#while ALSO existing in a society where women (even married women) have to work demanding jobs to deal with the high cost of living

[cakemoney]

i don't want to put my uninformed foot in my mouth or get involved with the Discourse but i've been seeing the two extremes of reactions to the korean low birth rates issue (on tumblr and twitter both) and i'm just kind of like. look. i feel like "low birth rates (in many countries but especially japan and korea as part of this conversation) are more broadly the result of capitalism/a culture of overwhelming overwork that makes social relationships and having families incredibly inaccessible to young people" and "low birth rates are very much a part of the current conversation about misogyny and social expectations for women in korea especially in the context of reproduction as 'unpaid labor' for women" are statements that can both be true

#laughs awkwardly #gender #especially considering the ways patriarchal expectations and capitalism very much intersect in terms of quality of life for women #ex. women being expected to have kids / raise kids / do all the housework and cooking in a relationship #while ALSO existing in a society where women (even married women) have to work demanding jobs to deal with the high cost of living #AND women are systemically discriminated against in terms of pay / job availability / work environment and harassment #all of these things add up. these conversations are not opposing points of view. you know? #and also like. not super comfortable with how TERFs are discussed in terms of non-white cultures #TERFism / radfems as a MOVEMENT (and a cult) is very much rooted in white supremacy / ideals of womanhood #again. multiple things can be true at the same time. yes i do see (from my perspective involved in taiwanese social media) #some east asian feminists engage in transphobia in ways that approach radfem rhetoric ('women are victims of men' 'men are predators' #type generalized sentiments which you can imagine gains a lot of traction among women traumatized by patriarchy) #but movement-wise i don't think it's fair (or just in good faith) to generalize radical feminists from non-white countries #to straight up TERFs. which again. rooted in white supremacy. keep feeling like i have to remind people it doesn't make sense #for asians to be white supremacists and that not all oppression on earth stems directly from white people. you weirdos #'what are you talking about' in east asia the type of feminist statements called 'radical' are stuff like. #women shouldn't have to wear make up every time they go outside. women shouldn't be expected to do all housework. #should men pay for women on dates. debates that i think in the states we kind of take for granted as stuff settled years ago #even if some feminists might be transphobic it's not necessarily Transphobia As Core Tenets Of The Movement. does anyone get the difference #basically what i'm saying is. wow these tags got long. maybe let's not apply uniform standards of 'correct language and values' #to non-white people and attack them when as all movements they are fluid and influenced by the people living in it #TERF-style transphobia is not the predestined course for them. maybe it's more productive to have open discussions about transphobia #to work towards inclusivity and solidarity in these movements than to prescribe White Internet Morality to them #and declare that they're evil when they are still very much having conversations that need to be had. thanks i think that's all #essentially. i find that 'how dare a non-american movement not have morally pristine vocabulary priorities and membership #as determined by white leftists' to be in itself kinda a racist attitude

[haggishlyhagging]

It has been said that female separatism is radical feminism's natural and logical conclusion. Most radical feminists have chosen not to follow their politics all the way to that end and do what they can to avoid, ignore, or deny it. Anti-separatist feminists engage in what has been called "thought termination," meaning the act of refusing to follow one's own thoughts to their logical conclusions, in order to justify their decision to stay connected to males. They also encourage this thought termination in other women, wanting to undermine female separatism as a legitimate political and personal choice for their own selfish reasons.

When making political and feminist analysis or when attempting to determine in your own life if a particular decision is feminist or anti-feminist, it is useful to ask the ancient Roman legal question: "Cui bono?" or "Who benefits?" Of course, women do stand to gain certain rewards and privileges from engaging in male loyalism, misogyny, and anti-feminist actions, but whatever the matter at hand, an anti-feminist and anti-female decision will ultimately benefit males the most. When we ask "Who benefits the most?" from women and girls choosing to lead male-inclusive and male-centric lives, the answer is clear: males do.

The most recent studies have found that heterosexual marriage makes men happier and women more unhappy overall. The overwhelming majority of domestic labor and childcare continue to fall on the wife's shoulders in heterosexual marriage throughout the developed world, and this is true even while most married heterosexual women in developed countries work full-time throughout adulthood. Heterosexual and bisexual women openly admit to experiencing sex in their heterosexual relationships that ranges from inorgasmic and boring to violent, humiliating, and painful. Outside of heterosexual relationships, women and girls often find themselves on the losing side of unequal relationships with male family members and friends who take advantage of their labor, emotional and otherwise, and do not reciprocate or bother suppressing their sexism.

The power struggle between males and females has always been sexual, both in the carnal and reproductive sense. Even the word patriarchy rests on the sexual, social, and familial arrangements that exist in a predominantly heterosexual, mixed society where men and women live in constant contact with each other: rule of the father assumes that women and girls are in a position to be ruled, both socially and physically. It assumes the presence of a man.

Female separatism is the unavoidable, ultimate conclusion of radical feminist politics for the simple reason that separatism alone prevents the male objective driving men's oppression and domination of the female sex: using women and girls as sexual, domestic, social, and economic resources. If this is the point of patriarchy, how can anything other than female separatism be the solution to it? In a system where males already have all the power and control, women and girls will never be able to change their own status or achieve liberation from oppression through cooperating with males and granting them everything they demand.

Males want sexual access to female bodies above all else, and furthermore, they rely on women and girls to perform the domestic labor, social labor, and professional labor that keep men comfortable physically, emotionally, and psychologically. For thousands of years, men universally made sure that women and girls could not survive independently of them by locking us out of education, paid work, and the political arena and refusing to give us basic rights to own money and property. They knew and feared that if women had the option to survive and thrive apart from men, most of us would choose to do exactly that.

The only reason women now have the legal rights and protections that allow us to reject heterosexual marriage and motherhood is because we fought hard for those rights and protections over the course of at least a hundred years in developed countries, and we are still fighting all over the world, not only to gain what we lack but to protect what we have. Men have never yielded any political concessions to women willingly, easily, or readily. They have resisted us every step of the way, and they will never cease their attempts to take back the progress we've made.

If female separatism was of no consequence to the male sex, they wouldn't have spent all of recorded history making it virtually impossible. They wouldn't now be going out of their way to destroy any and all female-only spaces, both physical and digital, in the name of transgenderism. They would not have lorded physical and sexual violence over us since the beginning of time as punishment for our resistance and disobedience.

-Sekhmet She-Owl, “Female Separatism: The Feminist Solution” in Spinning And Weaving: Radical Feminism for the 21st Century

#Sekhmet She-Owl #female oppression #patriarchy #female separatism #radical feminist theory #male parasitism #male entitlement #male oppressors

[amethystbubbly]

The Role of the Pre-Colonial Filipina in the Philippines

Does Philippines have Patriarchal Society?

Only with disastrous entrance of the Spanish colonists, patriarchy was instituted. Traditionally indigenous Philippine society was reorganized by the Spaniards, who assigned and confined women to the home to care for the family and to do household work. As a result, the stereotype of the Filipina as a conservative, modest, and subservient person changed. However, the Filipina's inherent influence and power were not completely eliminated by such a colonialism transformation of the indigenous Philippine society's mentality and social and political framework.

The Philippines was considered the land of opportunity for feminism. women holding prominent positions in politics, succeeding in business, etc. Spanish colonization continues to influence the language, culture, and misogyny which Filipina women face within such a male-dominated society, even during the "post-colonial" era. Filipino families had carried down ideas about female inferiority from the colonial era unlike priceless jewels that are impossible to part with.

Women in the Pre-colonial era

The Philippines' well before society may best be described as egalitarian. Native Americans frequently saw each other as equals in their daily lives. Women frequently played major roles in their societies, making the decisions in such a variety of fields, including economics and politics. As just a result of both the native Filipinos' beliefs, which were based on connection and respect, sexism had never been a concept.

The Babaylan and Filipino Spirituality

Among the most important individuals in early Philippine history was the Babaylan. They served as intermediaries between both the two worlds because they were spiritual leaders with the capacity to interact with the spirit realm. Babaylan were categorized as holy priestesses, healers, and a wide variety of other supernatural beings because to their diverse range of skills. More significantly, the Babaylan took charge the religious activities including sacrifices and ceremonies and provided support for pain-free birthing. The Babaylan are virtually entirely female, especially the elders, while some transgender men also participated in the culture. Babaylan consistently led society in unison, where their abilities helped Datus fight off enemies. They had been regarded and regarded with the same respect as well as prestige as Datus (Leaders or Monarchs).

The indigenous folk religions of the Filipinos, which permitted women to lead religious activities, were frequently central to their pre-Christian beliefs. This framework held the possibility of the both parties coexisting as well as the existence of extraterrestrial species. The Babaylan were some of the folk healers who have been involved in pre-colonial traditions of divinity, relying heavily on and engaging in worship of nature spirits and deities.

Courtship and Familial Life

The courtship practices even before Spaniards show a stark contrast to contemporary Filipino views. Gender roles were nonexistent, therefore women were free to start relationships. However after marriage, Filipina women frequently retained their maiden names. When a husband was particularly well-known in the community, he would even take on her last name. Today's taboo subjects, like divorce, weren't as stigmatized, and there didn't seem to be as much pressure to maintain purity. Native Filipinos did not demand that women remain virgins or were intolerant against premarital sex.

Inside the pre-colonial era, fundamental basis of the marriage between a husband and wife was sincere companionship. Both parties contributed significantly to family decision-making rather than one dominating the other. In comparison to individuals in other East Asian countries, it was said that Filipina women enjoyed greater flexibility in their rights, including those relating to household issues and formal matters important to stability. Women who were married might still act independently and continue to perform their pre-marital civic responsibilities. Without the wife's permission, the husband had no authority to control or meddle in any of her property, businesses, or other personal concerns.

Although most parts of the Philippines did not clearly favor either a male or female offspring, children from the pre-colonial era did not experience discrimination. In contrast to gender, the validity of the offspring was a more crucial consideration. It frequently determined how much inheritance they were allowed to receive. Legitimate children inherit property from both their mothers and fathers equally, while it is unknown how much property is set aside for illegitimate children.

Families believe that every legally born child is truly deserving of opportunity for education and wealth accumulation. With in Tagalog dialect, gender-neutral phrases like "Anak" (Child) to refer to their children and other terms like "Siya" (They) to replace gendered pronouns are widely used.

Upper Elites

Men were expected to begin courtships now that upper-class Filipina women no longer did so. Similar to this, husbands were now permitted to interfere with their wives' private affairs, including buying or selling their wives' property. The colonial Filipina was helpless to that will in the Hispanic Philippines, unlike pre-colonial women who could leave inheritance to their children without involving her husband. Male preference for an offspring also started to emerge. Son and daughter were treated differently as a result, with the latter having limited access to the family's money.

Working Class

Despite the historical splendor of the egalitarian society in the Philippines being destroyed in affluent urban areas, working-class men and women maintained the traditional route. Both of the male and the lady shared responsibility for the family's concerns for domestic well-being and economic success. Relationships between men and women also contained traces of a matriarchal structure. Filipina women became noticeably better skilled in trading than their male counterparts during the colonial era. Due to their efforts, they were able to actively engage in trade and business and provide for their family. Men could take care of immediate needs, but it was usually women who snuck in lucrative strategies to raise their family's social and economic position.

References:

(2016) ‘DID YOU KNOW? Pre-Colonial Philippines’ Longstanding Tradition Of Women Leadership And Mysticism’, Filipino Women’s Network, 3 March [online] https://filipinawomensnetwork.org

Bautista, M.L.F.B. (1988) ‘Historical Influences on Gender Preference in the Philippines’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 19(1), p143-153 [online] https://www.jstor.org

FilipiKnow (2018) 10 Reasons Why Life Was Better In Pre-Colonial Philippines [Online] https://filipiknow.net/

[dwellordream]

“...A lone woman could, if she spun in almost every spare minute of her day, on her own keep a small family clothed in minimum comfort (and we know they did that). Adding a second spinner – even if they were less efficient (like a young girl just learning the craft or an older woman who has lost some dexterity in her hands) could push the household further into the ‘comfort’ margin, and we have to imagine that most of that added textile production would be consumed by the family (because people like having nice clothes!).

At the same time, that rate of production is high enough that a household which found itself bereft of (male) farmers (for instance due to a draft or military mortality) might well be able to patch the temporary hole in the family finances by dropping its textile consumption down to that minimum and selling or trading away the excess, for which there seems to have always been demand. ...Consequently, the line between women spinning for their own household and women spinning for the market often must have been merely a function of the financial situation of the family and the balance of clothing requirements to spinners in the household unit (much the same way agricultural surplus functioned).

Moreover, spinning absolutely dominates production time (again, around 85% of all of the labor-time, a ratio that the spinning wheel and the horizontal loom together don’t really change). This is actually quite handy, in a way, as we’ll see, because spinning (at least with a distaff) could be a mobile activity; a spinner could carry their spindle and distaff with them and set up almost anywhere, making use of small scraps of time here or there.

On the flip side, the labor demands here are high enough prior to the advent of better spinning and weaving technology in the Late Middle Ages (read: the spinning wheel, which is the truly revolutionary labor-saving device here) that most women would be spinning functionally all of the time, a constant background activity begun and carried out whenever they weren’t required to be actively moving around in order to fulfill a very real subsistence need for clothing in climates that humans are not particularly well adapted to naturally. The work of the spinner was every bit as important for maintaining the household as the work of the farmer and frankly students of history ought to see the two jobs as necessary and equal mirrors of each other.

At the same time, just as all farmers were not free, so all spinners were not free. It is abundantly clear that among the many tasks assigned to enslaved women within ancient households. Xenophon lists training the enslaved women of the household in wool-working as one of the duties of a good wife (Xen. Oik. 7.41). ...Columella also emphasizes that the vilica ought to be continually rotating between the spinners, weavers, cooks, cowsheds, pens and sickrooms, making use of the mobility that the distaff offered while her enslaved husband was out in the fields supervising the agricultural labor (of course, as with the bit of Xenophon above, the same sort of behavior would have been expected of the free wife as mistress of her own household).

...Consequently spinning and weaving were tasks that might be shared between both relatively elite women and far poorer and even enslaved women, though we should be sure not to take this too far. Doubtless it was a rather more pleasant experience to be the wealthy woman supervising enslaved or hired hands working wool in a large household than it was to be one of those enslaved women, or the wife of a very poor farmer desperately spinning to keep the farm afloat and the family fed. The poor woman spinner – who spins because she lacks a male wage-earner to support her – is a fixture of late medieval and early modern European society and (as J.S. Lee’s wage data makes clear; spinners were not paid well) must have also had quite a rough time of things.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of household textile production in the shaping of pre-modern gender roles. It infiltrates our language even today; a matrilineal line in a family is sometimes called a ‘distaff line,’ the female half of a male-female gendered pair is sometimes the ‘distaff counterpart’ for the same reason. Women who do not marry are sometimes still called ‘spinsters’ on the assumption that an unmarried woman would have to support herself by spinning and selling yarn (I’m not endorsing these usages, merely noting they exist).

E.W. Barber (Women’s Work, 29-41) suggests that this division of labor, which holds across a wide variety of societies was a product of the demands of the one necessarily gendered task in pre-modern societies: child-rearing. Barber notes that tasks compatible with the demands of keeping track of small children are those which do not require total attention (at least when full proficiency is reached; spinning is not exactly an easy task, but a skilled spinner can very easily spin while watching someone else and talking to a third person), can easily be interrupted, is not dangerous, can be easily moved, but do not require travel far from home; as Barber is quick to note, producing textiles (and spinning in particular) fill all of these requirements perfectly and that “the only other occupation that fits the criteria even half so well is that of preparing the daily food” which of course was also a female-gendered activity in most ancient societies. Barber thus essentially argues that it was the close coincidence of the demands of textile-production and child-rearing which led to the dominant paradigm where this work was ‘women’s work’ as per her title.

(There is some irony that while the men of patriarchal societies of antiquity – which is to say effectively all of the societies of antiquity – tended to see the gendered division of labor as a consequence of male superiority, it is in fact male incapability, particularly the male inability to nurse an infant, which structured the gendered division of labor in pre-modern societies, until the steady march of technology rendered the division itself obsolete. Also, and Barber points this out, citing Judith Brown, we should see this is a question about ability rather than reliance, just as some men did spin, weave and sew (again, often in a commercial capacity), so too did some women farm, gather or hunt. It is only the very rare and quite stupid person who will starve or freeze merely to adhere to gender roles and even then gender roles were often much more plastic in practice than stereotypes make them seem.)

Spinning became a central motif in many societies for ideal womanhood. Of course one foot of the fundament of Greek literature stands on the Odyssey, where Penelope’s defining act of arete is the clever weaving and unweaving of a burial shroud to deceive the suitors, but examples do not stop there. Lucretia, one of the key figures in the Roman legends concerning the foundation of the Republic, is marked out as outstanding among women because, when a group of aristocrats sneak home to try to settle a bet over who has the best wife, she is patiently spinning late into the night (with the enslaved women of her house working around her; often they get translated as ‘maids’ in a bit of bowdlerization. Any time you see ‘maids’ in the translation of a Greek or Roman text referring to household workers, it is usually quite safe to assume they are enslaved women) while the other women are out drinking (Liv. 1.57). This display of virtue causes the prince Sextus Tarquinius to form designs on Lucretia (which, being virtuous, she refuses), setting in motion the chain of crime and vengeance which will overthrow Rome’s monarchy. The purpose of Lucretia’s wool-working in the story is to establish her supreme virtue as the perfect aristocratic wife.

...For myself, I find that students can fairly readily understand the centrality of farming in everyday life in the pre-modern world, but are slower to grasp spinning and weaving (often tacitly assuming that women were effectively idle, or generically ‘homemaking’ in ways that precluded production). And students cannot be faulted for this – they generally aren’t confronted with this reality in classes or in popular culture. ...Even more than farming or blacksmithing, this is an economic and household activity that is rendered invisible in the popular imagination of the past, even as (as you can see from the artwork in this post) it was a dominant visual motif for representing the work of women for centuries.”

- Bret Devereaux, “Clothing, How Did They Make It? Part III: Spin Me Right Round…”

#bret devereaux #spinning #textiles #weaving #ancient #medieval #history #writing #slavery

[purple-goo-writes]

Where on Earth is MDC?

