a diagnosis that is, in one respect, similar. 

Men are troubled, many conservative pundits say, because women have gone far beyond their demands for equal treatment and are now trying to take power and control away from men…The underlying message: men cannot be men, only eunuchs, if they are not in control. 

Both the feminist and antifeminist views are rooted in a peculiarly modern American perception that to be a man means to be at the controls and at all times to feel yourself in control.”

Faludi never interrogates the notion of control. She never considers that the notion that men were somehow in control, in power, and satisfied with their lives before contemporary feminist movement is false.

Patriarchy as a system has denied males access to full emotional well-being, which is not the same as feeling rewarded, successful, or powerful because of one’s capacity to assert control over others. 

To truly address male pain and male crisis we must as a nation be willing to expose the harsh reality that patriarchy has damaged men in the past and continues to damage them in the present. If patriarchy were truly rewarding to men, the violence and addiction in family life that is so all-pervasive would not exist. 

This violence was not created by feminism. If patriarchy were rewarding, the overwhelming dissatisfaction most men feel in their work lives—a dissatisfaction extensively documented in the work of Studs Terkel and echoed in Faludi’s treatise—would not exist. 

In many ways Stiffed was yet another betrayal of American men because Faludi spends so much time trying not to challenge patriarchy that she fails to highlight the necessity of ending patriarchy if we are to liberate men. Rather she writes:

“Instead of wondering why men resist women’s struggle for a freer and healthier life, I began to wonder why men refrain from engaging in their own struggle. Why, despite a crescendo of random tantrums, have they offered no methodical, reasoned response to their predicament: Given the untenable and insulting nature of the demands placed on men to prove themselves in our culture, why don’t men revolt?…Why haven’t men responded to the series of betrayals in their own lives—to the failures of their fathers to make good on their promises–with some thing coequal to feminism?”

Note that Faludi does not dare risk either the ire of feminist females by suggesting that men can find salvation in feminist movement or rejection by potential male readers who are solidly antifeminist by suggesting that they have something to gain from engaging feminism. 

So far in our nation visionary feminist movement is the only struggle for justice that emphasizes the need to end patriarchy. 

No mass body of women has challenged patriarchy and neither has any group of men come together to lead the struggle.

 The crisis facing men is not the crisis of masculinity, it is the crisis of patriarchal masculinity. Until we make this distinction clear, men will continue to fear that any critique of patriarchy represents a threat. 

Distinguishing political patriarchy, which he sees as largely committed to ending sexism, therapist Terrence Real makes clear that the patriarchy damaging us all is embedded in our psyches:

“Psychological patriarchy is the dynamic between those qualities deemed “masculine” and “feminine” in which half of our human traits are exalted while the other half is devalued. Both men and women participate in this tortured value system. 

Psychological patriarchy is a “dance of contempt,” a perverse form of connection that replaces true intimacy with complex, covert layers of dominance and submission, collusion and manipulation. It is the unacknowledged paradigm of relationships that has suffused Western civilization generation after generation, deforming both sexes, and destroying the passionate bond between them.”

By highlighting psychological patriarchy, we see that everyone is implicated and we are freed from the misperception that men are the enemy. 

To end patriarchy we must challenge both its psychological and its concrete manifestations in daily life.

 There are folks who are able to critique patriarchy but unable to act in an antipatriarchal manner.

To end male pain, to respond effectively to male crisis, we have to name the problem. We have to both acknowledge that the problem is patriarchy and work to end patriarchy. 

Terrence Real offers this valuable insight: “The reclamation of wholeness is a process even more fraught for men than it has been for women, more difficult and more profoundly threatening to the culture at large.”

If men are to reclaim them essential goodness of male being, if they are to regain the space of openheartedness and emotional expressiveness that is the foundation of well-being, we must envision alternatives to patriarchal masculinity. We must all change.