Chapter 1 

Richard “Dick” Grayson with all his 10 year old intelligence and circus know how was pretty sure of one thing and one thing only- there was no way his guardian, Bruce Wayne, was married. He may have grown up in a circus as an acrobat and wasn’t schooled the way kids were normally, after all most kids don’t have a circus clown teaching them math or a Lion Tamer teaching science- But he was not an idiot! Plus he was Robin! He helped Bats solve some pretty tough cases. He wasn’t letting Bruce try and pull the wool over his eyes! There was no way that Bruce Wayne was married-except maybe married to his work as a vigilante.

For one, Dick has never seen or heard evidence that Bruce was married or seeing someone in the whole two years he has been living in Wayne Manor as Bruce’s ward. Sure, Bruce claimed that his lovely wife was a globe trotter like her grandmother and rarely came home to roost due to how busy her schedule was... Dick called elephant-dung on that. There is no way some socialite would be out exploring the world when they could be hanging off Bruce’s arm gossiping at all the galas and parties Bruce had to hold for his business. Though he is only guessing that this is how high society women act due to only seeing this behavior from Bruce’s investor’s wives, dates and daughters. 

He does find it odd that no one comments on Bruce never bringing a date to his own galas or other social functions. And that everyone when meeting Bruce glance at the odd silver ring Bruce always wears in place of a wedding band before giving those weird sympathy looks and subtle glances amongst themselves. Adults seemed to have their own language when it comes to greeting each other that Dick hasn’t been able to decipher yet. Though the Not-Wedding Ring doesn’t always detour the newer social climbing women from flirting with his guardian or trying to seduce him. Dick has been used many times as a human shield against said women and has come to accept/resent his fate.

Two, the young Robin has never seen so much as a tiny photo of the so called Mrs. Wayne! There are no portraits or photos in the manor that he has seen. While Alfred assures him that Bruce carries on with him every where, Dick hasn’t ever seen it not even after slipping away with Bruce’s wallet, just like Jackie taught him to do with the really rude patrons that came to the circus when he was younger. He made sure to return the wallet! He just wanted to see if maybe Bruce had a tiny photo in there like he had seen other men do, like how The Strong Man carried pictures of his husband and children around in his wallet. But, there was no picture in the wallet except for the one of him, Alfred and Bruce together in a family photo. When he saw the photo, Dick had teared up cause this meant Bruce did see him as family and not as an charity case like everyone at the Academy liked to say he was. Alfred claimed that the Misses was simply too busy to pose for a portrait to be painted and always preferred to be the one taking the photos anyway. While Alfred has never lied to him, Dick is still not convinced.

And three, Dick couldn’t find any mention of a Mrs. Marinette Wayne anywhere! Not even with the Batcomputer! All he could ever find was the latest travel logs of some woman named Marinette Dupain-Cheng, also known as the fashion designer MDC. Sure there were odd newspaper clippings now and then speculating when Mrs. Wayne would be returning from abroad. But those were not concrete evidence of her so-called existence! Honestly, it was starting to drive Dick up the wall with not being able to find anything about or on his guardian’s absent wife! 

The ten year old was this close to throwing a tantrum like no other in demand to get answers. How was everyone convinced that Bruce was married? If he was, then where in the world was Mrs. Wayne?! Cause, Dick would really like to meet her. If only to shut up the voice in his head that was worried that if She was real that she would have Bruce send him away. After all a Circus Freak didn’t belong in High Society. Though Dick was starting to worry if Bruce was really a widower and his way of coping with the grief was to pretend that his wife was still alive and just on an extended road trip...

Though if that was the case then why would Alfred go along with it? Maybe Dick needed to go take a look in the Wayne Family Cemetery just to make sure...

Dick was broken from his musings by Alfred coming into the Manor’s library and clearing his throat, “Master Richard, Master Bruce wishes to see you in the Family Parlor Room. There is someone here he wishes for you to meet.”

That puzzled the child sidekick, but he simply shrugged and nodded, “Alright, Alfie!” Before hopping up from his chair and leaving the book he had been reading in the seat as Dick darted out of the room excited to meet someone new. Maybe it was one of Bruce’s lawyer friends again! Like Dent, who was nice and for some reason liked to comment on how much Dick looks just like Bruce in that odd teasing tone all of Bruce’s actual friends use when they learn he took Richard in. Honestly, Dick isn’t sure what is so funny about the fact that he looks like Bruce. Genetics are weird and he still refuses to try and understand them. 

When Dick skidded into the Family Parlor Room, he was not expecting what happened next. Not at all. Because before Dick could even ask Bruce who was there, the ten year old was being swept up in a flurry of chiffon and lace as a lovely French accented voice started cooing over the tiny child in her arms. Dick would forever deny the startled squeak he let out and the fact that he blushed as red as his uniform top when he managed to get a good look at his captor. The person holding him could only be described as a heavenly beauty with long silky black-nearly blue hair and bright expressive blue eyes that exuded motherly love whilst she held him close in a gentle hug. Her smile made Dick think of the sun shining out from the clouds after weeks of rain and it radiated love, love that he could tell was aimed at him even though they had just meet. It reminded him so much of his own mother’s smile that Dick had started to tear up.

“Hello, ma petite colombe, it’s so lovely to finally meet you,” the heavenly being cooed at him, gently cradling the child closer with a gentle smile, “Bruce has told me so much about you. I’m so glad I can finally welcome you to the family.”

Marinette simply held her son, yes her son because even if he was not adopted yet Marinette already loved him like her own, close as the little boy broke down and started crying as he clung to Marinette returning the hug. She could tell he was relieved that she accepted him, honestly she warned her silly husband that Dick may be worried about her not liking him. Really, her silly love was just as silly as her Papa at times. She shook her head and tugged Bruce into the hug as well, so that he could reassure their little dove that they loved him and he was welcome in their family and home. Mari loved Bruce, but he was sometimes slow on how to approach emotional situations.

#mominette #brucinette #serial adopter bruce wayne #globe trotter marinette

[just-someone-who-likes-to-write]

...Story Imagine...

((Vampire AU with Loki))

It's the 18Th Century, (Y/n) and her family we attending a ball, which was held by her father's many associate. As many women of that Era it was frowned upon a woman who spoke her mind, didn't smile, don't act shy, and most importantly if they were not we'd by a certain young age, which (Y/n) had past, as she was soon entering her 20s. Her little sister, however, was finally entering her 14, making her one of the most eligible young women to marry off, which earned her their mother's complete attention. Their father was different, he didn't care much for the ideas of marriage his wife followed, he loved both his daughters, he was the one who taught (Y/n) to read and write when she asked for it, provided books to expand her knowledge, and when she said how the person asking for her hand was not to her liking he always put his foot down against her mother and rejected the man. Her mother always threw a tantrum on how it was inappropriate for her to be literate, read such "Masculine" books instead of learning broidery like women her age should.

Years oast she had grown older her mother ignored her and focused on her younger sister, who her mother made sure she wouldn't be "infected" like she had, and so her younger sister became the "Perfect" woman any man would want. While her mother was flaunting her younger sister completely ignoring her, she kept glancing around the ball in boredom, her father already drunk with other men laughing and having fun. As for her she was standing behind her mother and other women, who had nothing interesting to talk of, jus looking around and gossiping.

Until they grew quite when the door opened announcing a late arrivals to the party. (Y/n) didn't not look as she didn't care, but she could her the women talking about how these people were new nobles who moved from their country for a better life and profit, and how both sons were still single making the young girls in the group to giggle in excitement. And that made (Y/n) intrigued and she looked up, eyes widened slightly when she caught the small family of 4, they were far away and surrounded by people so it was difficult to have a clear look . One of the women who knew their story started to explain. The father with one eyes, used to lead soldiers when his country was at war, which earned him a title. No body knew a lot of the mother, but from her grace and beauty she was a high member of woman society, as with a single smile she could women anyone's heart. The elder son,who many women swooned over, wanted to follow his father's footsteps, as he trained every day since he was a child making him a one man army. The younger brother, followed his mother's footsteps of being one of the most influential members of society, with a few words he'd have anyone wrapped around his fingers.

Hearing all that, (Y/n)'s mother was determined to ensure her younger sister be part of that family. And so like many other women, she waited patiently for an opportunity to introduce herself. (Y/n) didn't want anything to do with her mother's pathetic plan and so she found herself a sofa, which thankfully wasn't preoccupied since many women rushed in to meet the sons of the soldier.

As (Y/n) was minding her own business, she didn't notice when a man came towards her and introduced himself. He asked for a dance, which she declined, then started conversation on various subject and that didn't matter to the you g lady, thinking he was showing his knowledge but it did catch (Y/n)'s Attention when he started asking for her thoughts in the matter, and seemed pleased when she spoke her mind. Having a better look at the stranger (Y/n) found him quite charming. Thier fun was short lived when her mother barged in on thier conversation, which wasn't knew since her mother made it a habit to come and make the gentlemen's attention om her sister, however, was did suprise her is when her mother started acting... Nice to her in front of the man, she still introduced her sister who stared daggers at her direction, but this time she acknowledged her.

As they talked, the gentlemen seemed put off by her mother who didn't seem to get the hint that he wasn't interested in dancing with her younger sister, instead he turned and asked (Y/n) for a dance, and it surprised her since all men always preferred her sister. But her mood was ruined by her mother's actions, she didn't want to be forced to dance and act nice because of her mother, she wanted to be acknowledged willingly, and so she declined. The gentlemen seemed to have understood her sudden shift of mood, and so he excused himself, not before saying how he hopes to meet (Y/n) again. When he left he mother wasted no time to berate her one everything she did, and she ignored it but when she started to accuse her for wanting to steal her sister's "Suitors" is when she started to talk back of how the man was the one who came to her and continued talking to her even when she didn't show interest. Later on she'd understand her mother's outburst for the man was none other than the youngest son of the foreigner couple and his name was Loki.

But (Y/n) didn't think much of it as they left the party and ignoring her mother's lecture of how her time was gone and that her sister was a priority.

On the next day, everyone was surprised when her father came declaring he invited the family dinner to their house last night, making thier house turn into chaos as her mother ran around and made the servants clean the house thoroughly and pampered her sister with dresses, praises and advices on how she should act in order to not only win one of the brother's but also the parents favor. (Y/n) was told to not ruin this for her sister who boosted on how she'd have thw siblings fighting over her. (Y/n) just rolled her eyes in disgust on how her sister turned out and how she was thinking. When the night came (Y/n)'s mother was at the door greeting them, her sister made a lot of effort to show herself off to the elder brother, who obviously felt awkward. When Loki came into view he had a look of displeasure as if he didn't want to be there, but when his eyes landed on her, his eyes brightened and he smiled as he greeted her personally, which earned a scowl from both mother and sister.

During the entire night Loki kept conversing with (Y/n), which encouraged his brother, Thor, and mother, Frigga, to do the same thing, both seemed delighted with how knowledgable and out spoken she was, and when Odin said something the (Y/n) disagreed on her mother stood immediately apologizing and saying how she wasn't "Right in the head" but Odin only replied with how she shouldn't apologize for something that was correct and how they were having a conversation and it's normal to have different opinion. When dinner was served Loki made sure to be across from (Y/n) to continue conversing, which Thor and frigga would join in, much to the displeasure of both her mother and sister but to her father's great delight.

From Loki's POV:

He and his family moved in to the new country because of Vampire hunters who filled thier previous home. Loki was understanding and believed this new beginning was good to them, but to find out how the humans acted made him quickly miss thier home. him and Thor, were surprised to learn of how women had basically no rights, that all of them were illiterate and if they did seek knowledge it would be wrong, but what almost a slap in the face to almost all of them is when they learned that families marry their daughters off at the age of 14 and that being older than 17 was a death sentence of a life alone. And so they had to endure such society for the time being until they found a better place to call home. It was a difficult to find people to eat since these people made sure to stay in thier homes. Thankfully, they met a a fellow vampire who taught them of the ways of this society and how act around them even provided them blood.

One night, the vampire insisted that they join in a ball to throw away suspicion from them since a lot seemed to ask about them. But the moment he entered he felt a sudden pull to someone in the room and he NEEDED to find out who. So using the women's attention to his brother Loki slipped away and made sure he stayed in the dark as he followed the sudden feeling he had, like a string pulling his heart. And that's when he saw her, he swore that he could feel his dead heart beat at her sight. He would have gave in to his instinct and just took her away from her so he could keep her from anyone's sight but his own. But remembering the rules given to him, Loki introduced himself to her. He at first tried to impress her with his vast knowledge and Silver tongue, when that didn't work her started to ask her questions which he has to supress a chuckle at how her eyes sparked with bit of excitement and so he continued to ask her opinion of various subjects, making him fall deeper with her if not delighted to learn that unlike the women he met so far, she was quiet knowledgeable. His time was ruined when her mother came in and started introducing herseas he mother, from the way his Lady was suprised he could tell that such act was non-existent. Then when she pressured him to ask her child for a dance he asked His dear lady instead, he was very disappointed when she rejected him, clearly displeased by her mother's behavior. Seeing that her mother won't leave them, he found it better to leave despite the beast in him snarling and demanding him to scare the mother away so he might be alone with his Lady again. Before he left he told her that he would like to see her again, which seemed to please her.

Back in his home, his father demanded where did he leave to, and when he explained himself to his family both parents seemed surprised and delighted as his mother took him a tight hug before explaining to them that the person Loki met was his fated mate. Thor congratulated him, and asked about the lady that's when he realized that he knew only her name, and ignored the mother completely when she introduced herself so he can't remember a last name. He wanted to explore town in hopes of finding his lady again but his father ordered him to postpone his search for tommorow they have to visist a nobleman's home, who insisted to host them.

Loki was voicing his displeasure the entire ride to the nobleman's home. He was planning to not interact with anyone that night. But when his eyes landed on her he wanted nothing to run and take her in his arms before burying his face in her neck to basking in her scene and presence but he forced himself back. He introduced her to his family who immediately understood by the sudden big smile on his face who was this woman.

Loki would decide the very next day to follow the custom and court (Y/n), much to her mother's delight, and her sister's dismay. There will be "Coincidence" meetings, and when her sister meets a strange man from church telling her that the man his sister with was a monster who'd suck her blood dry, how can she save her sister.

((Still working on the story line, expect updates))

#Vampire Loki #loki x reader #loki x y/n #Loki imagine

[hypergamyconfessions]

“Girls are taught from a young age how to situate themselves to get the best men possible. This has been around for many many years..” Do you think sw is new or something lol? It’s as if there’s a dichotomy that has existed for hundreds of years….

Well…yeah I know that. I was also raised in that way?? I’m just well aware of the reality that we live in a patriarchal and capitalist society wherein women are made to be economically dependent on men due to being paid less (while under similar circumstances) and having feminized forms of labor remain devalued and uncompensated. Depending on how well women perform femininity and adhere to societal standards of beauty within this societal construct it can grant access to resources that they otherwise wouldn’t have if they weren’t in relationships with men. Both sw and hypergamous women are performing similar labor…one gets paid upfront while the other isn’t explicitly paid for their company and exists in a gray area. The latter is dependent on the types of men you position yourself to be around (this is where hypergamy and social climbing comes in).

““Hookers and Housewives.” It’s hard now to conceive of these groups of women as class allies. Hookers and housewives, to speak in impossible generalities, are too often considered rivals (by those on the Left as much as by those on the Right), occupying opposite sides of one economic circle, two classes of women who earn their living from men’s waged work. Their labor, by contrast, is considered illegitimate. Caretaking and sex should be offered freely, we’re told, with genuine affection and out of love. A housewife maintains her legitimacy by not seeking a wage, and a hooker breaks with convention by demanding one. They are both diminished and confined by the same system that would keep women dependent on men for survival.”-“Playing the Whore”, Melissa Gira Grant

hypergamous women recognize the importance of economic and financial standing when choosing a partner (hence the rejection of 50\50 dating and liberal feminist ideals) but (some) don’t want to be associated with sw (or even the “gold digger” label) because of the wh*re stigma. Literary works pertaining to materialist feminist theory and books written by sw can help broaden your own understanding on these issues. I find it amusing that girls will aspire to be a #futuretrophywife or #spoiledgf and then fight tooth and nail to claim that spoiled gfs, trophy wives, and gold diggers are not sw adjacent because they’re not doing it “solely” for the money or there is no exchange because it’s genuine and coming from the heart lol. Making that distinction implies that sw and women that receive compensation for anything sex adjacent have NO other standards outside of just seeking money…which isn’t true (I mean to each their own but..)? I just don’t think that holding onto the madonna-whore dichotomy and whorephobia makes sense if you seek to date and marry people of a higher status than you (most posts are about the upper class). It’s giving “I’m not like those other girls” when you wouldn’t date a man if he didn’t have money either…Why be disingenuous & act like you’re giving men free access to your sexuality, emotional and domestic caretaking when there’s an implied financial exchange in the labels? Is it because it’s seen as dirty, morally corrupt, disgusting and oppressive and evil to gain compensation for work you’ve already been doing this whole time? (Refer to sexual division of labor)🤔 I mean..I just think it’s funny but believe what you want obviously.

Thoughts?

💙

#hypergamyconfessions

[tcm]

THE ENCHANTED COTTAGE: Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder By Kim Luperi

Released near the end of WWII, THE ENCHANTED COTTAGE (’45) thoughtfully presented a timeless tale of love and the true nature of beauty to a war-weary nation. But it also dives below the surface, imparting sensitive commentary on society’s standards of attractiveness and belonging, matters of which always seem to remain relevant even as the world changes. 

In THE ENCHANTED COTTAGE, "homely" Laura (Dorothy McGuire) works as a housemaid at the cottage where handsome Oliver (Robert Young) and Beatrice (Hillary Brooke) plan to spend their honeymoon. However, WWII interrupts those nuptials, and a year later, Oliver gets discharged from service with visible battle scars. Bitter and almost driven to suicide, he shuts himself out from the world in that same cottage, where he befriends Laura and blind WWI veteran John (Herbert Marshall). Out of loneliness and convenience, Oliver and Laura marry, but something magical happens once they do: their physical imperfections melt away, but only to them, as love grants them the gift to see each other as they want to be seen.  

Sir Arthur Wing Pinero penned the source material in 1922 in part to provide a confidence boost for injured WWI veterans. His play first hit the screen in 1924, and two decades later, WWII offered a timely background to update the story with similar effect; in fact, Variety predicted the picture would inspire tolerance and “make rehabilitation of the boys easier.” Almost a century after the story’s debut, The Enchanted Cottage’s themes continue to endure. 

WWII expanded women’s roles, making it more acceptable for them to trade, to an extent, elegance for practicability and comfort, especially those who worked in factory jobs vacated by men. Even so, media and pinup photography highlighted beauty and desirability, confirming both genders “assigned great importance to female attractiveness,” as Susan M. Hartmann wrote in The Home Front and Beyond. Indeed, women’s magazines continually emphasized traditional femininity and glamour, while publications that men flipped through accentuated the same – and more overt sexual appeal, too. 

As evidenced by her perceptive reaction to the shattering rebuffs she receives from servicemen at a dance, Laura does not fit the traditional modes of rouged-up style. Growing up in the internet age with similar pressures of glamour and perfect bodies everywhere I clicked, I identified with the humble and thoughtful Laura. Sure, society at large may not label her as physically attractive, but her appeal lies in the way she defends her worth and lives life on her own terms. The film presents her as more of a plain Jane, and viewers are privy to her compassionate character, which makes us root for her. That said, there has always existed a stark difference between the fantasy served up in media and women’s experience in the real world. Just like WWII opened up opportunities, modern women have access to a breadth of possibilities that have also altered how we live and look. Even though more diverse images of beauty are disseminated today, we still constantly consume meticulously crafted physical representations few can actually attain. The weight of 1940s societal pressures obviously left Laura with emotional scars, as such unreasonable demands still have the ability to do today. 

Many soldiers returning from WWII also faced unrealistic expectations. As Mark D. Van Ells reported in To Hear Only Thunder Again, self-help books counseled veterans’ families to show patience, support and encouragement in difficult situations, which Oliver’s support system obviously didn’t do as he seeks to come to terms with his injuries. “Sensitivity seemed in short supply,” Thomas Childers remarked in Soldier from the War Returning when commenting on the stares and whispers disabled veterans regrettably encountered in public, which made many reluctant to venture out. That same social stigma and lack of empathy and kindness for one another, especially those who look different, sadly continue for too many today through bullying. In fact, internet anonymity seemingly gives people carte blanche to act much more cruelly online. 

As Oliver despondently admits to John, he just wants his old life back. John W. Jeffries observed in Wartime America that post-war magazines and newspapers focused on getting back to normal, like going on trips and picnics. For disabled veterans, though, their new normal necessitated a completely different existence. Today, people feel similarly as we’ve lived with the COVID-19 pandemic for over a year. Many grapple with re-entering a society that looks unlike the one we left, and many more deal with tremendous loss and life-changing repercussions from the virus.

The outsider status imposed on Laura and Oliver draws them together in their own secluded world where they fit in. In the modern day, those who feel ostracized from society can find a sense of belonging with like-minded friends and companions around the world through online groups, social media and, of course, dating apps. Then as now, we just want to connect with others – and sometimes, as THE ENCHANTED COTTAGE reminds me, we have to look past the surface and embrace the true self that lies just beneath.

#The Enchanted Cottage #Robert Young #Dorothy McGuire #WWII #beauty #body image #disability #TCM #Turner Classic Movies #Old hollywood #Kim Luperi

[linkspooky]

Frankenstein and the Monster

So there is loads of speculation on a connection between Dabi and Frankenstein’s monster. There are several people who have already commented on it, here, here, and even here. (These are all the ones I could dig up recently). Frankenstein is a novel that can be read in many ways, but I believe the themes of the novel parallels and helps illustrate the relationship between Ujiko, Endeavor and Dabi.

1. Endeavor and Victor Frankenstein

To very briefly touch upon the novel for those who haven’t read it, there are several differences between Boris Karloff’s movie depiction and the original novel. In the novel the creature is intelligent, well spoken, and a reflection of the Doctor Frankenstein himself. To summarize quickly, Frankenstein a very dramatic undergrad student discovers the secret to reviving the dead, uses that to create a monster, then upon seeing how ugly it is flees. The monster grows up in isolation, is spurned by every human he comes across, and then returns to his master and says he will kill everyone the Doctor Loves unless he creates him a mate. Frankenstein destroys the mate, and then the monster destroys his wife to be on the night of their wedding then they chase each other around in the arctic until both of them die. If that wasn’t a sufficient enough summary, this crash course video is a good writeup of the book and it’s themes. 

Frankenstein has a lot to say about science and treading in god’s domain, but it’s also written by a woman who was a teenager at the time (Mary Shelley) who existed in a soical circle of adult men who were much older than her. Just as much as it’s a novel about mad science gone wrong, there are strong themes of feminism, parenthood, and abuse intertwined in the novel. 

Another popular reading is to interpret “Frankenstein” autobigraophically, a reading that was encouraged via 1970s feminist criticism of the novel. Earlier readings along those lines centered Frankenstein as a tale of monstrous birth and look to Mary Shelley’s own experiences with birth, which were pretty terrible.

Mary Shelley’s mother died when giving birth to her, and Mary and Shelley’s own first child, a daughter, died when she was just a few weeks old. And in her journal Mary recounted an incredibly sad dream about this daughter. “Dream that my little baby came to life again; that it had only been cold and that we rubbed it before the fire and lived.”  [Crash Course: Frankenstein]

This is just some background information to add context to your reading. Percey Shelley first met Mary when she was 14, and eloped with her when she was 16 and already pregnant with his child (he was around 24 at the time). Not only that but Percey was married at the time when he eloped with Mary, and his wirst wife did not take it well. 

Harriet (Westbrook) Shelley was Percy Shelley's first wife. While he was still married to her, he ran off with Mary Shelley, leaving Harriet pregnant and alone with their first child. She committed suicide on November 9, 1816 by drowning herself in Serpentine. [x]

As I said these details are all to add context to Mary Shelley’s life while she was writing Frankenstein. A book in which most of the female characters are severely mistreated and harmed. 

There are some pretty feminist critiques to Frankenstein. For instance, the novel clearly shows what harm comes to women (and family and relationships) when men pursue single-minded goals. In fact thanks to Victor’s lack of work life balance pretty much all of the women in this novel die. Victor’s creation of the monster leads to the hanging of the servant Justine the murder of Victor’s bride Elizabeth on their wedding night. [Crash Course: Frankenstein]

To put it as frankly as possible (Haha, get it because frankenstein) there are several points in the novel in which both Victor and Frankenstein act like fuckboys. 

You could easily read the story as one of male entitlement. Victor in the first place, deliberately refers to his bride to be Elizabeth as a possession and says it as a term of affection. 

And when, on the morrow, she presented Elizabeth to me as her promised gift, I, with childish seriousness, interpreted her words literally and looked upon Elizabeth as mine—mine to protect, love, and cherish. All praises bestowed on her I received as made to a possession of my own. We called each other familiarly by the name of cousin. No word, no expression could body forth the kind of relation in which she stood to me—my more than sister, since till death she was to be mine only.

His actions towards Elizabeth in the novel are also, extremely neglectful. Elizabeth spends the novel passively waiting for him to return and marry her, but Victor has a habit of disappearing from her life for long periods at a time with no contact at all in pursuit of his endeavors. (Get it because I’m comparing Victor to Endeavor). 

Elizabeth is someone he feels entitled to own, and entitled to her love (he literally thinks his parents gave him to her) and yet Victor never takes responsibility for Elizabeth and her feelings too wrapped up in his own. When Elizabeth is grieving for the losses of her family, Victor has a tendency to leave her alone to go off to sulk on his own. Elizabeth even pleads multiple times for Victor to come home, to offer some support for the rest of the family with his mere presence and Victor delays these returns home as long as possible. 

“Get well—and return to us. You will find a happy, cheerful home and friends who love you dearly. Your father’s health is vigorous, and he asks but to see you, but to be assured that you are well; and not a care will ever cloud his benevolent countenance.

This treatment also extends to the rest of Victor’s family, who are people he seriously neglects throughout the novel, and also people who are the direct sufferers of the consequences of his actions. His youngest brother is killed, the maid is framed for the murder, Elizabeth dies on the wedding night, Clerval his closest friend is killed, and his father dies soon afterwards of old age / implied grief. 

The monster who Victor creates is also a reflection of him. After knowing the suffering it is to be created as a creature with no family, and no place of belonging he then instructs Victor to make him a woman. A woman that will have no choice but to love him because they will be the only two alone in the world. The monster, also feels entitled to feminine love because he is lonely, with no thought to whether or not the second monster might have feelings, opinions or her own, or might not even like him. 

“You must create a female for me, with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being.  This you alone can do; and I demand it of you as a right which you must not refuse.” 

The recurring theme is this: a sense of male entitlement, without a sense of responsibility. What do I mean by Male Entitlement? 

Male entitlement is a product of traditional societal norms. It is cultivated in men as they join a society which usually favors them over the other genders in their careers, relationships, character-standing, and more.   There’s more on it here, and the role of male entitlement in abuse. 

Male entitlement is an attitude where men believe they are entitled to power over others, and/ or ownership of the women and children in their lives. Victor calls Elizabeth a possession given to him, and neglects her throughout most of the book. The monster believes he deserves to have a woman to love him. It’s not masculinity. Masculinity is just masculinity. It’s the belief that they are entitled to power or ownership over others simply because they are men born in a society that favors men. Male entitlement can show up in say, a father who believes he is entitled to the love of his children despite never doing any of the actual work of childrearing and pushing it all on the mother. Believing they deserved to be loved simply for being a father, while being absolutely absent for their lives. GUESS WHAT HAPPENS IN FRANKENSTEIN. 

So, a lot of people interpret Frankenstein as a story of ambition gone wrong, but that interpretation feels like it’s missing something if you don’t include the feminist angle. Frankenstein when doing his mad scientist undergrad bit speculates how he would be a father of a new species. It is specifically, fatherhood accomplished without a mother. That this new species would owe him love. 

A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. 

An undeniable part of Victor’s motivation is that as the sole creator the child would owe him all of their love. I mean to once again connect this to abuse narratives how many real life parents believe their children have to love them no matter how poorly they treat them? 

No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs. 

Victor in the novel wants not only fatherhood, but also motherhood. He wants to create life which in victorian society at the time is the role of the woman. And yet at the same time, he doesn’t want to do any of the actual work of motherhood and the roles typically described to women. 

We can read the novel as an exploration of what happens when men fear, distrust, or devalue women so much that they attempt to reeproduce without them. In some ways Victor is trying to bypass the feminine altogether. He’s creating life without recourse to egg or womb.  [Crash Course: Frankenstein] 

Victor creates, and then proceeds to take no responsibility for his creation. He abandons the child for the most shallow of reasons (because it was ugly and looked scary), then leaves a sentient, thinking creature with no idea who it was, or why it was alive in the middle of the mountains hoping it starves to death on his own so he doesn’t have to deal with it. 

but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room and continued a long time traversing my bed-chamber.

Victor is the creatures parent, but takes no responsibility as a parent for raising the creature. In fact the child is punished when they are still an innocent, just for not turning out the way their creator intended. 

Frankenstein is a novel which portrays consistently men who aspire to greatness as described in their society (scientific invention, and in the framing device arctic exploration) but who consistently fail everyone in their lives at the most basic levels. In other words as Lizzo said, “Why men great, till they gotta be great.” 

This is where the fire comes in. The original post talks about dichotomy of fire as something that both helps and harms. Fire is a symbol in this book that can be read two different ways, and I think special context should be given to the subtitle of the story. “The Modern Prometheus”, a story which in classical times is a story of hubris where Prometheus steals fire from the heavens and is punished for it. Hubris in the classical greek sense means that a human acting like they know better than the gods. However, the story has a different interpretation in the Romantic / Enlightenment era where Prometheus is seen as a heroic figure stealing fire away from the gods to give knowledge to mankind. 

Fire in the book represents both. Victor is someone who has hubris, he assumes he’s a father who deserves the love of a child and sole responsbility for the creation of another being (effectively making him god), but abandons the creature literally five minutes after finishing him and makes no real attempt to take any effort in raising what is effectively his child. It’s also a story about Victor having ambitions to be great, and to do what no man has done before him. I don’t think the story emphasizes that ambitions are bad, but rather the dual nature of ambition as something like fire, something that can either warm or harm. 

He came upon a fire “which had been left” by humans (Vol. II, Ch. III), so a human tool left in nature. He was “overcome with delight” and joy, but touching it brought him pain. “How strange, [he thinks], that the same cause could produce such opposite effects!” He has learned the dichotomy of flame – to save and to hurt. [x]

Okay, now that we’re done witht hat extremely long essay on an english novel let’s actually talk about the manga where a goth stuck in his rebellious teenage phase tries to light his dad on fire. 

I’m going to be comparing the novel to Dabi and Endeavor in two aspects. 

Male entitlement, believing you deserve the love of a child without acting responsibly as a father. 

Fire, ambition as something that both helps and burns. 

Victor and Endeavor both are characters that decide to create children for very self serving reasons, and treat their families for the majority of their lives as tools to their own ambition. Endeavor wants a child that will carry out his ambitions for him, that he can live vicariously through. It’s not even an interpretation it’s directly stated text. 

Endeavor’s mad science also literally has him treat the woman in his life as tools to use for his own amibition. He fores a marriage on a woman to use her as an unwilling accessory to his eugenics project. 

It is not specifically a story of ambition got wrong, it’s also a story of neglect and abuse of all the women in his life. Endeavor’s ambitions all center around personal greatness for him. Shoto will prove his worth as a hero, as a mentor to him, as a great father. The fact that his motives are entirely selfish, (Endeavor is not focused on being the best hero he can be, but rather his own desire to be the strongest) is something that has an affect on his family and children. 

Fuyumi, Touya, and Natsuo are literally afterthoughts to Endeavor despite being just as much his children as Shoto. He literally only thinks of Rei in the context of “I needed her to give me a family.” Not only that but he’s also an extremely bad father to the one child that he does take an active role in trying to parent, acting extremely controlling towards Shoto and getting extremely angry whenever Shoto did anything that was outside of Endeavor’s wishes for Shoto to fulfill his ambitions. 

Endeavor just like Victor, inspires to greatness as a man and wants the signifiers of that as held up by society, accomplishment (Endeavor wants to be the number one rank even though he technically has far more resolved cases than All Might and the rank is literally just a number), family, and recognition despite having done none of the work. Once again why men great till they gotta be great. At the start of his arc, Endeavor feels entitled to Shoto’s love and obedience, and a role in his life, despite the fact that he’s hideously abused him for most of his life. 

Endeavor like Victor, also abandons several children for failing to meet his expectations. 

Part of Natsuo’s problem with Endeavor has exactly to do this sense of entitlement, Endeavor practically abandons his kids until they’re in their  early twenties to the point where he wasn’t involved in their lives at all (and also separated them from their mother). Remember another point of the book is that Victor wants sole parenthood, to create life without involvement of a woman. 

Endeavor does the exact same thing. He separates the children from their mother. Then while he is the only parent left in the household and effectively responsible for all of his children, he neglects most of them and completely fails to raise them. 

It’s implied besides trying to teach Shoto to use his quirk, he’s literally pushed all of the housework, and actual parenting you know, labor that is involved in raising a child onto Fuyumi. Fuyumi has cooked most of Shoto’s meals, it’s Fuyumi who attends his school conference in the novels. Endeavor has effectively committed the same crime as Victor, creating life and then running away from it by failing to act in any way as the father to his own children. His sense of entitlement shows in his actions and the way he treats the people around him in his life, he uses them for his own ambitions and they get burned. 

Endeavor is someone who has used all of the women in his life for his ambitions. Think Fuyumi, she grew up desperately wanting a family while having effectively no father and all contact cut off from her mother, and also had to take care of household chores and responsibility for both of her younger brothers. Think Rei, who has literally been institutionalized for ten years, and trauma from her experiences that haunts her to this day. Natsuo is someone who has no father, almost no relationship with his younger brother, and is still mourning his other dead brother. Shoto evens tates directly, he views Endeavor as someone to learn how to use his quirk from but hasn’t viewed him once as a father. Endeavor’s never been present as a father in Shoto’s life, despite controlling most of it and giving him all of the attention. He had ambition to pass his quirk from father to son, but never actually acted as a father. 

Endeavor’s treatment of his family, and his reflection for his past actions is also shown using this metaphor for fire. All Might’s ambition to become the strongest hero for the sake of a more peaceful society, is also represented by fire. Especially a flame that he passes from one person to the next, that Nana passed to him, and he passed to Deku.  

Endeavor is almost always associated with the more violent aspect of fire, when he thinks of the harm he’s done to his family it’s always juxtaposed to the fire on his face. 

(The right side fire, the left side Rei’s suffering face.)

Whereas the more gentle associations with fire are almost made with Shoto. Once again the novel of Frankenstein doesn’t decry ambition, it merely explores the consequences of ambitions that were extremely self-interested from the start. Endeavor only wanted to be strong for his own sake. Shoto who wanted to become a hero like All Might who would never make his mother cry, and All Might who wanted to create a safer society are people with strong ambitions that are associated with gentler flames. 

2. Dabi and Frankenstein’s Monster

Sins of the Father or Sins of the Fathers derives from biblical references primarily in the books Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers to the sins or iniquities of one generation passing to another. Basically what it means is its a narrative trope where children are punished or suffer consequences for the action of their fathers. It can also mean that children inevitably reflect what their fathers have done to them, and even resemble their fathers. 

Everything the monster does is a reflection of Frankentstein’s actions. Everything Dabi does is both a consequence and a reflection of Endeavor’s actions. They are both written as sons to be narrative foils to their creator. If anything Dabi is even more of a frankenstein’s monster than Shoto, because a key element to the narrative is that Frankenstein was abandoned for not being perfect according to his creator’s wishes, he was punished for a defect. 

Touya just like frankenstein is a defective creation. One who suffers all of the consequences for what are his father’s sins. Endeavor deliberately took risks with his eugenics experiment that the child might have a quirk not compatible with their body, but it’s the child and not the parent who suffers all of the consequences. Toya literally died - whether he faked his death or not has yet to be revealed but he lost his home and family at a young age, spent most of his life homeless, and has to continually make use of a quirk that burns his entire body. Whether he wants them or not, his father’s sins are pushed onto Dabi. 

The flame that Endeavor is so keen on passing to his children, has literally permanently disabled Dabi, and will negatively effect him for the rest of his life. Consequences that Endeavor ought to suffer are passed onto Dabi instead. Dabi is burned by Endeavor’s actions towards him. 

This is once again something deliberately brought up by the book Frankenstein. The doctor creates life, takes absolutely no responsibility and leaves his creature to starve to death in the wilderness, and then the first time they meet again calls upon his creation to die. 

“I expected this reception,” said the dæmon. “All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life?

The decision to create life irresponsibly was Victor’s, but the  person who suffers the brunt end of the consequences is not Victor, but rather the creature itself who just like Dabi has no home, and is constistently hurt by the environment around him. 