#LAVENDER queen BEES #LAVENDER pioneers #LAVENDER basics patriarchy

[she-shall-conquer]

The Controversialism of Inequality

I dream of a day when the church will no longer piggy back on the latest trends. I dream of a time when the church prides itself at being better at Human Resource Management and Leadership than at Marketing. What’s new right? John Donne has been saying this for (literally) centuries! The Bible has been pretty constant about it’s messages regarding the treatment of people, and yet only now is the church getting “woke”? Excuse me if I doubt your intentions… (however necessary and faux-noble). But also, how can you raise the race issue without bringing up the topic of gender? To be clear: Racial Inequality is a REAL issue and should be discussed and I’m glad that the topic is coming up, but why did it take BLM to make it happen? I’m pretty sure (absolutely certain) that the biggest contention of prejudice addressed in the New Testament was, you guessed it, racism… Now if we do the math: The Bible is one of the best selling books of all time, one of the most translated books of all time, and the fact that a vast majority of the colonized world was colonized by “Christian” nations. Therefore, this colonization should prides itself in establishing the least racist places, with the most selfless and loving cultures and have a great deal of generosity with perhaps a slightly lower poverty gap.

Oh, wait…

That’s right, folks, we stuffed up real good on this one… And how I wish we could all return to the genuine authenticity that I read about constantly. It pains me so greatly. Its like reading Narnia and knowing that Narnia exists, so you go to Narnia and it’s Game of Thrones. Man, oh man, the disappointment. This being said, there are a lot of missionaries and missionary schools that have done a world of good, people with pure hearts and altruistic intentions — these have been besmirched and thrown out with the dirty, grimy bathwater of exploitation, greed, and contempt. Furthermore, there are countless arguments, sides to the story, and this is a very real discussion with personal implications that needs to be had amongst brothers and sisters (in Christ) in practice and in community. Just a note — if you want to effectively teach people anything, psychologically, just talking at people is possibly the worst way to do it (just saying); it’s an organizational problem that requires change and development of an entire culture. This is a debate for another day and a more researched perspective/argument.

I believe it’s important to note that Christianity was never meant to be a social revolution, there are no colour codes or banners or marches or slogans. I don’t believe that Christianity supports slavery, I mean William Wilberforce was motivated to end the slave-trade because of his faith, but it speaks about slavery and how to treat your slaves/masters. This might be confusing at first approach. From my understanding what I see is that respect, love, and one’s heart were far more important than moral absolutes, which completely does in my need for justice.

Y'all got any more of that… Captain America?

But the New Testament is also excruciatingly clear about how people in the church should treat each other. If the Body of Christ (the Church) is family, it should be the safest place, it should b the place where you can be most yourself, and where people can be most honest with you about which parts of yourself are good and bad. It’s all part of the constructive learning process. In the New Testament, the bad parts of people were confronted when they were, in no uncertain terms, told to stop being so prejudiced. They were told to stop treating rich people better than poor people, told to stop treating Jews better than non-Jews, even Jesus treated the sinner and saint with the same love and dignity — a little less dignity, but still love, towards the proud and the hypocritical. From these values arose the declaration that in Christ there is no longer man nor woman, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile. These are arguably the three ‘-isms’ that have wrought the greatest havoc on our current world and society and have been proponents of the greatest evils: racism, sexism, and classism (I see you there, Mr. Marx). Abolished and condemned along with the sins of the world are our prejudices and our shortcomings. But as a Western Charismatic church, I do not believe we have established a church culture that is free of these things, but maybe in our attempt to address the racism in our church culture, these other two will also surface.

Please understand that this piece of writing is not so much about what the practical outworking of it is as much as it is the value structure that influences how we treat people, built into our cognition. If we can work towards addressing that, I believe the practical outworking will follow, or be addressed at a later stage, perhaps by someone else. Inequality, and subsequent abuse, on a broad scale is often the result of an inherent cultural cognition that places features on a value hierarchy: rich are more valuable than poor, white are more valuable than non, men are more valuable than women (as per history’s norm). This is what I would like to address.