Dabi is also a symbol of the worst possible aspects of Endeavor’s ambitions. 

To compare Victor and the monster briefly. Victor

Has family / friends 

Home / Money / Wealth

Arrogant / Well Educated 

Self-Destructive 

A tool

The Monster

Abandoned

Ignorant (at first)

Homeless

A tool, but a more sympathetic one.

As you can see they are societally complete opposites. This can be said for Endeavor as well, he still gets to keep his family, his place in society despite what he’s done, he’s wealthy, succesful and well-liked in his community. Dabi is permanently disabled because of something his father did, is legally dead, homeless, separated from his family, and is a villain. 

While they are completely opposite in status, the monster and Victor are eerily similiar. They are both highly intelligent people who carry a strong ambition within them. The Monster basically learns speech, and reading all on his own, and as soon as he can be becomes as well-read as possible. 

Fortunately the books were written in the language, the elements of which I had acquired at the cottage; they consisted of Paradise Lost, a volume of Plutarch’s Lives, and the Sorrows of Werter. The possession of these treasures gave me extreme delight; I now continually studied and exercised my mind upon these histories, whilst my friends were employed in their ordinary occupations.

The monster also shares several of his father’s sin. He repeats the sins that have been done on to him, in the name of vengeance. Frankenstein’s claim is that he was hurt when he was still an innocent, punished before he had done anything wrong, but he also does the exact same thing to VIctor’s youngest brother killing him when he was just a child. 

Victor’s worst sin by far is selfish entitlement, forgetting to consider the feelings of his creation. Yet, the monster knowing how much he suffered by just being created in a world where there’s no one else like him also demands Victor create another creature. This is out of his own personal sense of entitlement, he believes he’s entitled to have someone love him, and if he had this he would be a good person again. 

He believes quite literally he deserves an Eve to share his loneliness in. His own personal feelings of grief and hurt matter more than those of: one the people he kills, and two a potential woman who would be created only to love him. 

But it was all a dream; no Eve soothed my sorrows nor shared my thoughts; I was alone. I remembered Adam’s supplication to his Creator. But where was mine? He had abandoned me, and in the bitterness of my heart I cursed him.

The monster also feels entitled to punish Frankenstein, but in this reccuring sins of the fathers he punishes people who are completely innocent of the crime that Frankenstein did to him and have nothing to do with his creation, just to get back at Frankenstein. Including, an innocent boy, a maid who he framed for murder, Frankenstein’s friend, and also Elizabeth. 

Dabi inevitably reflects his father and the environment he was raised in, and resembles him. Dabi who was raised by a quirk supremacist and thrown out because his quirk wasn’t good enough, kills people he doesn’t find worthy. Dabi’s methods are almost entirely based around his his individual strength because he was raised to believe that was the only good part of him. The same way Dabi was thrown out like burnable trash for failing to live up to his standards, Dabi will enact harsh vigilante justice and kill minor crimminals and heroes who fail to live up to his justice. 

Just like for the monster’s actions in punishing Victor, Dabi is called to consider the feelings of family’s of the people he kills. He is also punishing people completely unrelated to what happened to him, in his efforts to hold his father accountable. 

Dabi reflects his father, and quirk society the same things that burned him. He continually believes he has to be the strongest individually, accomplish everything on his own, and spurn others around him. Even those who try to make genuine connections with him like the league of villains. Dabi believes that the world has to be changed with the strength of ambitions of a single person, and his ambitions are far more important than the sense of family within the league. 

Dabi effectively distances himself from two families, the found family of the league, and also his original biological family. Think about how much it might save Natsuo to lean that his brother is still alive. Shoto at least, doesn’t want to see his father roasted alive on live television. 

Dabi’s ambitions are as self destructive as his fathers, as he only knows how to fight by completely burning his body up. He harms himself over and over again by using his quirk to try to change things. 

3. Endeavor and Ujiko

The book ultimately poses the question who is responsible for the actions of the monster, Frankenstein or the Monster itself. However, I think an element missed in a lot of analysis is that the mosnter accepts that most of what he has done is wrong, he just wants people to be held equally accountable for their actions. 

“You, who call Frankenstein your friend, seem to have a knowledge of my crimes and his misfortunes. But in the detail which he gave you of them he could not sum up the hours and months of misery which I endured wasting in impotent passions. For while I destroyed his hopes, I did not satisfy my own desires. They were for ever ardent and craving; still I desired love and fellowship, and I was still spurned. Was there no injustice in this? Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all humankind sinned against me? Why do you not hate Felix, who drove his friend from his door with contumely? Why do you not execrate the rustic who sought to destroy the saviour of his child? 

The monster’s problem is not that he shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions, but rather that he’s the only one whose ever held accountable for his actions. The Monster also spends most of the narrative being treated as a monster, whereas Frankenstein faces no real consequences for what he’s done from the people around him, never loses his standing in society, never is cast out for his wrongs. Frankenstein continually avoids any and all responsibility towards the monster up until his death, and only takes responsibility in violently trying to kill his creation. 

There are also oppurtunities for Frankenstein to take responsibility, which he chooses not to do anything. An innocent maid is about to be executed for a crime that Frankenstein knows she did not commit, and instead of trying to help her by explaining to everyone his creation of the creature, and also that the creature is likely responsible for the murder he says nothing. While not responsible for the women’s death, he is culpable in that he could have taken action to save her but didn’t. 

Franketnstein’s actions are again and again always to run away from the monster and avoid responsibility. From the beginning he runs away from the monster due to it simply being ugly. Both the monster (and also Toya) were punished when they were innocent children who had not committed any kind of crime, by the person who was responsible for raising them, educating them, and giving them everything they needed to become happy adults. 

“Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous.”

While Frankenstein and the Monster both entitled, their reasons for entitlement come from entirely different places. Frankenstein’s comes from his own arrogance, believing that he’s destined to do great things, and be a man of status and accomplishment. Why men great till they gotta be great. 

The monster believes he’s entitled to a family, because his father abandoned him, and he’s been homeless most of his life. The monster is violent, but only after he’s endured violence from people several times over. The monster is ultimately a victim of circumstance, and Frankenstein is the one who created that circumstance. 

Considering Frankenstein and the monster are foils, there’s a reason that Frankenstein fears and abhors the monster before it’s even awake. It’s because the monster reflects the ugliness of his own actions. The ugliness in himself that he is completely unable to face. He is a negative character foil in a character sense, and a shadow created by Frankenstein’s actions. 

The monster shows Victor what he is, selfish, entitled, and violent. Victor can’t ever confront the monster, because he can never confront those flaws within himself. 

Dabi is a reflection of Endeavor’s violent, abusive nature. He is also the direct consequence of all of Endeavor’s actions. So the question is, has Endeavor confronted the monstrous side of his actions? The answer is most likely no, because despite doing things as bad as any villain in the story he still views himself as the hero.

Shoto even tells us directly. Endeavor the hero and Endeavor the father are so different they’re almost like two different people. Endeavor continuing to be a hero on the television and coming home to his family is not taking repsonsibility for his actions, not truly, because he still hasn’t accepted the worst of what he’s done. 

In the narrative Endeavor currently feels guilt, and also a desire to atone but we’re also told again and again that atoning means taking responsibility and carrying everything. No building a house where his family doesn’t have to be around him and taking steps to distance himself isn’t taking full resposnibility because Dabi is still running around. Dabi is the embodiment of the absolute worst of Endeavor’s actions, the toxic environment that literally killed Toya, burned Shoto, and hospitalized Rei. I would say Endeavor still hans’t seen the worst of his actions because he still views himself as the hero, just the hero who has made mistakes. We’re shown this in foiling, the same way Fankenstein rejects the monster, Endeavor doesn’t recognize Dabi even though he is literally his own son. 

The strongest evidence of this is Endeavor and Ujiko’s foiling. They are two characters who have a lot in common, they both used children as experiments in their attempts to create stronger quirks including their own family members (Ujiko experimented on his own nephew). 

They’re both men of incredible wealth and status in society, who have deliberately used their status to cover up their cimes. Endeavor used his status to hospitalize his wife for years, he used his status to marry her in the first place, Ujiko uses all of his money and resources to find people to experiment on, and deliberately takes advantage of people in need by using his orphanage and hospitals to farm for materials to make his Nomus with. 

They’re both motivated by their own personal ambitions. They also feel entitled, Ujiko’s specific issue is that the scientific community failed to give him the respect and funding for his research that he thought he was owed. 

The source of Endeavor’s pain is that no matter how hard he works he’ll never become the strongest. The source of Ujiko’s pain is that nobody recognizes his work and achievements in his scientific community. They both want their hard work to turn into achievement, for their efforts to pay off, which again is not a bad thing until they get angry when they’re not given what they think they’re owed. 

Ujiko and Endeavor both become so desperate to accomplish their ambitions that they manipulate people to become tools to fulfill their ambitions for them. Shoto has to carry on his legacy, and learn to use his flame side like Endeavor always wanted. They both create children that they are technically the parent of, but don’t act as fathers. Endeavor is responsible for Fuyumi, Natsuo, Touya, and Todoroki but fails to live up to that responsibility. Ujiko creates the Nomu, which just like the monster in Frankenstein are new life created from the corpses of other people, and then just uses them and disposes them as tools. 

Ujiko even utters a line that is incredibly similiar to Endeavor in the regards to the way they treat Shigaraki and Shoto. 

However how does Endeavor react to Ujiko? Does he understand the harm that he’s done in a new light? No, he falls back on his hero narrative. I am the hero, and Ujiko is the utlimate evil. 

Endeavor so far, like Frankenstein, fails to truly confront the monster. Even when he finally realizes the destructive nature of his desire to be stronger than anyone else when he fights the Nomu, his response is to burn it alive. What is Endeavor’s response? To play hero, and defeat a villain. 

The thing about jungian shadow arcs is that you don’t destroy your shadow, you reintegrated it.  Endeavor can’t symbolically murder his past self because that won’t make his past actions go away, he can only accept them. The question now is: will he do the same thing to Dabi? 

When confronted with who Dabi is and his role in creating Dabi, what will Endeavor’s choice be? Is he going to play the hero, and destroy the villain he sees in front of him. The same way he did with the Nomu, the same way he did with Ujiko, the same way he’s trying to do with Shigaraki (who is, you know a heavy parallel to his own son Toya, and another abused child).

Will Endeavor act as a hero, or the remorseful father he also is? That choice is utlimately what Endeavor’s entire character is written around, does he want to finally be a father or does he want to keep being endeavor the hero? What is more important to him his own ambitions as a hero, or the people he’s harmed? 

Just like Victor, Endeavor’s entire arc revolves around Dabi. He is a hero directly responsible for the creation of a villain. Dabi would not exist if it were not for Endeavor’s direct actions. Not only that but his future will be determined by how he chooses to interact with Dabi once he knows the truth. Endeavor cannot truly take responsibility until he takes responsibility for Dabi.

#mha meta #mha dabi #dabi is touya #dabi #enji todoroki #endeavor #frankenstein #mary shelley's frankenstein #Sometimes you gotta wake up in the morning and decide to spend your entire day writing an incredibly long essay about classic literature

[arcticdementor]

I was a pre-teen in the seventies, which means that long before I hit the jaded age of fourteen when older men tried to use it to get me to peel off clothes, I was used to hearing “we’re all naked under clothes.” (Later on I greatly regretted most of these idiots hadn’t read Heinlein so I couldn’t say “nul program.” So instead I had to say things like “We’re also all clean under our dirt, so I see you don’t intend to shower ever again.”)

There were other just as crazy aphorisms that passed for “deep thought.” I’m honestly not sure what caused this, whether it was more people than ever being pushed to higher ed they weren’t really qualified for, but that made them want to sound “intellectual” or that the Soviets were diligently working with their wrenches to take apart the ability to think of the new generation. Or perhaps for whatever reason mass media and TV just encouraged a ridiculous wave of aphorisms that not only didn’t mean much but that aimed to destroy rather than build habits, patterns and ways of life that led to success.

You know, crazy stuff like “What difference does a piece of paper make to whether we’re married?” (Other than meeting potential obligations to potential children, and getting the buy in of both sets of inlaws and recognition of society that protects well…. mostly the woman who puts more biological investment in the relationship, none, really.) And “If it feels good do it!” and– Well, a lot of you are old enough to have heard all this cr*p growing up. And the younger ones, trust me, the current spate of crazy is well anchored in a barrage of crazy — to my certain knowledge — from the sixties and seventies.

I fell for some of them too. The unflappable Miss Almeida was not unflappable when this stuff came at her from someone she respected. So for a long time I bought my brother’s “romance is the opium of womanhood” long before I realized where the origin of that nugget came from, or that my brother — never having been a woman — was in fact assuming that without having romantic notions to encourage her to care about attachment and feelings, young women would be as “free” and sexually available as men wish they’d be. Of course now we know that’s the rankest and most absolute bull excreta, and that in fact women have — surprise! It’s not like we evolved to be the caretakers of children or anything — a different set of sex related hormones that encourage attachment to sexual partners and incidentally children.

But the excreta of “pseudo-profound-social statements is now everywhere, and yesterday I was hit in close proximity by two bits of crazy. And suddenly it hit me “And what is the alternative, precisely?”

…

Look, all of human civilization has been an attempt to suppress inter-personal violence, or at least keep it within bounds that don’t prevent us from assembling in numbers larger than clan or tribe. Almost any reading of the records of older cities will quickly come to the conclusion that people used to be a lot more interpersonally violent. They just were. Even in early modern England, well…. Let’s say men died young because they fought over the most stupid things.

And that was already a state-nation, where people identified with the nation was though it were a race, and had not only forgotten their early tribal affiliations but their micro-kingdoms (the regional association, which given travel in that time probably had a lot of genetic backing) before it was unified into “England.” So the fights were rarely tribal or regional (though there were family feuds.)

…

But we are built on a template of great apes, and the remains we find of hominins and other man-tribes show that their lifestyle was in fact close to that of great apes everywhere. And do you know what you call a baby chimp found by a genetically unrelated band? Snack.

So, sure, let’s assume that education — public or not — is a way for a culturally dominant “elite” to suppress generalized violence.

What is the alternative?

The left is assuming violence is justified and on their side, because of course their idea of social dominance, and the model they implement is to take control and rob everyone. But throughout history they are an exception, in fact. Even the “bad old kings” were trying to do the best they could for their tribe or micro nation. They often screwed up and followed their own desires, because human, but the idea of noblesse oblige is very very old in humanity. And most people at least try (Unless they’re all ‘et up with Marxism and self-righteousness, because bullsh*t means never having to say you’re sorry.)

Instead let’s look at it as meaning what it says “education” (by which we can mean everything we do to tame the toddler-beast and up through specific knowledge of how to get ahead in life) is a way to suppress inter-personal violence.

Well, yes. And we’re all naked under our clothes. And wearing clothes isn’t natural, maaaaan.

But what is the alternative? The civilizational process of mankind, from band to clan, from clan to city, from city to nation, accomplishing things that could only be accomplished by many people cooperating without violence is a process of suppressing unnecessary violence and waste of human life.

…

In the same way, later, while doing my instapundit link rounds, I saw an article about how 2 + 2 is colonial thinking imposed on non-white populations, and are alien and evil, compared to their native ways of knowing.

After I got my eyes from under the sofa, I took a deep breath and asked “What’s the alternative?”

Because, you know, I’ve heard this before, but I never thought about precisely what their nonsense would entail.

Sure, we’re giving up the internal combustion engine, bridges, anything better built than a hut made of rough stones, and probably — let’s be honest — crops. The horrendous thing is that this might be completely acceptable to them, since they don’t realize what supports their ability to live in relative comfort.

Let’s instead explore what this means at the interpersonal level and how much eschewing simple math would make living with other human beings impossible.

…

Humans have partly got this far, and now enjoy untold prosperity which had practically eliminated famine (until of course the covidiocy starved the third world) because “colonial thinking” defeated that of isolated tribes.

Or perhaps more cogently: those who won a clash between two populations generally (there are exceptions, like Greece and Rome and to an extent India and Great Britain, and perhaps to an extent America and Japan) imposed their mode of life on the defeated. Though they might culturally appropriate that which was worthy in the culture of the defeated.

…

Is 2 +2 a colonial way of thinking? Oh, probably. But that was probably way back when the colonization of the homo sap by the Neanderthal (culturally, that is. Well, that seems to have been the direction) occurred, because we have trade going that far back, and trade can’t survive without counting.

In fact, even though the concept of zero is also fairly sophisticated, we’ve come across very few tribes that don’t have a concept of counting, or a concept of numbers over 5, and those are usually highly isolated and tiny tribes. Because arithmetic is a darn useful skill, as is everything we’ve built on it from accounting to architecture.

And what’s the alternative? People walking around “Sensing” the numbers? Be real. That’s not native to anyone but the crazier tribes of Homos New Agicus, a tribe who uses cannabis in such vast quantities they’re sure to become extinct.

The alternative is never “death or cake.”

When idiots run around with blunt aphorisms, demanding you dismantle civilization, ask them what their alternative is. And stop them when they start talking of rainbows and unicorn farts, and ask them the exchange rate of the unicorn fart to the rainbow. Because if it’s a civilization, we have to know.

You want to eschew controls over violence? Basic arithmetic? Clothes?

Well, sure. I believe you’re ultimately free to do what you want, as long as you pay the price.

You’re free to take all your clothes off, and take off to the forest with your buddies, where you can live as though 2 plus 2 equals 20, or potato, or chicken.

We don’t care. Heck, you probably won’t live long, but if you do, you’ll be a fascinating ethnology-experiment.

What you won’t be and can’t be is able to shame us out of living our lives as civilized human beings, who have enough to eat and can trade a known quantity for a known quantity. Because you know, there really is no alternative. Not an alternative that allows humanity to survive.

And if you hate humanity enough you don’t want us to survive, I have an easy solution: You go first. After which the existence or non-existence of humanity stops being your problem.

#sarah a hoyt

[aion-rsa]

From Bridgerton to Hamilton: A History of Color-Conscious Casting in Period Drama

https://ift.tt/2IQI6Ak

Note: This Bridgerton article contains no book or series plot spoilers.

Bridgerton is a unique mix of Shonda Rhimes’ dedication to Black representation on American television and the British period drama tradition. White critics may dismiss this trend as unnecessary “pandering” to Black and POC viewers, but the number of productions designed around reforming all white-casting has increased over the past 10 years—and has only added to the success of the genre. The number one reason driving demand for diverse period dramas is from Black and POC fans of the genre. The impact of seeing an actor that looks like you can’t be measured in ratings or clicks online. Despite facing years of content and fandom overtly or covertly claiming that the universal themes in period dramas are not “for us”; the tide is starting to turn as fans use social media and the power of ratings to ask for more representation. 