Gender inequality is not the “burn your bra” brigade or anything that God-fearing Christians should be afraid of, it’s a commitment to seeing the restoration and empowerment of women — she that gave birth to you. And apparently, I’m not the only one that uses this point — in fact, it wasn’t my point to begin with, it’s the Apostle Paul’s. After the section in 1 Corinthians where he’s done talking about not letting women speak and disrupting everything by asking questions about things they don't know (you know that part where he says they should rather ask the questions at home instead of disrupting the prayer meeting, which really has a lot to do with a lack of education) he speaks about God’s view of women, where there is no hierarchical difference. Woman was made of man, but man is born of a woman. This is gender inequality, where we refuse to see the perspective and heart of God, where God uses people equally, and views people equally — what we ask is that the hierarchy of value be eliminated from, at least, our church culture so that we can start to put an end to the ghastly horrors of violence against women.

Is violence against men a reality? Yes, undoubtedly, yes! But statistics show that a vast majority of victims are female, and of those females, it is more than likely perpetrated by a male. So instead of doing the dumb pretense of guilt thing that we do so often when we finally realize we have been wrong, let us be motivated by guilt (which focuses on others and their suffering) and not shame (which focuses on ourselves). These errors in judgement and culture are pointed out to help us all grow.

The South African news has been rife with stories of rape, murder, abduction, and abuse of women, and these are only a few of the stories. Women in Sub-Saharan African have a 1 in 3 (36.6%) chance of experiencing gender-based violence in their life time, a region with the third highest prevalence in the world. Something has got to give. How can we idly stand by and just send condolences, Facebook-React with a teary face, share, re-tweet, like, or change our profile picture? It’s deeper, friends, far deeper. When will we stop and re-evaluate our culture, our societal norms? How many more of our children, our aunties, our nieces, our students, our girlfriends, our best friends, our dear loved ones must bear the burden of abuse before we start to relook at our culture? If you like me, have stumbled upon the disillusionment of discord, between what you believe, what you read about, compared to what you see in practice, here are a few considerations I humbly ask you to think about, to look into, and to build upon:

Step 1: A Product of Your Society

Research says the relationship between culture and language and cognition is reciprocal, you influence your culture and your culture influences you, and your language shapes your culture and cognition just as your culture shapes your language and your way of thinking. To understand that our value system is a much deeper social construct than our individual upbringing and our own choices and beliefs is a necessity in bringing change. Culture is so very nuanced and so very fundamental to our entire being that we cannot just make a decision to separate it from our way of life, we cannot learn information or even practices that might entirely change the way we think. Even the way we talk influences how we think and therefore what we do, this is why “locker room talk” is a problem, because language shapes culture and cognition and cognition shapes language and culture. I’m not suggesting that we just keep our mouths shut for fear of saying the wrong thing or go on a witch hunt for bad statements, but rather let’s be open to having a brother or sister give helpful, loving feedback on our comments. This can in turn help us to recognize underlying prejudices in our cognition that we were perhaps unaware of. This is not to say that you are not to be held responsible for your prejudices, but let’s all remember that dehumanizing people solves nothing at all. We should all recognise that along with our culture and our upbringing, there are certain values that come along and form apart of our cognitions and processing mechanisms — ones we need to be open to addressing and mending. This is not easy, but if we’re all on the same team of Love, Kindness, and Respect, it makes it a lot easier. This of course, on top of the fact that we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds?

Step 2: Right/Wrong are Contextual Variables

A team can be a lot more effective when half the team doesn’t have to run with a limp (or a pair of heels/a dress, ya know). It may be crudely comparable to a soccer game where half the team keeps getting carded for using too much of their hips while running, or flicking their hair too inappropriately, or their shorts being too short, or their laces not being long enough, or whatever ridiculous reason is being used for why the other team keeps scoring. The team would (or should) no doubt be up in arms, because of how it hinders their effectiveness to play the game, which is of course the main point. It may also be like saying that certain demographic categories of players may only be in the team as subs, none of them are ever allowed to be in the starting line-up, but they’ll be used if there’s no one else left. This is not a good strategic move to enable the goal to be achieved. And for some real talk, if we had to put all the highest earning players in the starting line up, it might be that we have selected the best players, but why would we make that a rule and sell ourselves short of employing the best strategy of players and placement based on their strengths and ability according to the context? I’ll not insult your intelligence by explaining just how we do exactly this in the church/societal norms. We forget that there is a great deal of contextualization apparent int he Bible. God remains the same, his heart and values remain unchanged, but in certain situations an action is wrong and in other situations it is right. If we look at the Bible purely as a book of moral absolutes of course there will be irreconcilable contradictions.

One of the reasons I dislike personality test is because they always ask for absolutes, of which I have none in my life. There is no one action that I will always take regardless of circumstance. We all have circumstantial decisions and choices we have made dependent on our values and beliefs. Often our values remain unchanged, be it principle based or outcomes based, even though our decisions differ. What am I getting at? We need to mine the various accounts of the God we serve, as well as personally invest time and devotion, to know His heart, and His values (if serving and following Him is something we want to do), and then, with His mercy and guidance, start to evaluate our current practices and see if they really are as Gospel-oriented as we think they are, and if they are in line with His values. In the culture of the time, I understand, let the educated people teach the other people. So in that case, women don’t teach, right? But if the church is family and family is where you should be most yourself, if women can’t lead or teach, how can you substantiate women studying management, or women being CEOs or presidents, or women being lecturers? It’s a cognitive dissonance that needs to be re-evaluated. Perhaps you don't agree with women being in these “secular positions”. Why? Is it possible that where the church has failed to press on with the agenda and has been crippled and sidetracked by secondary issues that the world has caught up? Let us examine our context in light of His Heart.

Step 3: The Talking Listening Cure

I referenced Freud in this step, but it really has nothing to do with him, except for his novel idea of talking through situations and circumstances in order to understand and reach a conclusion. What he really did, was listen. So should we. Of course I don’t know everything and I never will, not even about this particular issue. I do however know that it’s not so much about the philosophy as much as it is about having and acting upon values that will shape my relationships with those around me. We are focused on the goal of love, but how do we love? This is the question we need to be continually asking. To love is to pay attention, to listen, to hear, to move towards understanding and to value (love your neighbor as you love yourself). May we not only learn to listen, but may a deep yearning and desire to listen be born within our hearts and minds, may we be malleable and teachable. Let’s start the conversations in the closets of our homes, leaning in to hear the heart of the Almighty, and looking at the Bible more holistically and in context, never losing sight of the main point: Love, Truth, Light, Hope — Jesus. And then, take it one step at a time, speaking to those closest to you, then slowly broadening the topic to your community. This may help in emphasizing that is not a “Femi-Nazi rampage” but rather an honest questioning of how to love and value others better, from the very core of our hearts and minds, which will then change how we act, what we say, and how we treat those that are ‘different’ to us.

Final Thoughts

We don’t choose these things when we are born, I didn’t decide to be born a woman, or be born with my skin colour, or be born into the social class that I was, but yet, these are things people use to attribute value to me, each with their own measurement sticks (or pencils)… We all do it to a degree, and we all have it done to us to a degree. This is not my plight to be valued or recognized, this is my questioning of our culture and values that ultimately shape how we treat others and how we mistreat others.

You want to know why #MenAreTrash? Not because you as a man are trash, but because societal values and norms more often than not establish a value hierarchy that enables men to abuse women. The concept of a man that is often taught and learned is trash. Yes, it is a generalisation, but that’s kind of how statistics work. For all the things men are allowed to say or do, even with harmless intentions, that shapes culture and in turn shapes other men, that spirals to rape, murder, abuse, that concept of a man is trash. This is a desperate plea for men and women alike to relook at what you do, why you do it, and what your underlying cognitions are — this is a call to re-examination of values, particularly in the church.

I’m not asking us to revolt, I’m asking us to structure our organization, the church, differently, where we remain true to his heart and the call He has placed upon us. I ask that we move towards a church that exemplifies the heart of God, where everyone has equal value and equal ability to contribute, regardless of race, gender, or socio-economic status/class.

I hold no sway in formal church structures, mostly because I’m young, and a woman, and not married to an elder, (give or take) so in the spirit of using what I have to do the best I can, I aim to start exploring this topic in greater detail, through research, through art, and through engagement/conversation.