A quick overview of recent Regency England-set productions leaves much to be desired. Although the 2018 Amazon Prime/ITV miniseries and the 2005 movie adaptations of Vanity Fair left in West Indian and Jewish heiress Miss Schwarz, she is one of many supporting characters. PBS/ITV’s Sanditon, on the one hand, improved representation by prominently featuring Georgiana Lambe. However, her story was a huge disappointment to Black and POC fans who expected her plotline to end happily or at least have her conflicts resolved. 

There have been three paths traditionally towards increasing diversity in period dramas: 1) blind casting (also called racebending), where Black and POC actors play traditionally white characters adding original Black characters to existing fictional works, and 2) Own Voices, where Black and POC writers share their own stories. These two are not mutually exclusive, but, in the world of British period drama, the former is more frequently used, as the bedrock of the genre is adapting existing novels and plays by white authors.

The theoretical framework for inclusive casting begins in the world of staging period drama at the theater. In Shakespeare’s day, men played women’s roles as women were not allowed to appear on stage. The genre evolved in later centuries to allow women to appear on stage, but the tradition of having actors who didn’t match the original descriptions remained. This is even true of his history plays where real women royalty were characters. Ira Aldridge in the 1840s was the first Black actor in Britain to play traditionally white roles on stage. Later on, in the 19th century, several stage adaptations of Jane Austen’s works had all-women casts. 

Fast forward to 2015, when Lin-Manuel Miranda in Hamilton redefined what it meant to cast inclusively in modern period dramas by using actors descended from slavery and colonialism to play the Founding Fathers. Every aspect of the musical was designed to reframe the existing narrative of early American history. The costume design also reflected the identities of the actor by featuring braids, locs, and textured hairstyles over 18th century white hairstyles. Rap lyrics conveyed to the audience the names, dates, and other descriptions of the Revolutionary War. The old adage that someone must “look the part” to play a biographical role was thrown out the window.

Hamilton proved that many of the old excuses used to sideline diverse period dramas no longer held to be true. Millions of white people listened to the cast album, brought tickets, or streamed the movie on Disney+. UK theater patrons flocked to the West End cast of Hamilton, as well, before the pandemic. Memes, parodies, and more on social media proved that white audiences can conceptualize historical figures as fictional characters while also knowing the real figures looked and acted quite differently. Fans of the show pushed Ron Chernow’s biography back onto the bestseller lists as they wanted to read what really happened. 

The first clear impact the show had on the genre of British period drama comes from a mystery. Daisy Coulam, Grantchester’s head screenwriter, cited reading an interview with Miranda as the inspiration behind the exit plotline for James Norton’s character Sidney Chambers. UK crime dramas  For those unfamiliar with the series, Grantchester is a mystery procedural based on a series of books about a 1950s crime-solving Anglican vicar by James Runcie. Norton’s exit plotline in Season 4 generated an original to the show character named Violet who was the daughter of a visiting African-American preacher. Violet was an original character who forced the audience to consider that the US civil rights movement indeed reached their treasured vision of the lily-white British countryside. Coulam already laid the groundwork for Violet in earlier seasons by abandoning large sections of the original novel timeline and but keeping the case of the week focused on addressing 1950’s social issues. Fans heavily criticized Coulam’s writing for style and pacing, but her imagination clearly indicates that Hamilton’s proven formula for disrupting established historical aesthetics can just as easily be applied to fictional depictions of the UK’s past as blind casting a biography-based series or depicting real figures of Black British history. 

Other period dramas released in recent years share traces of Hamilton’s impact but in a more thematic and less direct different way. Some shows turned real Black British figures into fictional characters. Lina (Stephanie Levi-John) and Oviedo (Aaron Cobham) on The Spanish Princess are composites of Catherine of Aragon’s servants and several famous Black Tudors. Catherine “Kitty” Despard (Kerri McClean) in Poldark Season 5 was a forgotten Black British figure added in to expand the world outlined in the novels. Victoria featured Ira Aldridge (Ashley Zhangazha) mentioned earlier, plus spotlighted the Queen’s adopted daughter Sarah-Forbes Bonetta and Cuffay (C.J. Beckford) as the leader of the proto-socialist Chartists. Lucille Anderson (Leonie Elliott) on Call the Midwife was not mentioned in the original memoirs, but she was added to represent the Caribbean nurses from the Windrush Generation of UK immigrants.  

Racebent casting also increased. Dev Patel’s role as the title character in the movie The Personal History of David Copperfield proved that Dickens adaptations could indeed include POC casts without changing the fundamental plot and message. PBS/BBC’s Les Miserables miniseries also extended the Broadway tradition of casting Black actors in traditionally white coded classic literature characters. Hulu’s The Great featured Sacha Dhawan and several Black actors as Russian nobility, politicians, and courtiers. 

All of these series, however, carefully attempted to stay grounded in recreating the original source material or invested in faithfully replicating the era they were set in. Bridgerton radically expands upon Hamilton’s formula by divorcing inclusive casting from any desire to accurately recreate historical events, eras, or figures. Romance, fantasy, and social/familial drama are universal themes that don’t depend on having a white-dominant vision of society. Quinn’s original novel series sparingly referred to historical events during the Regency Era. Her focus was on creating a world where the most important events were balls and weddings. More Dukes and other holders of inherited titles exist in her vision of the Ton (the most elite members of Regency society) than in reality. Historians would likely dispute her characterization of the elite social season as well. Characters’ internal dialogue is in modern English peppered with regional accents and slang. They rarely lampshade or criticize the way of society beyond their romantic desires and family obligations. Readers see the physical intimacy on the page Austen never mentioned. This literary environment is ripe for inclusive casting on screen. 

The most critical flip in characterization is Simon, Duke of Hastings (Regé-Jean Page). His character is the romantic hero of the first book in the series The Duke and I and is the character that set fan expectations high for future novels. Simon having visibly African features and yet being an object of desire is incredibly subversive in a genre where white beauty standards dominate hetero and homosexual fiction.

Lady Danbury (Adjoa Andoh), Simon’s godmother, is an elder stateswoman and a twist on the battle-ax aunt trope popular in period dramas. She isn’t as caustic and insulting as some other famous widows and spinsters but she commands authority and a mansion filled with people to perform all the hard labor. Lady Danbury is even implied to be slightly higher in status than her white counterparts with children of marrying age Lady Violet Bridgerton (Ruth Gemmell) and Lady Portia Featherington (Polly Walker).

Queen Charlotte (Golda Rosheuve) being played by a biracial woman is actually a subtle Easter Egg to existing history debates. Many have debated if her portraits were airbrushed to disguise African features. A few years ago, a documentary established her African ancestry is via the Portuguese royals. All of her scenes involve petting her Pomeranian, demanding to know the latest gossip, and manipulating the gentry into doing her bidding. 

The miniseries doesn’t end the racial diversity with those at the highest social rank or even at the lower orders of domestic servants. Marina Thompson (Ruby Barker) is a cousin of the Featheringtons and represents the “poor relation” character popular in stories based on the British gentry. A Black modiste (dressmaker) trained in French fashion makes all of the dresses the characters wear. Will Mondrich (Martins Imhangbe) is a boxer, likely a reference to former slave turned bare-knuckle boxer Bill Richmond. Alongside the characters with plot lines viewers follow, there is a conscious effort to hire Black and POC extras to fill in crowd scenes at balls, park scenes, and other public events. The viewer sees people who look like themselves in every class level of society and can feel like they too can become part of their world. 

Read more

TV

How Bridgerton Can Avoid Outlander’s Mistakes

By Amanda-Rae Prescott

Books

Bridgerton: Cast Announced for Shonda Rhimes Netflix Series

By Alec Bojalad

Attire is a critical part of upholding the fantasy and cultural diversity Bridgerton and also in communicating to the audience the series isn’t your aunt’s neutral tone Austen adaptation. Marina and Lady Danbury would never be caught dead in a plain white muslin frock. All of the popular Regency hairstyles for women have been modified and reworked for natural textured hair, braids, and locs. Some of the Black male extras even have modern African hairstyles left in tact. The only Black characters who wear the traditional white wigs are older men or servants in full formal uniform. Queen Charlotte’s Black courtiers and servants wear a mixture of extravagant 1770s and 1780s attire and Regency court wear to create a physical separation between them and the rest of the ensemble cast. These style decisions are right out of the playbook of Still Star-Crossed, Shondaland’s first foray into period drama. Although that series took place in 1300’s Italy, the priority was on blending fantasy and Black fashion aesthetics over catering to white costume enthusiasts and reenactors.

In the world of Bridgerton, slavery and colonialism are directly or indirectly referenced exceedingly sparingly. One reference is to Lord Dunmore’s army of emancipated and runaway slaves during the Revolutionary War proclamation. (Hercules Mulligan’s Black troops referenced in “Stay Alive” is the Patriot equivalent of Dunmore’s forces). These sparing hints make it clear to the viewers that class, family, and personal family drama is the root cause of joy and pain in this series.  

Since Bridgerton is completely ignoring the physical descriptions of the characters in many cases, the set design carries the bulk of the attention to historical detail. The series hired Dr. Hannah Greig as a historical advisor to ensure these details were as close to 1813 as possible. Greig has previously acted as a consultant to the Sanditon, Poldark, and The Duchess cast and crew is likely where the Easter Eggs in character references come from. Lavish mansions and castles and the more humble spaces ground the fantastical plot details in historical reality. Several previous period dramas have recreated the Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens, but these scenes in the miniseries are elevated to the next level thanks to Netflix’s budget.

Read more

TV

Noughts + Crosses: Why You Should Watch This Afrofuturist Alternate History Romance

By Amanda-Rae Prescott

TV

World on Fire Returns People of Color to the Dunkirk Narrative

By Amanda-Rae Prescott

The success of Bridgerton applying color-conscious casting to a fantasy/romance series has implications far beyond potential future seasons. Studios especially those in the UK have been hesitant to utilize recent historical romance books for screen adaptations. Modern historical fiction by Black and POC authors (called Own Voices fiction)  which is crucial in the fight for increased representation. Novelists such as Beverly Jenkins, Courtney Milan, and Alyssa Cole have written romances set in the Regency and other eras of American and British History that can easily be transformed into movies and miniseries. Some of these novels recreate existing history while others lean into escapist fantasy. The ultimate goal in period drama representation is for Black and POC creatives to tell their own stories covering all the ranges of emotion, not just historical trauma.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Critics can keep attacking period dramas for being “too woke” (a term that was stolen from anti-racism activists) for remembering that white people aren’t the only inhabitants of the British Isles and America, but series like Bridgerton are here to stay. Black and POC viewers and readers of period drama and romance fiction always existed, and viewership will only grow if more inclusive period romance projects are greenlit in the future.  

The post From Bridgerton to Hamilton: A History of Color-Conscious Casting in Period Drama appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3mjLv8v

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

[rametarin]

tempting.

Reflecting on my health issues, since age 17. And my living situation.

So since around the age of 16, I’ve been plagued with unpredictable bowel problems and digestive ills. Like, everybody gets constipated every now and then, but I mean I’d get just, excruciatingly backed up and my family wouldn’t help me get seen or anything.

Basically from the time I was 18 onwards I was told my medical bills were mine. But oh by the way [Ram. Not my real name, but the name fam calls me], you gotta pay us every dollar that isn’t devoted to keeping yourself alive :^)

I’d be like, family, I cannot afford this, it’d be in your best interests to invest in my health so I can figure out what’s fucky about my bowels and stomach so this can stop happening, I can live a normal life, and we can all continue on our merry way.

Basically I was told, “tough shit, do it yourself, also pay your fair share to The Family” (aka, give mom all your money.)

It was never just fear of homelessness, but fear of homelessness while my GI tract was fucky and my teeth were rotting out of my head that made escape from here impossible. It’s why I didn’t just climb into a hole in the wall and escape this garbage fire of a mother and do that bootstrap shit. Because it sincerely made  me wonder sometimes if I was being poisoned by my mother to keep me powerless and in need of help, but perpetually weakened to where the best I could do is move towards help but just be put on a treadmill for someone elses financial benefit.

Perhaps my bitterness makes just a touch more sense now, right? Because Maine is a long-drive state. You need a car. You absolutely need a car to get anywhere. Not having one means you walk everywhere, you ride a bike everywhere and are FUCKED during the winter, or you go nowhere because you don’t have anywhere you need to be and don’t drive.

Now that said, imagine having bowel and ass problems so bad just the idea of driving makes you question if it’s safe for you to even be on the road.

That has been my existence for twenty years now, because my family wants me just close enough to extract what mom things “she’s owed,” but absolutely will not help me with anything. There’s no security in staying here because the whole fucking POINT of putting up with a family’s infantilizing “everything has its place” mentality, is you’re able to wisely squirrel away your income without paying a landlord anything and your income going up in smoke

If your mother is just the worst sort of landlord, you’re basically just paying a narcissistic bitch of a mother to be a narcissistic bitch of a mother. There’s absolutely no upside.

So I’ve been stuck in this virtual tutorial of an existence because my own digestive system was torturing me and seriously deleting my ability to operate independently. And mom, whom has always wanted absolute control over my finances and my future, saw it as a holistic way of penning me up and making be desperate. Never a wasted opportunity with this fucking monster.

Well. I eliminated cottonseed oil and chicken proteins from my diet and, while not perfect, the amount of excruciating pain and pressure and weird cold-acidic burning in my back and bowels has subsided a lot. As well as my stomach issues receded considerably.

The truth is I was loathe to even try and escape without figuring out these problems, but I couldn’t figure them out because I never had the money. I tried to get a barium enema x-ray when I was 17 and suffering a massive, excruciating flareup. I missed prom (I didn’t have anyone to go with anyway) because of what felt like it could’ve been anything from gall stones to bowel cancer.

Had a big useless cleanse that was excruciating, then had the guys that give the barium enema tell me, “lube is expensive” when I screamed about how much it hurt to have the thing shoved up my ass. My already inflamed, tender ass.

Absolutely nothing was found in my bowels. Which did absolutely nothing to explain why they felt inflamed and miserable. But it did give me a $1,700 bill, which proved.. absolutely nothing except they couldn’t find tumors or any object lodged in my butt. Given how it took me two summers to acquire almost that much working a shit job for my shithead father’s girlfriend, maybe you can appreciate how heartbreaking that is. Spending all that money and you don’t even learn WHY you’re suffering, you just learn why you aren’t.

And today I still fume with rage over being told, “ass lube is expensive so we’re skimping on it” and then be charged almost two thousand god damned dollars.

Absolutely could not get my family to help me pursue any other avenue. They just kept insisting, “it’s all anxiety, it’s all in your head. You just need to get off the computer and do more manual labor/make us money and your problems will go away. :^)”

But then they would not help me do it. They wanted me to take on all the risk while they got the guaranteed income from my needing to be around them.

My need to grow step by step was their opportunity to mitigate my life, every step of the way, so non-compliance with their exploitation would result in homelessness and complete uprooting. If I wasn’t going to voluntarily follow draconian rules, then I’d be governed by those rules anyway in the absence of them being verbally stated. Just, using poverty and immobility as a way to impose it.

But I refused to comply. I wasn’t going to suffer every day unendingly AND get my income snatched away, BY MY OWN GOD DAMNED FAMILY. A family that didn’t even pay RENT to live in the house we were living in at the time, and a family that made 65-70K a year, with another house they owned in a less convenient location worth $350K. My mother had ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS other than fun and profit as an excuse as to why I needed to buy, “the family,” a car. Other than making it the “family” car giving her defacto control over it but my obligation to pay for it. Just another indirect way to give her absolute control over my options and alternatives.

So I didn’t work. I sat at home and dealt with her abusive bullshit, because it was the only card I had left in my deck. She didn’t want the stigma of throwing out a sick man without a license, a car or any savings. I didn’t want to voluntarily throw myself out and die in the street.

So I dealt with my health problems as best as I could. There were a good many times living in this house, that we’ve lived in and she’s owned since 2006, that I questioned whether I should phone an ambulance and just say fuck it, go into tens of thousands of dollars of debt just goosechasing this problem, thanks to the backdoor socialized medical system that exploits the profit motive but uses government assured payment fixed to taxes in order to afford it.

That’s probably what pisses me off the most about my situation. Our medical system has been turned into a farce by socialists deliberately making medicine as toxic as they fucking can in order to then bat their eyes and go, “Bet you just want single payer and to basically make medicine another ring of the government NOW, don’t youuuuuu? It’d make all those woes go awayyyyy!” while turning the screws to our bodies by denying us affordable medicine. All while blaming capitalism for shit that’s assured to work at any cost by the government.

Other people pine for a more socialized system to make the disgusting exploitation and abuse stop. But the truth is, that’s just like wanting to marry a pirate so they’ll stop lobbing cannonballs and demanding tolls at sea from you. Yes, the actual literal war on you and your community and your personal sovereignty will be over, but you’ll also be institutionalizing pirates in order to make them stop taking complete advantage of you on their terms instead of taking complete advantage of you on mostly-their terms but you get to act like you’re consenting to it.

I digressed. Anyway...

Well. I’m curious about pursuing a shit job just to see if I can KEEP some income, but I know, and have always known, my mother will not allow me to do anything with that money but barely keep myself alive. While she uses it to just buy enormous bulk loads of garbage and hoards them in the corners, or throws hundreds of dollars at friends-of-the-family/neighbors and extracts that money from me to do it.

I know going into it that the job would be otherwise worthless. She wants her ten pounds of flesh a year from me, and if I worked, there’d be no getting around it. She isn’t going to allow me to profit living with her, in any way. Everything has to revolve around her, or I get made homeless.

But trying to hold a job would mean possible (there’s that ‘potential vs. guarantee dichotomy again) feelers out to couches to surf on. Or credit building.

It’d still be a sexless existence dictated by someone so fucking petty that they can’t help you fix a broken tooth but do miraculously have the money to buy you a cell phone and a plan, “if you want it,” purely to always have you at their beck and call and/or have control over your phone plan. And it’d mean committing to something that runs a minimum of a year while being able to have a foot crushing my neck and destroying whatever I’m trying to do in an instant.

but it’d also mean being able to financially pursue what’s wrong with me and fixing it.

But I will hold this grudge against women and the actual, objective privilege they have from the legal system and our social system in the US for the rest of my life. Everybody around me saw what she was doing to me and my life, and they’ve done and said absolutely nothing. An abusive woman in this society is basically on par with the richest barons in a young adult novel, and all you have to do to get that kind of institutional power, rich or poor, is have a vagina and be a mom.

Then other women will sympathize with the mother, whom can never be totally wrong about anything, and at best you might get silence and indifference about the way you’re treated.

You can be cornered, debased and neglected until you’re a greasy shoggoth of a person, and if it’s a woman doing this to you, it’s your fault for not escaping. After having every escape route made as torturous and unsustainable an option as possible, you’ll be held accountable for yourself.

I’ll be relieved and pleased when this disgusting pig of a woman dies of natural causes. She’ll have gotten away with grabbing my life and thrashing around with it for 20 years while the world passed me by, just to keep control, just for fun, just for profit.

But in the meantime, maybe there’s a local niche I can fill. Just enough of something to find somewhere else to live. Without conditions making it more damning to pursue than nothing at all.

But I’m not hoping too hard.

[mikhalsarah]

RIP Open Orthodoxy, eaten alive by parasitic “Wokeness”...

There are already three streams of Judaism where women can be rabbis (Conservative/Masorti, Reform, and Reconstructionist), I should know, I belong to one of them. I’ve never entirely understood the Orthodox commitment to sidelining women in this day and age, but the simple fact is, people who are unhappy with Orthodox halakhah in this area have other places to pray, and the stubborn refusal to pray in any of “those places”, yet fighting tooth and nail to make their own shuls become just like them, smack of a weird sort of snobbish attachment to the word “orthodoxy”....even though the rest of Orthodox is but a hair’s breadth from considering them a treif liberal “fake” Judaism like the rest of us already.

As difficult, but possible, as the issue of female rabbis would be to bring about, (seeing as it is a rabbinic prohibition based largely on cultural attitudes no longer in play in western society), the issue of getting the Orthodox to accept gay couples is another matter. Again, not an insurmountable issue, Centrist Orthodox Rabbi Schmuley Boteach has written quite openly about the need to find a place in Orthodox shuls for gay and lesbian Jews. However Orthodox culture is never going to let them hold hands during service or kiddush, for the simple reason that public displays of sexual/romantic affection, even between heterosexual married couples, are frowned upon everywhere from the sanctuary to the grocery store, due to the strong feeling that sexuality should be put aside, or sublimated, when encountering certain kinds of holiness (engaging in prayer etc). Of course, that does not mean that in Judaism sex is the opposite of holiness in some way, or else it would be forbidden to have sex on Shabbat. Since marital sex is a mitzvah (commandment, meritorious act) on Shabbat, better to understand it as a different kind of holiness, one that is not compatible with some other mitzvot (like prayer) or with public life in general. Sexuality itself is a sort of holiness surrounded by taboos and necessitating the utmost privacy in Judaism, so this is ironically probably the hill Orthodoxy would die on, not figuring out how to tolerate the gays.

I heartily agree that it’s time to stop being racist to the Palestinians. Strange though that a “Woke” rabbi still can’t bring himself to call them what they call themselves, and in typical Israeli/Zionist  fashion emphasizes their Arab otheness, rather than their indigenousness...thus making it seem rather like a favour being granted to them out of the goodness of his Woke heart, rather than an acknowledgement of their intrinsic belongingness. (This kind of stuff is typical for Woke social justice, which consistently cares far more about virtue-signalling and screaming at “white people”, or whomever else is deemed an Oppressor in the situation, than listening and paying attention to those who are actually oppressed.)

I spent decades of my life as a vegetarian, years of that as a vegan. Even though for medical reasons I had to adopt a diet which relies on meat for sufficient protein, I still try to limit my meat consumption. I am very pleased that so many people are seeing the value of vegetarian and vegan diets, and that even regular omnivore folk are adopting “meatless Mondays” and so forth. I’d be even better pleased with governments helping to encourage it by working to make it less expensive if/where possible. I’d nod my head approvingly if rabbis suggested meat-eating be reserved for Shabbat, if one didn’t feel able to give it up entirely. However, even when I didn’t practice (Judaism) and was secular it would never have occurred to me to ban it wholesale. I’m just not Puritan enough for banning things, I prefer the Quakerly ways of  “convincement”. The Woke, on the other hand, are full-bore Puritan, convert-the-heathen-masses.

This is perhaps the strangest part of entire essay. This newly minted “rabbi” is publicly expressing the desire to not just overhaul a big chunk of halakhah in order to make Judaism less restrictive and bring it further into line with the mores of the gentile world... a process that has been going on forever, whether excessively quickly (Reform) or excruciatingly slowly (Haredi)... but is calling to make Judaism more restrictive in other ways, by banning things permitted by halakhah which happens never or so infrequently that I can’t recall an instance offhand. And he’s willing to use secular governments to achieve it by force.

I recall hearing conservatives decades ago saying “Inside the heart of every liberal is a fascist screaming to get out” and laughing derisively at how they could think that. I laugh no more, though I contend that it is a particular species of illiberal liberal, known as the progressive activist, that is to blame rather than liberals in general. Still...there it is, and the regular liberals are generally no help opposing their own extremists because deep down they harbour that intrinsic liberal guilt that they are never doing enough or being enough to be truly authentic and useful. For authenticity and “real change” they look ever to the fringes, on the assumption that the more wildly opposed to society in general an ideology is, the better it is, if only they weren’t too cowardly and comfortable to join up and suffer like the “real” activists. 

I have to add here, how nice it is despite not having set foot in any shul in over a year, to still have something of the religious Jewish mindset, which makes impressive demands on your time, money, and moral fastidiousness, but at the same time reminds you constantly that you’ll never be perfect and will never accomplish everything you want or that God asks of you and God already accepts that as a given. “It is not yours to complete the task (of repairing the world), but neither are you free to desist from it.” -Pirkei Avot 2:21. Despite the reputation Judaism has for being guilt-inducing, at least we are free from the overwhelming and psychologically destructive levels of guilt induced by secular liberalism, which now has decided, via Wokeness, that merely existing in a society that is imperfect is a damnable offense, even if it is, on balance, one of the least imperfect societies around. This is how Jews like me know that Wokeness is not just a new religion, it’s an offshoot of Christianity, where just being born damns you to a state of perpetual sin.

This authenticity-of-the-extremists mindset blinds them to the fact that while the fringes are the birthplace of some excellent critiques and paradigm-changing ideas that have been of great benefit, those benefits most often only come when those ideas are tempered by counter-critiques and more pragmatic people who can tolerate the loss of ideological purity required to make them work in practice. Also invisible to the liberal mind are those historical moments when progressives have backed ideas that were...well, the term “clusterfucks” springs to mind.

 Progressives less than a century ago were enamoured with ideas ranging from Eugenics to Italian Fascism (less so with Naziism, but even that had its adherents until the war and the atrocities of the camps coming home to roost). They backed Communism to such a degree that it took Kronstadt to shake most of them loose, and they still idolize Che Guevara, the gay-hating, probably racist, illiberal who put people to death without trial and “really liked killing” (his words) and can’t hear a word against Communist China (”That’s racist to the Chinese!”) or Islamic extremists (”That’s Islamophobic!), despite the fact that Communist China is “re-indoctrinating” the Muslim Uighers and using them as slave labour (in part for the profits and in part because keeping the men and women separated prevents them breeding more Muslim Uighers), and despite the fact that the Islamists throw gay men off roofs in public executions. When you do get a left-liberal to admit something on the Left has gone wrong at all, they immediately shift to rationalizing it as somehow really being the fault of conservatives all along...even in a case like Eugenics where religious and other conservatives were fighting it tooth and nail.

(NB: This is not an endorsement of conservatives, who have their own sets of problems but who, when they finally do change their mind on an issue, don’t try to rationalize their former wrongheadedness by claiming it was really the fault of left-liberals that they ever believed such things in the first place)

And that brings us back to Zionism and the Woke. The Woke cannot for the life of them admit that it was secular, and often quite far left, Jews that birthed Zionism directly out of the leftist “liberation” traditions of the day (albeit with a healthy side of pro-Western colonialism-admiring fervour for being “an outpost of the West” shining the light of rationality on the barbaric, backward, religiosity of the Middle East). They don’t want to see it. It disturbs their comfortably simple narrative, which prefers to maintain that it was the “whiteness” of the original Zionist Jews and their early followers that was the problem, not their politics.

But Zionism is merely the predictable result of what happens when you take an oppressed people and tell them that their oppression entitles them to do whatever they need to in order to end their oppression and that violence is not violence when perpetrated by the oppressed. That the world owes them, and their descendants, something in perpetuity for having oppressed them, some sort of special treatment, and that it must never withdraw that special dispensation because that itself would be oppressing them again. The fact that what the Jews would feel like they needed to do was ethnically-cleanse their former homeland of people who had once shared it with them (both Jews and Palestinians can be traced to a shared ancestry in the region going back about 50,000 years) and necessitating a whole new liberation movement to free them was an unintended consequence of th\e liberation movement, but a consequence nonetheless.

The Woke cannot admit that Zionism is, in large part, a direct consequence of the leftist liberation project, and Woke Jews (who are almost invariably “white”) can’t admit that the rest of the Woke movement hates them. They truly deserve each other.

Ah, well, at least this “woke” rabbi isn’t trying to qualify for the cognitive dissonance finals by being Woke and a Zionist at the same time like the current rabbi of my (rapidly sinking) former synagogue. We’ve had rabbis that horrified the congregation by being too right-wing (mostly on halakhic issues rather than politics), and we’ve had rabbis that horrified (the older portion of) the congregation by being too left-wing and running off to march in Selma. Thanks to this rabbi haranguing the congregation daily about LGBTQ issues to the point that even the LGBTQ Jews got tired of hearing him (our sexuality is NOT our whole fucking existence...no pun intended) and marching around the Sanctuary with the Israeli flag on Shabbat (an honour reserved for the Torah even by the most fervently Zionist among us, none of whom are yours truly) we now have the dubious distinction of being a congregation horrified by a rabbi being both too left-wing and too right-wing simultaneously. 

Apropos of nothing, there is now a “For Sale” sign on the front lawn of my former synagogue and the membership at the Orthodox synagogue has grown with astonishing rapidity. We can extrapolate from this that in 4 years time, should the U.S. Republicans run any candidate remotely sane, they will sweep the election.

#judaism #woke #wokeism #zionism #sjw nonsense #sjws ruin everything #open orthodoxy #militant vegans #woke is a religion #puritan #vs #quaker

[incarnateirony]

*Pulls a post out of another post like a magic trick*

So anyway I wrote a longassed general meta while boxing up the LGBT discussion until the end, because frankly, there are elements worth focusing on beyond that -- but at the end I did leave a note and, frankly, as I don’t know who all will read that far after the meta, it feels worth putting into the general air.

I thank 15.07 for the display of performative absurdity. It’s not the first episode to rip open and expose fandom’s dirty underbelly and intersectional marginalization forces wearing an LGBT Activism Suit -- 14.03 also did so loudly by Bobo (eg read: “The Problem with Dreamhunter” [A post that points out what people will accept for canonization when there isn't a rival ship or excessive projection of antis specific to a ship which is *SPOILER ALERT* nowhere near what everyone pretends is needed when they want to argue just to argue and some intersectional WLW vs MLM issues]) -- but it was the first to approach it directly with Dean, much less so textually.

The ridiculous redefinition of words, of “what *I* think canon means” whipped completely out of fandom generated buzz and no dictionary on the face of the planet -- the demands, and the active erasure of existing LGBT text because it wasn’t *visible enough* -- really does show a seedy side of fandom that wears a nice Representation Warrior dress sometimes, but betrays a series of issues:

Most points boil down to “I won’t acknowledge any text unless it is loud enough to argue down any idiot I ever meet”, putting the focus not on representative resonance and value of quality of text, but on personal vindication for raw argumentation. A world where trolls and their personal agendas have actually taken *greater importance* to people than the representative text, and is an absolutely abysmal motivation or bottom line for any discussion and yes, if you recoiled and feel ashamed or called out about that, rather than patching over your pride and doubling down, maybe skim the reblog tags bisexual people have left on my several dozen posts about the damages of them being actively deleted is doing.

If you care about representation, you’ll think about that. Even if it’s not the loudly visible version of representation you *want*, it is what it is, and well--it is. Pretty simply. There is no perfect fantasy world where everybody understands and wants the thing you do. And I’m not just talking about LGBT rep. I’m talking about the people you pretend to need to argue gay canon with still being absolutely flummoxed by canon itself, like them saying “family don’t end with blood” and “found family” are “fanon concepts”. The same people that pretend there’s a fair canon reading that Sam and Dean never cared about Castiel in any capacity or wilder, the people who pretend it’s a fanon idea that he ever did. People that are confused where demons go when they die. People that rebuke literally many-times textualized non-gay things just to suit their personal agenda. And shockingly, they have a personal agenda about the gay content too.  

I’m talking about Rowling having straight characters married with kids and then not actually owning their canonicity beyond the fourth wall. I’m talking about straight pairings like mulder and scully that got no romo’ed around even after they kissed and got pregnant and the whole nine, because bawww that’s not what the show is about so *allow me to build elaborate theories that make no sense and pretend they have standing in canon equal to the straightforward read*. 

Cuz that’s where we’re at right now. Our fandom is just particularly bonky, and has been allowed to go so far off the edge of the map and away from center GA-resonant discussion that the bog standard antis have literally come up with body-mutilating necrophilia as an answer to avoid the gay, and somehow... *shruuuuug?* people act like these people not only are of equal worth but like... deserve... any consideration long term? Or that it these people have any bearing on GA discussion which I literally have two years of stat based blogging to disbar even if TVG calling it like they see it is a nice GA flagpost? But we’ll whip up a GA that exists in no known modern metric and throw up what we think the GA thinks, instead of reading major news publications and *reading* what the GA thinks.

 Which is when we lean into the next point on MOTIVATION.

So ask at what point arguing with tinhats beat out your actual interest in representation and LGBT rights and media issues. Ask at what point you surrendered your focus on feeling resonant with a character that has been textually acknowledged, and traded that for implying you suddenly can’t relate to the character until he performs [X] exact function, exactly how you want, and when you want. Hell, I have even gotten an anon that literally said they would have acknowledged it if SPN had given them what they want when they wanted-- so basically, too late, not enough.

That’s not how text works. Whether the text came ten years ago or now, the text is the text. Your personal fulfillment aside, text is text. And I highly urge people to stop demanding tokenism above demographic-targeted representative types (eg bisexual, raised in the 80s in a patriarchal/power/grit based society and its own associated dogmas, fairly masculine identity, and so on) or demanding characters perform as if they were from another demographic (be it age or gender) because that’s your demographic.

Once you start removing elements of the represented demographics (LGBT, male, age, origin, etc) and wanting it to perform by way of *your* demographic’s behaviors or base line needs/wants, that’s when we’ve left representation. That’s when we’re demanding tokenization. And when you’re demanding tokenization to win internet fights with people who don’t even believe what they say, you have long left the representation wheelhouse. That’s what we call troll wars.

Do not let LGBT media representation be kidnapped into troll wars. Do not let content be degraded or removed just to engage in troll wars. And if you want to engage in troll wars, and you value the arguments more than the discussion *of* representation intersectional issues, and methods, and all around it -- then just... stop. Stop saying you want representation. Don’t.

As always, you’re free to want more visible text, but unsatisfactory text is still text, and what is unsatisfactory to you may be perfectly welcome representation to the target demographic.

The fact that if we scoured this whole digital fandom we may pull like 2 active people that match Dean’s demographic, with most in hiding and needing to be lured from the shadows *coughBencough* -- usually avoiding the fandom *BECAUSE* they get buried, and avalanched when they say, “no he’s good representation for me.” So the fact that be they LGBT but women, or male but not LGBT, or LGBT male but two generations separated from Dean -- the fact that this is the communal voice box discussing this while essentially ironically talking over an LGBT creator?

That’s bad.

And yeah, y’all are doing it.

Bobo is a middle aged LGBT male, who has written sociopolitical commentary about how to get queer media representation platform via moderate incrementalization  *long before he ever came on SPN*, and yet nobody cares about his voice or his take. They’re mad he doesn’t give them enough material to *argue* with, without considering, perhaps, he doesn’t want to be argued for from the angles fandom insists on vying after. Instead, these voices that are not part of the central target demographic that people say they want representation for? They yell queerbait -- because... well -- because most of you want to win arguments that like 95% of the time, the people you’re wasting your breath and kilobits on don’t even believe what they’re saying. But the argument -- that’s what matters. Not the LGBT male creator. Not his sociopolitical voice. Not the LGBT text in the show. The argument.

And that?

That there’s a problem.

While about 20 people decided to hashtag #spnqueerbaits after last episode of all episodes, I sat, fingers splayed over my face, trying to keep myself from staring in mortification and secondhand embarrassment at the screen with my only consolation that many of them by their style and dialogue on their profiles seemed very young, and probably haven’t thought of any of the above, much less being predisposed to “getting it” for another 5 or 10 years. But like. Y i k e s.

Thankfully this being the final season it’s unlikely to do the significant damage that was done on a similar path 6 years ago, and I can only hope it tapers off.

#supernatural adjacent #lgbtqia #representation #vs #disability #queer creators #and #corporate #or #queerbait

[painted-starlight]

White Disney Princess Problem: How Discussion of Historical Sexism in Europe is Avoided When They Had Every Opportunity to Portray it

And Also Acceptance into European Royalty is the Path to True Liberation?

Warning: Loooong Post (seriously, I’m not kidding), Disney Criticism, anti-T*angled, swearing, dissecting Disney princess movies, discussing the implications of classism and sexism in white princess films. I will be noting historical incidents of sexism in Europe, and how these instances are mysteriously absent in white princess films despite sexism playing a major role in portraying princesses of color’s culture. 

Tl;dr/Summary: White Disney Princess Films have a reoccurring theme of showing how being part of white European royalty is the true path to liberation, even though historically this is a completely laughable concept. Sexism faced by princesses of color are portrayed as being ingrained in their culture and the films are explicit pointing their fingers.

Unlike their princess of color counterparts, the limited amount of sexism white princesses face is often whitewashed, downplayed, or even considered empowering.

This creates an implication that white European royalty and White European society is inherently more liberating for women, fairer than nonwhite cultures, and more humane. But in reality European royals were often notoriously sexist, and often violently so. Portraying white European royal culture as being inherently more freeing is historically inaccurate and irresponsible.

Also, I’m a picky little shit who delves into a lot of historical sexism that should be in the white princess films since Disney is soooo concerned about sexism enough to point it out in their princess of color films, but are mysteriously absent in their white European ones. 