#woke

[930club]

ALBUM REVIEW: Carly Rae Jepsen - Dedicated

A little less than four years since the release of her commercially successful and critically-acclaimed album, Emotion, Carly Rae Jepsen returns with another album of certified pop anthems. Dedicated proves that Jepsen has not lost a step. In fact, on her most recent effort, she and her producers crafted the most crystalline version of the Carly Rae Jepsen aesthetic to date, masterfully combining elements of ‘80s pop and early ‘00s dance music with modern production techniques to create a uniquely contemporary pop album.

Jepsen wastes no time providing listeners with an anthem as evidenced by the album’s opening track, “Julien.” The song begins with a synth line that sounds as if it just reached Earth from Mars and Jepsen’s perfectly hushed voice sings lovelorn lines like, “Another bad dream when you were running away / I’m forever haunted by our time.” Halfway through this first verse, the drums kick in and digitally-pitched samples of Jepsen’s own voice sit low in the mix – as if they are the artist’s own hidden demons and anxieties – lending the largely upbeat song an underlying sadness. By the time the chorus comes, though, it is nearly impossible to focus on anything other than the incredibly infectious call-and-response melody that she dedicates to none other than “Julien.”

Perhaps no song on the album illustrates Jepsen’s penchant for blending the old with the new better than the fifth track, “Everything He Needs.” Opened again by a synth line probably played by a pensive extraterrestrial, the song eventually turns to instruments even your grandparents will recognize. Specifically, the first verse is driven by a catchy combination of piano and bass. Slowly, the synths reemerge, as do the pitched vocals, and, before you know it, a chorus of Carly Raes who all sing in different registers are filling the sonic field, recounting the story of a man who loved her more than she loved him. Contrary to her heartsick character in “Julien,” Jepsen is in a position of power on “Everything He Needs,” and it is abundantly clear that she knows it.

Overall, Dedicated is an incredibly carefully-constructed record that features production credits from an all-star cast that includes Jack Antonoff, Noah Breakfast of Chiddy Bang, and CJ Baran. On some songs, the piano that provided the first verse’s harmonic structure is swapped out for a synth or guitar by the time the second verse arrives. While this neurotic attention to detail may seem hardly noticeable, it gives the songs on the record a constant renewed freshness that listeners may subconsciously appreciate more than they realize. Furthermore, it gives the songs endless replay value borne not only from the album’s undeniable pop aesthetic, but also from the production’s unlimited intricacies.

On each of her albums thus far, Jepsen has appeared on the cover alone, and Dedicated is no different.  So far, Jepsen has built a career – and an incredibly successful one at that – by crafting lovelorn (perhaps even lonely) songs that sound joyful. Fittingly, her newest record concludes with “Party For One,” a confident affirmation of herself regardless of what her would-be lover thinks. Dedicated and its contents are logical progressions in Jepsen’s career.  All the way back from the inherent uncertainty of her breakthrough hit, “Call Me Maybe,” Jepsen has written about the dubious, fleeting nature of love and attraction, something she continues on her most recent effort. If “Party For One” is any indication, however, she will be just fine whether or not the object of her affection ultimately ends up calling.

- Matthew Hirsch

#Album Review #New Music #Carly Rae Jepsen #Dedicated #Julien #Everything He Needs #Party For One #Matthew Hirsch

[evergreen-soul]

The Distressful Allegory of Discovering my Career Path

Michelle Viloria

Purpose: Writing Sample

Introduction Class

August 22, 2017

            For the majority of my life I had always been organized and determined to achieve my goals. At a young age, I developed admirance for the way health care professionals provided help to the ailing, despite age, hierarchy or ethnicity. I was astonished that one could make an affluent living by simply caring for others and bettering their lives. Logically, my mind was set on the path of pursuing medicine. I progressed through life and my studies with a fixated goal to which i was determined to achieve. After years of diligent research on the pediatric field, I was certain on my readiness to embark on the 11 year collegiate journey required in becoming a licensed pediatrician. I was tailoring my high school classes toward a major that corresponded with my intended profession until I abruptly found myself lost in the depths of an existential cataclysm.

It was my junior year of high school. The year known for being the most stressful and nerve wracking of all four. It was the year a student was expected to be taking rigorous college prep courses, applying to colleges, studying for the SAT’s, weekly tests and essentially preparing for the rest of your life. Moreover, said student was expected to maintain a healthy diet, hygiene & social life, all while receiving a substantial amount of rest per night and being active in extracurriculars, seems simple right? Of course we can’t neglect the students parental unit, notorious for bombarding remarks about cleaning their room and doing the dishes instead of recovering the rest sacrificed to studying the night prior. Being oblivious to these upcoming adversities and due to my inherent passion and optimism for academia, I commenced my junior year with vibrant enthusiasm regarding my several AP classes. Prioritizing immense workload and tormenting deadlines over my own health, I progressed through the first semester of my junior year with poor strategies. I was receiving 3 hours of rest per night and relying on high doses of caffeine in order to surmount the subsequent school day. I found myself transitioning into academic machinery, utterly emotionless, monotone and my diet and sleep routine solely consisted of the bare minimum required to survive. I expended my remaining energy on completing each night's assigned workload and making another cup of coffee. The only ounce of self care I took part in was allowing for brief moments of rest when applicable, this left little room for outlets of enjoyment.  My loved ones became concerned for the toll that these habits would inevitably unveil. Despite their unease, I was rendered sightless in a desperate state of in denial. I insisted on fortifying an unrealistic concept of balance that i yearned for internally. Although being one I had never anticipated, the most detrimental adversity occurred in the midst of the chaos. I gradually grew distant with my faith and as a result this eliminated any remnants of hope and motivation that lingered within myself.

To no astonishment, my physical health deteriorated as i continued to advance through the year. My undeviating lack of sleep ensued a constant state of low energy by default, an unwavering lethargy and poor social skills attributed to my absence of interest or motivation for anything other than rest. I was utterly hopeless and simply striving to get through each mind numbing obstacle that prevented me from returning to the solace of my bed. I awoke every morning distressed at the sight of sunlight peering through my blinds, as this entailed another day of compliance. Eventually my daily routine became mechanical and involuntary,  everything from showering to walking to school was a hurdle, an irrational yet unbearable internal battle i wasn’t sure i could overcome yet proceeded to endure mindlessly, simply because that’s what other people did. These overwhelming daily hurdles were tasks expected of all students, this being said, i spent hours desperately contemplating why these were particularly difficult for myself to overcome. This ongoing frustration soon ingrained feelings of worthlessness, disappointment and self loathing.  Despite the daily battle of having to face the unrelenting emptiness, i proceeded to let my loved ones be oblivious to the gravity of my despair and simply attributed my disinterest and gradual distance to my substandard sleep habits. I spent each day feeding a facade that was silently eating away at me. In a bittersweet prosperity, i had succeeded. Absolutely no one, had noticed that the light in my eyes had gone out.

To contribute to these disheartening series of events, came an inconvenient epiphany. In the midst of embracing the planes of my emotional solitude, although I was unsure of how to find happiness again, I was certain that I would not find it in pursuing a profession in medicine. As an individual who has incessantly identified with habitual organization and structured goals, I had developed a fixated vision of my desired career path. Due to this adamant notion, this newly found consensus of uncertainty rendered me spiraling into a state of turmoil with utmost severity.  

As predicted, the anticipated toll  arrived as the year came to an end.  I completed the year in a spiraling nature plagued by immense confusion and a conceivable diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) along with an anxiety disorder (GAD) and Panic Disorder, which confined me to several involuntary hospitalizations and psych ward transfers.