Important Note: 

No, I don’t hate these films, I love many disney princess movies. 

And no, I don’t hate the fact that these girls have simple wishes. 

I don’t care if a character wants to go see the human world, or make a pretty dress, or paint or see lanterns or whatever. That’s FINE. 

What I hate is that they make a huge stink about how this or that nonwhite culture mistreats women, or how it’s unfair, but they never do the same for white Europeans. They always portray white europeans as nicer, kinder, etc. and find a convenient excuse to ignore/gloss over/whitewash the violent sexism present in european history. That is my ultimate problem. The double standard. 

The Double Standard 

I find it very interesting how in portraying Disney princesses of color, that the tend to portray sexism and social inequality as something that is naturally ingrained in their society. Mulan and Jasmine come into mind for this, as their social structures are considered unfair and undermine their character arcs. The sexism they face is something to overcome and to prove themselves.

But with white Disney princesses, despite coming from Europe (which is often violently patriarchal and demanding of compliance of social expectations of gender—think Henry the VIII’s infamous desire for a male heir, the influence of the Church, popular portrayals of the Madonna with the Virgin/Whore dichotomy) they all tend to either not face sexism or dismiss the notion outright in their films.

It’s important to note that earlier white Disney princesses (like Cinderella, Snow White, Aurora) tend to be portrayals of idealized femininity. They were designed to be what is considered appealing to patriarchal standards. Highly feminine, domestic, and at times passive.

Obviously, their stories wouldn’t tackle sexism. The sexism is what what was considered appealing for white men. It was their idealized femininity, and this trend actually still continues today. 

But these princesses legacy lives on. They affect white Renaissance Disney princesses and beyond. They have set the standards of what is considered “appropriate” for white princesses to be. 

This infection has spread a great deal to how they marketed especially. Sparkles, glitter, princess outfits at all times. But this post is about their movies, and how white princess films have often sidestepped the issue of sexism in European royal society.

Belle

Yes, there is sexism in this movie. Yes, it portrayed as being bad. But when we look at context of the film, there is a noticeable ahistorical approach to class and expectations of gender in royal society.

The lower class is filled with expectations for Belle. She needs to marry in order to fit in. The opening song is demonstrative of what she doesn’t want to be: a woman who is ogled by men and forced to have as many children as possible. The village, without a “proper” royal hierarchy, makes their own by “electing” Gaston, a boorish sexist pig. In a way, they are considered worse off without the influence of a King or Queen.

The village in question is isolated, and are not considered a representative of the outside world. It’s an individual case, and it’s upsetting but not considered the norm. 

The royals are what REAL freedom is, apparently. Where Belle has access to books, has a palace full of people who accept her for who she is, and has a connection to a prince who has been cursed. She is free to do as she pleases, with the Beast encouraging her love for reading.  

EDIT (08/12/19): 

Hm, I should really revise this wording, as it is a little vague. One of the key elements in understanding this movie’s themes is that Belle is initially Beasts’ prisoner. 

There is no freedom until AFTER she changes him and he has the maturity to let her go (Though I believe she is ignorant of the rose being a ticking clock). But once she gets it, she is apparently “free” to do as she pleases.  

Initially, it’s kind of like going from one prison (social expectations) to another (which is a literal one). But when regarding the narrative, it all places emphasis on individual choices. White European stories told by Disney tend to judge characters based on their choices and they never judge the culture itself, just choices people make. 

While placing emphasis on individual choices is fine in a vaccum, they never do this for nonwhite cultures, particularly Renaissance disney films with nonwhite leads. Those films tend to rely on racial stereotypes to fill the cast and not give them as much understanding as their white counterparts. 

The only reason the palace is in ruins is because the prince decided to judge people based on their looks. It turns not only himself, but his servants and the rest of the castle into twisted versions of themselves. The town fawns over Gaston and glorify his actions despite being an asshole, but it’s not something that is consistent with French culture. 

It’s important to note though, that once the monarchy is reinstated, things end happily ever after. But if people really want to claim historical accuracy, the expectations from Belle wouldn’t end there. 

(end note)

Sure, she would have access to books theoretically. But as a princess/queen, Belle would be expected to perform more feminine tasks and birth male heirs to inherit the throne. It’s in the culture of royals to do this. These expectations don’t go away.  

Most European royalty, especially France, have been notorious during this time period (assuming it’s Pre-Revolutionary France) for its nobility being separated from the general public at large. Royals had their own culture and etiquette. Royalty often had a culture that was exclusively for themselves. One historical account had King Louis XIV relocating their court and government to Versailles because they didn’t want to be near all the poor people in Paris. 

Which is probably where the creators of Beauty and the Beast (Disney film) based the idea of the village being separated from the palace came from.

Nobility also had strict ideas of what men and women’s roles are. In fact, you could argue that the idea that Belle would be “free” as a princess would be a laughable concept. Like it has been established earlier, European royalty had their own set of rules and restrictions based on gender and social expectations. 

Merida

It’s funny how the inherently sexist practices of royalty are suddenly something to be proud of and find power in it when it’s European, and hated when it’s from a nonwhite culture. 

In Brave, domesticity and performance of femininity are emphasized, much to Merida’s irritation, so it’s definitely truer to upper class customs than say, Beauty and the Beast.

Plausible Deniability aka “what sexism? I see no sexism!” 

However, this movie dances around the concept that sexism has anything to do with this by creating plausible deniability at every turn. It’s about Elanor and Merida, not the system that binds them. It doesn’t help that Eleanor is the one who enforces these rules on Merida, not to protect her from harm coming from the men in these social circles that would hurt her for not performing femininity, but because “it’s tradition.”

Merida laments that her brothers don’t have the same responsibilities as her, but of course they don’t. They’re like, five. She hates having to be a princess because it’s work, but of course? She’s a princess. 

It becomes a matter of her not wanting to do work and chalking it up to her being rebellious rather than a genuine effort to change anything about the social structure. It’s a generational difference that requires compromise, not upheaval. 

She doesn’t want to lose her freedom, but it’s portrayed as something she has to do to grow up. The obligations make her sad but she has to ultimately deal with it, reasserting the theme of “compromise” with her relationship with her mother and the clans. In the end, it’s about her and her mother, not about how this system treats women at all. She doesn’t put any responsibility for this system on her father (who would reinforce these rules because he is the KING) because she gets along with him more than her mother. 

That’s the problem with white princess films in general. They take problems that exist because of systemic and economic limitations and make it completely individualistic.  It’s important to note that Brave appears to be tackling sexism, but it never actually addresses it in a genuine way.

Lesson for Battling Systemic Sexism in Brave: Don’t Change the System, Change the Person!

Merida’s desire for change is based on her mother’s demands, and doesn’t tackle the social expectations themselves straight on. The men around Merida, who MADE and uphold these rules, aren’t considered a threat and are pretty much never held accountable. They are too bumbling, too endearing, and too funny to be called out on their expectations.  

The movies like, “oh yeah, this social structure is hindering and it’s sexist and whatever, blah, blah, blah but eVeryONE wants to follow their own path, not just Merida!!1” Her potential suitors don’t want to do this either. It’s totally not a sexism issue!!11

Even though historically, you’d have at least ONE suitor that didn’t care whether she wanted to or not, as it would be a power grab. But because they are so bumbling, they are almost all benign. The ending in itself is convenient as it allows Merida and Elanor to reconnect. But it doesn’t really change anything. Because it doesn’t want to. That wasn’t the point.

White Princesses: For Me, Myself, and I

Belle didn’t want to change how women were viewed, just her specific circumstances. Her plight is portrayed as systemic, but only in this one area that’s gone rogue. The world outside is more accepting, more free, and it’s in the confines of a royal castle. On a meta level, it’s kinda classist. I love the movie, don’t get me wrong, but on rewatch it seems to equate a lack of a monarchy ultimately leading into a mob mentality. Which, for France, makes sense. But when you have servants who just live to serve (no matter how vibrant their personality), I kind of get suspicious. 

Ariel didn’t want to change how mermaids interacted with humans, she just wanted to go up and see the human world. The benefits of her turning her into a human (freeing Ursula’s victims) is a happy accident that lines up with her ending.

Merida just wanted to be free to do whatever she wanted, which is considered selfish. She is a princess, and being a princess is hard work (when you want to make sure your character finds power in sexist practices). 

And to be honest, it’s fine to have a simple goal. Reconnect with your mother, make a pretty dress, see the lanterns, whatever. But the problem is the double standard when they go into films about people of color. They point out how sexist this non white culture is, how they mistreat women, but they never do the same for white princesses at all. These filmmakers always have some sort of excuse. 

Ariel

Ariel’s story is indivualistic and while there are hints of her being unsatisfied with her role as a princess (with her line “bright young women, sick of swimming”), it’s more about her personal journey to be human. She’s not dissatisfied because of her society because of sexist/prejudice expectations, but because she wants to explore. 

Once again, the world in which a white Disney princess goes into/winds up in a world of European royalty are considered a bastion of freedom. In the original tale, the prince is not idealized and she is miserable on the surface world when it turns out that all her sacrifice was for nothing. 

I’ve had people argue that Triton’s prejudice (which is often mislabeled as “racism,” which….no it’s not) is a social problem, it really doesn’t play much of a role rather than provide an opposition to overcome on the path to being human.

Even if Triton was fine with humans and let her explore the human world, it wouldn’t be enough. She’d still want to be human, just maybe not going to such extreme lengths. When Ursula is defeated, others are freed from her curse, but that’s an unintentional side effect of Ariel’s journey, not the goal. Sure, she’s disgusted, but she’s not out to right any wrongs. It’s just her. Like most white princesses, this is about herself. 

Elsa and Anna

Why is it that suddenly we have a powerful matriarchy when Europe has historically violently opposed the concept? You’d think that they would mention the sexism of royal European politics since she is the queen. 

I have looked it up, and the only way she could assess power is if she had a son to inherit the throne and then act as Queen regent until he inherited it (as was the case of Queen Margaret of Denmark in 1387, who ruled Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Though she outlived her son and her successor was a relative after her death. Considering that this story presumably takes place in the early 1800s, that is a huge time difference and the politics of European royalty would be drastically different). 

No Male Heirs?

In earlier storyboards, we have suitors for Elsa that she rejects. We also had a regent who took the throne for Elsa after her parents died before she was coronated. But that character was deleted. So it’s safe to assume that she is not only being coronated, but also has absolute power.

Elsa is pretty much universally loved by her people and doesn’t have any real serious opposition to her rule politically. The Duke of Weasleton is a joke, and he is more concerned about his trade being compromised rather than her being a woman. 

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but other than calling her a witch, his sexism isn’t as explicit as it should be and isn’t taken very seriously. His character is more defined by his dislike of magic, and is portrayed as suspicious, arrogant and cowardly. 

In the end, it all came down to trade and goods. If Arandelle’s goods were damaged or expired from the winter, it might cause their prices to go up.But in reality, it’d just be easier for the Duke to look for a male relative of Elsa to usurp her and form some sort of alliance with him. And more historically accurate.

Hans, Kristoff and the Marriage Situation

Anna has the freedom to marry a commoner (Kristoff), a prince she was not previously engaged to (Hans), and she has the power to grant Hans authority. The mere fact that she was even allowed to be alone with him is cause for concern, as many upper class women had to have a chaperone when courting before they could even go walking together. 

She isn’t pressured to marry Hans, she does it because she wants to. She just chooses him at a party. Surely she’d have an arranged marriage, or something? 

Rapunzel

Obviously, because Ra//punzel is not raised to be a princess she would probably not be held to the same standards until she returned home. And I’m not gonna touch the animated series because it’s so far removed from the movie it shouldn’t be considered canonical.

But still, Tangl//ed the movie continues the trend of how being part of European royalty is pathway to freedom. She is only free when she is away from Mother Gothel (who is poor) and with her birth parents (who are rich).

Sexist Insults from Mother Gothel, But No One Else

She doesn’t encounter any sort of sexism in her society. It’s really interesting to note that these feminine expectations and sexist insults are put on her more by Mother Gothel than the village she encounters. But that’s more because Mother Gothel is trying to destroy her sense of self worth (by calling her chubby, encouraging long hair to preserve her own youth, etc.).

Modern Notions of Femininity vs. Historical Reality

Rapunzel herself already engages in traditionally feminine activities (reading is very limited, baking, arts and crafts, etc.) for a modern audience. This is absolutely key because Mother Gothel wouldn’t be able to afford such a variety of paint for Rapunzel.

Painting for the longest time was considered a high art for men and male apprentices. Women weren’t encouraged to pursue it and it wasn’t seen as something traditionally feminine until recently.

Painting as a hobby (such as Rapunzel’s colorful and pastel palette) is more of a skill that is acceptable for girls now, since paint and brushes are in abundance and availability.

You can skip over this next part about the painting if you want. It’s basically me griping about how Rapunzel’s painting habits would be next to impossible in real life to do in the 1800s unless she had her own workshop with her own apprenticeship and income. 

Painting? Maybe... Painting on the Walls? No freaking Way

In reality, if this does take place in past Europe then she probably wouldn’t have access to paint as it was really expensive and you had to take things like climate, temperature, and color into account to transporting and making it.

Location was really important, as paint in Northern Europe wouldn’t be compatible with the temperature of Southern Europe (because it would melt). And in Rapunzel’s case, if you’re putting it on a wall, then it would have to last a long time without melting or chipping away over time.  That is why old frescos (or Byzantine Wall Paintings) were chipped and rotted when they were rediscovered. Also, don’t even try to get blue, that color was crazy expensive lol.

Mother Gothel doesn’t appear to have the material wealth to afford it, otherwise she’d be able to afford way more and just import what she needs without leaving the tower. How could she afford all that paint? It was crazy expensive (unless you mixed it yourself). And that doesn’t even count the materials (brushes, color palettes, etc) needed to spread the paint across the entire tower. 

According to BBC’s Life in Colour: The Surprising History of Paint:

By the end of the 19th Century almost any colour could be purchased for a relatively low price.

Throughout the 1800s, traditional methods of producing colours declined as cheaper, reliable, standardised chemical methods replaced them. Most artists and their apprentices no longer mixed their own paints but bought them ready-made from professional “colourmen”.

So yeah, either Rapunzel would have to make them herself or she got Mother Gothel to buy it premixed for her (this is assuming that this takes place in 1840). The pigments she made would have most likely been toxic to handle. This was over a century before the creation of non toxic paint. And since she, you know, put them on the walls and most likely inhaled them---that’s just a recipe for disaster. 

Then again, it depends on whether or not she used oil based paint or water based paint. Oil based takes longer to dry than water based paint (6 hours!) and water based paint chips faster. 

Now for what I think many of you will go for when attempting to refute these points:

Tiana. 

Tiana’s story may take place in America with a more positive portrayal of the black community (though let’s be honest the whole thing with Vodoo being a force of evil is...ugh..) it still has some issues regarding condemning white people for their role in systemic racism and sexism. 

Tiana, a Black Woman’s Struggles in the Jim Crow South

“B-But Tiana wants a resturaunt!!1 It’s a simple wish for herself! Take that11!!!” 

Yeah, so? 

Do people actually think her story has nothing to do with misogynoir???it takes place in the Jim Crow South. 

Tiana faces systemic racism and is denied her dream based on her being black woman. Her entire character is centered around her connection to her heritage, her socioeconomic situation, and her culture. She may have married Naveen, but she had all the resources to buy her restaurant herself. Her liberation is her embracing her father’s words and living by them. 

And even with all this, because it takes place in America the story bends over backwards to make white characters who are totally not racist. Like Renegade Cut’s Analysis of “Late Stage Disney,” we have a system of violence and suppression being purposefully created for the benefit of white people being portrayed as a case by case problem rather than a systemic one.

They try to tell the audience that those who greatly benefit from this system (like Charlotte and her father) are good and only evil meanies take advantage of it. No...wtf?? I love this movie but Charlotte “I’m here to steal the spotlight cause I’m white” La Bouff is honestly the worst part. 

White princesses are white, and they don’t face systemic issues like systemic racism at all. They also just aren’t as involved in their culture because whiteness is so homogenized. They will never face that type of discrimination and the only way I can see them doing that is, well, talking about sexsm. 

Which they don’t seem to be interested in exploring.  

Final Thoughts

You’re probably wondering why I’m nit picking at so many of these white princesses. Well, a lot of fans argue that they are whitewashed because it’s “Historically Accurate (tm),” but these movies conveniently leave out the sexism that permeates white european royal politics. 

You could argue that white princess films are based on modern sensibilties and don’t want to go too deep into sexism. The Little Mermaid is more in tune with modern attitudes toward (white) women, and it’s a fantasy for them. 

But the thing about this is that the Disney Renaissance was a new age and if they wanted to talk about trials of gender discrimination, they did. They had no problems going into heavier subjects like this when they focused on Aladdin and Mulan. Hell, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin only came out within a year of one another, and the contrast between their portrayal of cultures and sexism is staggering. 

The only exception I can think of was the Hunchback of Notre Dame (which isn’t a princess movie, so it doesn’t really count in this discussion because marketing really changes the game). But we don’t see characters like Quasimodo being promoted on toys, backpacks, and merchandise in the same way like we do Anna, Elsa, and Rapunzel. Not to mention, the movie has it’s own problems, such as Esmarelda representing negative sexualized stereotypes of Rroma woman. 

While the Hunchback of Notre Dame has slightly more grace than it’s white disney princess counterparts, it still has problems that can effect the way that children view themselves and their cultures when through the lens of white people. 

Overall, the numbers of positive depictions of white europeans that omit historical sexism and violence in princess films far outweighs the ones that portray them more honestly. 

#long post #seriously this post is long #anti tangled #tangled crit #historical accuracy my ass #first thing that comes to mind when i think of european royals #henry viii doing nasty shit #disney criticism #this took soooooo long to write #and then i went on that tangent about paint

[nataandreev]

Fragments from “Sister Outsider” Essays & Speeches by Audre Lorde

“Sister Outsider” was probably one of the most soul-fucking-searching book I ever read in my life. It made me question what I stand for so many times, that it made me sick to my stomach. I realized that I am not that good at this self-reflective-shit.

That my efforts of doing better are not anywhere close to where they should be. Audre Lorde taught me through her works that I got a lot of work to do. Like a lot. Her truth cuts deep. She has no mercy and her opinions are raw. They are hard to swallow. There were moments when I had to pause, because I wasn’t fully understanding it and weird enought I finished to read it today, February 18, 2020, on her birthday. Audre would’ve turn today 86 yo. Here are just a few fragments from the book, but, please, if you can read the whole thing. 