On a much lighter note, although i cannot declare that these were in fact a misdiagnosis,  I can fortunately say that I am undergoing medication and intensive treatment in an effort to repossess my life. Can I say that i’m happy? No. Can I say that I overcame that introductory hurdle to mental illness that many never got the chance to? Yes.  Although I am admittedly not the familiar enthusiastic spirit I was prior to these events, I can confidently attest that I have learned more about myself than i ever thought possible. In the midst of the abyss that was my mental stature, and within the countless installments of disassociation and forgotten purpose, I was exposed to a significant lesson-one to which would resonate with me perpetually. Promptly, the confusion and distress that had afflicted me daily, had ceased.  Within the damaged networks of my mind, a brief yet momentous period of clarity had manifested itself into existence. I discovered the value of embracing the peace encompassed within the unknown. I became aware that directing my energy toward accomplishing set goals and desired incentives were utterly meaningless and served as merely underlying factors when seeking happiness and self fulfillment. It occurred to me for the first time in my life, that it was acceptable to not have everything figured out. Upon this awareness, a weight was instantaneously lifted from my chest. It became apparent that the path of uncertainty was to my astonishment, manifested as a more desirable condition-instead of being distressful, burdensome and therefore additional evidence of my own incompetence.  The state of not knowing was no longer a stressor nor ignorance but rather an embodiment of liberation.  

Although a catastrophic concept among asian academic culture along with my own onset beliefs, I learned that the exploration of  life’s various opportunities performed as a more beneficial and educational route than pursuing previously set fixations in order to guarantee safety. A common misconception fails to acknowledge a paradox within this unpopular design; the definite elimination of conventional walls rather than the creation of additional obstacles when striving for genuine happiness. What if in reality your safety net was in fact acting as a driftnet? A figurative prison floating through the sea of life’s vast opportunities, awaiting release within the enclosures of doubt within your mind.

There presents a great irony in how those who have lived and done more than the rest of us, are most tormented by the brief instances in which they simply did nothing at all. For the sake of preventing the influence of primary biases, I have no intentions to conceal the risks responsible for deeming this concept vastly unorthodox, even blasphemous among average scholars. Although advancing through one’s life in this manner surely entails an expensive risk, it is accompanied by invaluable wisdom. When asking an elder upon the rearmost stages of their life of their utmost regrets, the most common responses were regarding the decisions in which they never acted upon. These actions which were never fabricated into existence do not simply vanish upon loss of opportunity, they discover vitality lingering as a ghost in your conscience, haunting an individual's memory and manifesting itself as repentance. By choosing a path that promotes a greater chance of whole hearted decisions, This ensures a more accomplished livelihood.  Regrets are decreased significantly as one who exhibits fundamental control over the changes in their lives is more likely to sustain authority over their own fulfillment.  As originally theorized by psychologist  Julian B. Rotter, an internal locus of control is strongly linked to an increase in an individual's quality of life. From a brief  analysis of Rotter’s data one can begin to create an implication that undergoing a lifestyle with little regret is in fact ideal and something we should all strive for. Without risks the pursuit and purpose of finding the meaning of life itself is invalidated and essentially eradicated by those who submit to conformity. This introduced the idea that perhaps the risk is greater when choosing the safest proposal.

To conclude the distressful allegory that was discovering my career path, my goal in the next 5 years is to be nothing short of utter and unapologetic happiness. I intend to work part time for the duration of my senior year in hopes of shortly moving out following my graduation along with bidding farewell to my financial dependency along with becoming the primary guardian of my younger sister while my parents deservingly enjoy their retirement residing in the Philippines. I plan on sharing a living space with close friends in order to efficiently meet the demands of rent as a working student. I intend on beginning my collegiate experience of 2 years of community college at De Anza, with intentions of transferring to Southern California for the remaining years and graduating from a university. As much as I would have coveted for a more conventional response to this prompt, this is one that renders most true to the heart. I learned that in order to genuinely find yourself, you first have to completely lose yourself. Caution is to be expected when being exceptionally vulnerable and raw, however, the utility of adversities to your advantage results in a refining effect rather than a detrimental one. After the smoke cleared it became apparent that the debris left amidst the rubble were far more valuable than anything the storm could have initially destroyed.  Whichever direction in life this may encompass remains another glorious uncertainty that the universe grants us the good fortune of witnessing unfold. Before I found myself spiraling involuntarily, plunging directionless and simply anticipating the impact. In my newly found perception, I am choosing to free fall, releasing my inhibitions, embracing the possibilities, and in that choice- lies all the difference.

Prompt: Where do you wish to see yourself in 5 years? 

#mdd #gad #panic disorder #depression #personal essay #you are not alone