Biography:

Audre Lorde is an American writer, feminist, womanist, librarian, and civil rights activist. As a poet, she is best known for technical mastery and emotional expression, as well as her poems that express anger and outrage at civil and social injustices she observed throughout her life. Her poems and prose largely deal with issues related to civil rights, feminism, lesbianism, illness and disability, and the exploration of black female identity via Wikipedia.

⁃ Poetry Is Not a Luxury

We are all more blind to what we have than to what we have not. The white fathers told us: I think therefore I am. The Black mother within each of us-the poet-whispers in our dreams: I feel, therefore I can be free. ⁃ The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action For within living structures defined by profit, by linear power, by institutional dehumanization, our feelings were not meant to survive. Kept around as unavoidable adjuncts or pleasant pastimes, feelings were expected to kneel to thought as women were expect to kneel to men. But women have survived. As poets. And there are no new pains. We have felt them all already. We have hidden that fact in the same place where we have hidden our power. They surface in our dreams, and it is our dreams that point the way to freedom. In becoming forcibly and essentially aware of my mortality, and of what I wished and wanted for my life, however short it might be, priorities and omissions became strongly etched in a merciless light, and what I most regretted were my silences. And I began to recognize a source of power within myself that comes from the knowledge that while it is most desirable not to be afraid, learning to put fear into a perspective gave me great strength. “Tell them about how you’re never really a whole person if you remain silent, because there’s always that one little piece inside you that wants to be spoken out, and if you keep ignoring it, it gets madder and madder and hotter, and if you don’t speak it out one day it will punch you in the mouth from the inside.” Because the machine will try to grind you into dust anyway, whether or not we speak. We can sit in our corners mute forever while our sisters and our selves are wasted, while our children are distorted, while our earth is poisoned; we can sit in our safe corners mute as bottles, and we will still be no less afraid. ⁃ Scratching the Surface: Some Notes on Barriers to Women and Loving The above forms of human blindness (racism, sexism, heterosexism and homophobia) stem from the same root - an inability to recognize the notion of difference as a dynamic human force, one which is enriching rather than threatening to define self, when there are shared goals. This kind of action is a prevalent error among oppressed peoples. It is based upon the false notion that there is only a limited and particular amount of freedom that must be divided up between us, with the largest and juiciest pieces of liberty going as spoils to the victor or the strongest. So instead of joining together to fight for more, we quarrel between ourselves for a larger slice of the one pie. ⁃ Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power* In order to perpetuate itself, every oppression must corrupt or distort those various sources of power within the culture of oppressed that can provide energy for change. The erotic is a measure between the beginnings of our sense of self and the chaos of our strongest feelings. It is an internal sense of satisfaction to which, once we experienced it, we know we can aspire. The principal horror of any system which defines the good in terms of profit rather than in terms of human need, or which defines human need to the exclusion of the psychic and emotional components of that need - the principal horror of such a s system is that it robs our work of its erotic value, it’s erotic power and life appeal and fulfillment. Such a system reduces work to a travesty of necessities, a duty by which we earn bread or oblivion for ourselves and those we love. But this is tantamount to blinding a painter and then telling her to improve her work, and to enjoy the act of painting. It is not only next to impossible, it is also profoundly cruel. That self-connection shared is a measure of the joy which I know myself to be capable of feeling, a reminder of my capacity for feeling. And that deep and irreplaceable knowledge of my capacity for joy comes to demand from all of my life that it be lived within the knowledge that such satisfaction is possible, and does not have to be called marriage , nor god , nor an afterlife. ⁃ Sexism: An American Disease in Blackface Black feminism is not white feminism in blackface. Black women have particular and legitimate issues which affect our lives as Black women, and addressing those issues does not make us any less Black. Now I am sure there are still some Black men who marry white women because they feel a white woman can better fit the model of “femininity” set forth in this country. As Black women and men, we cannot hope to begin dialogue by denying the oppressive nature of male privilege. And if Black makes choose to assume that privilege for whatever reason- raping,brutalizing, and killing Black women- then ignoring these acts of Black male oppression within our communities can only serve our destroyers. One oppression does not justify another. As people, we most certainly must work together. It would be shortsighted to believe that Black men alone are to blame for the above situations in a society dominated by white male privilege. But the Black male consciousness must be raised to the realization that sexism and woman-hating are critically dysfunctional to his liberation as Black man because they arise out of the same constellation that engenders racism and homophobia. ⁃ Man Child: A Black Lesbian Feminist’s Response Men who are afraid to feel must keep women around to do their feeling for them while dismissing us for the same supposedly “inferior “ capacity to feel deeply. But in this way also, men deny themselves their own essential humanity, becoming trapped in dependency and fear. “The next time you come in here crying ...,” and I suddenly caught myself in horror. This is the way we allow the destruction of our sons to begin in the name of protection and to ease our own pain. My son get beaten up? I was about to demand that he buy that first lesson in the corruption of power, that might makes right I could hear my cell beginning to perpetuate the age old distortions about what strength and ready bravery really are. It is hard for our children to believe that we are not only potent as it is for us to know it, as parents. But that knowledge is necessary as the first step in the reassessment of power as something other than might, age, privilege, or the lack of fear. It is important to step for a boy, whose societal destruction begins when he’s forced to believe that he can only be strong if he doesn’t feel, or if he wins. ⁃ An interview: Audre Lorde and Adrienne Rich They were very streetwise, but they had done very little work with themselves as Black women. They had done it only in relation to, against, whitey. The enemy was always outside. I did that course in the same way I did all the others, which was learning as I went along, asking the hard questions, not knowing what was coming next. The learning process is something you can incite, literally incite, like a riot. And then, just possibly, hopefully, it goes home, or on. I knew, as I had always known, that the only way you can head people off from using who you are against you is to be honest and open first, to talk about yourself before they talk about you. It wasn’t even courage. Speaking up was a protective mechanism for myself. The Black mother who is the poet exists in everyone of us. Now when males or patriarchal thinkers (whether male or a female) reject a combination, then we are truncated. Rationality is not necessary. It serves the chaos of knowledge. It serves feeling. It servers to get from this place to that place. But if you don’t honor those places, then the road is meaningless. Because we cannot fight old power in old power terms only. The only way we can do it is by creating another whole structure that touches every aspect of our existence, at the same time as we are resisting. There are different choices facing Black and white women in life, certain specifically different pitfalls surrounding us because of our experiences, our color. Not only are some of the problems that face us dissimilate, but some of the entrapments in the weapons used to neutralizers are not the same. I wish we could explore this more , about you and me, but also in general. I think it needs to be talked about, written about it: the differences in alternatives or choices we are offered as black and white women. There is a danger of seeing it in an all or nothing way. I think it’s very complex thing done what women are constantly offer choices or the appearance of choices but also real choices that are undeniable. We don’t always perceive the difference between the two. But documentation does not help one perceive. At best it only analyzes the perception that at worst, it provides a screen by which to avoid concentrating on the court revelation, following it down to how it feels. Again, knowledge and understanding. They can function in concert, but they don’t replace each other. But I am not rejecting your need for documentation. I can document the road to Abomey for you, and true, you might not get there without that information. I can respect what you are saying. But once you get there, only you know why, what you came for, as you search for it and perhaps find it. So at certain stages that request documentation as a blinder, a questioning of my perceptions. Someone once said to me that I hadn’t documented the goddess in Africa, the woman bond that moves throughout The Black Unicorn. I had to laugh. I am a poet, not a historian. I’ve shared my knowledge, I hope. Now you go documented it, if you, if you wish. I was holding back because I had not asked myself the question: “Why is women loving women so frightening to black men unless they want to assume the white male position?” It was a question of how much I could bear, and of not realizing I could bear more than I thought I could at the time. It was also a question of how could I use that perception other than just in rage or destruction. What understanding begins to do is to make knowledge available for use, and that’s the urgency, that’s the push , that’s the drive. That you had to understand what you knew and also make it available to others. ⁃ Master’s Tools For women, the need and desire to nurture each other is not pathological but redemptive, and it is within that knowledge that our real power is rediscovered. It is this real connection which is so feared by a patriarchal world. Only within a patriarchal structure is maternity the only social power open to women. Interdependency between women is the way to a freedom which allows the I to be, not in order to be used, but in order to be creative. This is the difference between the passive be and the active being. For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support. If white American feminist theory need not deal with the difference in oppressions, then how do you deal with the fact that the women who clean your houses and tend your children while you attend conferences on feminist theory are, for the most part, poor women and women of color? What is the theory behind racist feminism. The failure of academic feminists to recognize difference as a crucial strength is a failure to reach beyond the first patriarchal lesson. In our world, divide and conquer must become define and empower. In academic feminist circles, the answer to these questions is often, “We did not know who to ask.” But that is the same evasion of responsibility, the same cop-out, that keeps Black women’s art out of women’s exhibitions, Black women’s work out of most feminist publications except for the occasional “Special Third World Women’s Issue,” and Black women’s texts off your reading lists. But as Adrienne Rich pointed out in a recent talk, white feminists have educated themselves about such an enormous amount over the past ten years, how come you haven’t also educated yourselves about Black women and the difference between us-white and Black-when it is key to our survival as a movement? Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male ignorance and to educate men as to our existence and our needs. This is an old and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the master’s concerns. Now we hear that it is the task of women of Color to educate white women-in the face of tremendous resistance-as to our existence, our differences, our relative roles in our joint survival. This is a diversion of energies and a tragical repetition of racist patriarchal thought. Simone de Beauvoir once said: “It is in the knowledge of the genuine conditions of our lives that we must draw our strength to live and our reasons for acting.” Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in this place and time. I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of knowledge inside herself and touch that terror and loathing of any difference that lives there. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as the political can begin to illuminate all our choices. ⁃ Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference Black and Third World people are expected to educate white people as to our humanity. Women are expected to educate men. Lesbians and gay men are expected to educate the heterosexual world. The oppressors maintain their position and evade responsibility for their own actions. There is a constant drain of energy which might be better used in redefining ourselves and devising realistic scenarios for altering the present and constructing the future. Too often , we pour the energy needed for recognizing and exploring difference into pretending those differences are insourmountable barriers, or that they do you not exist at all. The results in a voluntary isolation or false and treacherous connections. Either way, we did not develop tools for using human difference as a springboard for a creative change within our lives. We speak not of human difference but if human deviance. By and large within the women’s movement today, white women focus upon their oppression as women and ignore differences of race, sexual preference, class, and age. There is a pretense to a homogeneity of experience covered by the world sisterhood that does not in fact exist. Unacknowledged class differences rob women of each other’s energy and creative insight. By ignoring the past, we are encouraged to repeat its mistakes. The “generation gap” is an important social tool for any repressive society. If the younger members of a community view the older members as contemptible or suspect or excess, they will never be able to join hands and examine the living memories of the community nor ask the all important question, “Why?” This gives rise to a historical amnesia that keeps us working to invent the wheel every time we have to go to the store for bread. Ignoring the differences of race between women and the implications of those differences presents the most serious threat to the mobilization of women’s joint power. As white women ignore their built-in privilege of whiteness and define and woman in terms of their own experience alone then women of color become “other,” the outsider whose experience and tradition is too “alien” to comprehend. Refusing to recognize differences makes it impossible to see the different problems and pitfalls facing us as women. The tokenism that is sometimes extended to us is not an invitation to join power; our racial “otherness” is a visible reality that makes that quite clear. For white women there is a wider range of pretended choices and rewards for identifying with patriarchical power and its tools. Today, with the defeat of ERA, the tightening economy, and increased conservatism It is easier once again for white women to believe the dangerous fantasy that if you are good enough pretty enough sweet enough quite enough teach the children to behave hate the right people and married the right man then you will be allowed to coexist with patriarchy in relative peace at least until a man needs your job or the neighborhood rapist happens along and true unless one lives in loves in the trenches it is difficult to remember that the war against dehumanization is senseless. Some problems we share as women, some we do not. You fear your children will grow up to join the patriarchy and testify against you we fear our children will be dragged from a car and shut down in the street and you turn your backs up on the reasons why they’re dying. Within black communities where racism is a living reality, differences among us often seem dangerous and suspect. The need for unity is often misnamed as a need for homogeneity, and a black feminist vision mistaken for betrayal of our common interests as people. Because of the continuous battle against a racial erasure the black women and black men share, some black women still refused to recognize that we are also opressed as women and that sexual hostility against black women as practiced not only by the white racist society but implemented within our black communities as well. It is a disease striking the heart of black nation of hood and silence will not make it disappear. Exacerbated by racism and the pressures of powerlessness, violence against black women and children often becomes a standard within our communities, one by which manliness can be measured. But this woman-hating acts are rarely discussed as crimes against black women. “As long as male domination exists, rape will exist. Only women revolting and men made conscience of their responsibility to fight sexism can collectively stop rape.” - Kalamu ya Salaam, a black male writer Black women who once insisted that lesbianism was a white woman’s problem now insist that black lesbians are a threat to black nationhood, are consorting with the enemy, are basically on un-black. These accusations, coming from the very women to whom we look for deep and real understanding, have served to keep many black lesbians in hiding, caught between the racism of white women and the homophobia of their sisters. What are the particular details within each of our lives that can be scrutinized and altered to help bring about change? How do we redefine difference for all women? It is not our differences which separate women, but our reluctance to recognize those differences and to deal effectively with the distortion which have resulted from the ignoring and misnaming of those differences. All of us have had to learn to live or work Or coexist with men from our fathers on. We have recognized and negotiated this differences, even when this recognition only continued the old dominant/subordinate mode of human relationship, where the oppressed must recognize the masters’ difference in order to survive. But our future survival predicated upon our ability to relate within equality. As women we must root our internalize patterns of oppression within ourselves if we are to move beyond the most superficial aspects of social change. Now we must recognize differences among women who are our equals, neither inferior nor superior, and devise ways to each to others’ difference to enrich our visions and our joint struggles. ⁃ The Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism Guilt and defensiveness are bricks in a wall against which we all flounder; they serve none of our futures. ⁃ Learning from the 60s When we disagreed with one another about the solution to a particular problem, we were often far more vicious to each other than to the originators of our common problem. We forget that the necessary ingredients needed to make the past work for the future is our energy in the present, metabolizing one into the other. Continuity does not happen automatically, nor is it a passive process. That is how I learned that if I didn’t define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people’s fantasies for me and eaten alive. My poetry, my life, my work, my energies for struggle were not acceptable unless I pretended to match somebody’s else’s norm. I learned that not only couldn’t I succeed at that game, but the energy needed for that masquerade would be lost to my work. We are functioning under government ready to repeat in El Salvador and Nicaragua the tragedy of Vietnam, a government which stands on the wrong side of every single battle for liberation taking place upon this globe. Decisions to cut aid for the terminally eel, for the elderly, for dependent children, for food stamps, even school lunches, are being made by men with full stomachs who live in comfortable houses with two cars and umpteen tax shelters. None of them go hungry to bed at night. Recently, it was suggested that senior citizens be hired to work in atomic plants because they’re close to the end of their lives anyway. Revolution is not a one time event. It is becoming always vigilant for the smallest opportunity to make a genuine change in established, outgrown responses; for instants, it is learning to address each other’s difference with respect. You do not have to be me in order for us to fight alongside each other.I do not have to be you to recognize that they were Warriors are the same.what we must do is commit ourselves to some future that can include each other and to work toward that future it with the particular strength of our individual identities dot and the other in an order to do this, we must allow each other our differences at the same time as we recognize our sameness. ⁃ Eye to Eye: Black Women, Hatred and Anger It is easier to deal with the external manifestations of racism and sexism then it is to deal with the results of those distortions internalized within our consciousness of ourselves and one another. Anger - a passion of displeasure that may be excessive or misplaced but not necessarily harmful. Hatred - and emotional habit or attitude of mine in which aversion is coupled with ill will. Anger, used, does not destroy. Hatred does. Growing up, metabolizing hatred like a daily bread. Because I’m black, because I’m a woman, because I’m not black enough, because I am not some particular fantasy of a woman, because I AM. On such a consistent diet one can eventually come to value the hatred of one’s enemies more than one values the love of friends, for that hatred becomes the source of anger, and anger as a powerful fuel. Anger is useful to help clarify our differences, but in the long run, strength that is bred by anger alone as a blind fours which cannot create the future. It can only demolish the past. Such strength does not focus upon what lies ahead, but up on what lies behind, upon what created it - hatred. And hatred is a deathwish for the hated, not to a lifewish for anything else. For example: At this point in time, were racism to be totally eradicated from those middle range relationships between black women and white women, those relationships might become deeper, but they would still never satisfy our particular black woman’s need for one another, given our shared knowledge and traditions and history. There are two very different struggles involved here. One is the war against racism in white people, and the other is the need for black women to confront and wade through the racist constructs underlying our deprivation of each other. and this battles are not at all the same. Most of the black women I know think I cry too much, or that I am to public about it. I’ve been told that crying makes me seem soft and therefore of little consequence. As if our softness has to be the price we pay out for power, rather than simply the one that’s paid most easily and most often. “Don’t trust white people because they mean us no good and don’t trust anyone darker than you because they are hearts are as black as their faces.” (And where did that leave me, the darkest one?) it is painful even now to write it down. How many messages like that come down to all of us, and in how many different voices, how many different ways? And how can we expunge these messages from our consciousness without first recognizing what it was they were saying, and how destructive they were? When there is no connection at all between people, then anger is a way of bringing them closer together, of making contact. but when there is a great deal of connectedness that is problematic or threatening or acknowledged, then anger is a way of keeping people separate and putting distance between us. That’s because we sometimes rise to each other‘s defense against outsiders, we do not need to look at devaluation and dismissal among ourselves. Support against outsider is very different from cherishing each other. We refused to give up the artificial distances between us, or to examine all real differences for creative exchange. I am too different for us to communicate. Meaning, I must establish myself as not you. And the road to anger is paid with our unexpressed fear of each other’s judgment. ⁃ Grenada Revisited: An Interim Report This short, undeclared, and cynical weren’t against Granada is not a new direction for American foreign policy. It is merely a blatant example of 160 year old course of action called the Monroe doctrine. In its name America has invaded small Caribbean and Central American countries over and over again since 1823, cloaking this invasion is under a variety of names. 38 such invasion secured prior to 1917 before the Soviet Union even existed. I am only a relative. I must listen long and hard and ponder the implications of what I have heard, or be guilty of the same quick arrogance of the US government in believing their external solutions to Granados future.