#Black people know true radicalism in a way they never will because they do not have the privilege of backing away | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nerdygaymormon · 6 months

Note

Didn’t he try to get his gay employee to marry a woman lol? I love him, he was a sweet, kind man, but also old and a lifelong Republican.

Most American voters register with one of the two major political parties. I don't know why Fred Rogers registered as a Republican, but what Republicans stood for in the 1950's & 1960's is very different from how we think of that party today. According to his wife, Fred was "very independent in the way he voted."

————————————————————

It is true that Fred Rogers encouraged a gay employee to marry a woman. I think it's an unfortunate part of his history, but I think it's helpful to fill in more of the story.

Francois Clemmons was hired by Fred Rogers to be the first Black person to have a recurring role on children’s television. He would be Officer Clemmons on the show Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, and he kept that roll for 25 years.

In his memoir, Officer Clemmons, Franc shares that one day in 1968, he was called into Fred’s office at the studio.

“Franc, we’ve come to love you here in the Neighborhood. You have talents and gifts that set you apart and above the crowd, and we want to ensure your place with us. Someone, we’re not able to say who, has informed us that you were seen at the local gay bar downtown with a buddy from school. Now I want you to know, Franc, that if you’re gay, it doesn’t matter to me at all. Whatever you say and do is fine with me, but if you’re going to be on the show, as an important member of the Neighborhood, you can’t be ‘out’ as gay. People must not know. … Many of the wrong people will get the worst idea, and we don’t want them thinking and talking about you like that. If those people put up enough fuss, then I couldn’t have you on the program. It’s not an issue for me. I don’t think you’re less of a person. I don’t think you’re immoral.”

Clemmons began to sob because he could only have the job only if he stayed in the closet.

If it had been known a gay man was a regular part of a children's show, it would've been cancelled. Remember, this is pre-Stonewall.

“You can have it all if you can keep that part of it out of the limelight. Have you ever thought of getting married? People do make some compromises in life.”

Francois Clemmons married a woman in 1968. In 1974 they divorced and Franc began living as an openly gay man.

Fred Rogers changed his advice, urging Clemmons to find a gay man he was happy with. He also stopped asking Clemmons to remain in the closet, and he warmly welcomed Clemmons' gay friends whenever they visited the television set. I've read that this change came from Fred getting to know and becoming friends with gay people.

—————————

Having a Black man as a police officer on the show was making a statement in support of Civil Rights. The most iconic encounter between Officer Clemmons and Mr. Rogers on the television show occurred in 1969.

At a time when many community pools were strictly segregated, Mr. Rogers invited Officer Clemmons to join him and cool his feet in a plastic wading pool. As Officer Clemmons was getting out of the pool, Mr. Rogers helped him dry his feet.

This exemplified the message that all people are equal and valued and loved

The core values of the television show were: Love your neighbor as yourself, be kind, say “I'm sorry,” smile, accept people and help them grow, be forgiving, see each day as a new chance to be happy, positive and kind. The show talked about grief, divorce, race issues and disability.

Fred Rogers' character regularly said, “there's no person in the whole world just like you” and “I like you just the way you are.” It was an example of radical acceptance.

In addition to Franc Clemmons, John Reardon is another openly gay man who regularly appeared on Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, so it seems Fred Rogers personally didn't have an issue with gay people, but having them be open on the show was not something possible at that time. I'm sad that an openly gay character never occurred on the show.

Fred Rogers shared that evangelicals would sometimes write to him asking him to condemn homosexuality, and he never would, instead saying he — and God — loved everyone just as they were. Since 1967, Fred and his wife worshipped at Pittsburgh’s Sixth Avenue Presbyterian Church which was a diverse, progressive church where women were equal, social justice was the theme, and since the 1960's has engaged in a ministry to gay people and was the first Presbyterian church to ordain gays & lesbians.

While he was not a public advocate for gay rights, his message of unconditional acceptance didn't exclude any genders, orientations or races.

#fred rogers

382 notes · View notes

doomzidle · 6 days

Text

Legacy/Radical Jack isn't the same monster you think.

I keep seeing Legacy/Radical Jack get chalked up to being nothing short of a 'evil person who wants to do evil things', which... ISN'T true in the slightest. Yes, he's bad. But there's reason. Not everything is so black and white. Here's a dive into Legacy/Radical Jack's character, and why he acts the way he does, along with a retrospective into Jack's life before DSaF. Here's my take on Jack's motivation for the Legacy/Radical Jack routes.

This is all referring to Jack’s hatred towards the real fredbear and fredbear 'cursing' him. Jack blames himself for Dee's death before any of the games happen, and that's clear through just how much regret his soul has (Blackjack being able to literally cross timelines.) and multiple dialogue trees in the game. That Jack would do anything to bring her back, or redeem himself, and Fredbear knew this. Personally? I believe Jack felt obligated to promise he’d give all the souls their happiest day, as he saw it as a way, if not the ONLY way to redeem himself. Why else would a person put themselves through ALL that torture, and be willing to receive nothing in return?

Jack regrets it. Specifically in the legacy and radical routes. He regrets that he ever made the promise because he doesn't want ANYTHING to do with ANY of it. Because it has nothing to DO with him. Dee is gone and dead, and nothing he can do is going to bring her back, so why even bother? Dave encourages him to let loose and not uphold some insane, crazy promise that was shoved in his face. Fredbear cursed him, and that's how Jack sees it. He doesn't want to dedicate his entire unlife to some promise, to have to endure his body rotting and falling apart, people treating him as if he's not even a person, and in the end get NOTHING for all his troubles, all for some stupid bear diety. Frankly, I also think that that's maybe why legacy kills Dee in the flipside. Because he doesn't see that as DEE. His little sister died over 60 something years ago, and he doesn't see that as her. Or, because we know that at one point Henry’s soul enters Jack’s body, Henry killed her instead. It’s one of the two. And, if he doesn’t die? He doesn't have to face eternal nothingness. Which is what WILL happen when he dies, because he has no soul. He can't go anywhere. So, he joins Henry, in the hope of abolishing death and spreading the joy of creation so he won't have to ever face death. Legacy/radical Jack will make himself the problem that fredbear wanted him to get rid of. Not to mention, most people forget it was Jack’s CORPSE who made the promise with the real fredbear, not Jack’s soul. And when Jack’s dead body was awakened to be asked the problem, Jack’s fate was already sealed. Before he even said ‘I promise’ his body wouldn’t ever be able to rest because of the sheer fact that they decided to wake him with his soul out of his body. They took away his chance of ever being able to peacefully rest. They MURDERED him, because they wanted his help.

I don’t really think he had a choice with that promise. He’s gonna end up in the same place no matter what choice or action he makes, he’ll never be rewarded or punished for anything he does, so why bother? Fredbear KNEW Jack felt obligated. It's all obligation. ..this is probably why he kills the real fredbear, and maybe kills to children to piss him off. To make Fredbear's hope of ever giving children their happiest day nearly impossible by killing more and more kids

All because fredbear took his chance of having a happiest day away

And then, you look at Henry's influence over Jack throughout all the games; Especially in the ‘an ending’ ending, after certain in-game criteria are met you can get specific dialogue; BlackJack: ''Well done. Well done, indeed. You've really created a whole legacy out of spite, haven't you? I should have intervened, but I didn't. Was this a passing fancy? Or is this your legacy? Is this really you now?''

Jack: ''This is who I am now. This is my legacy'

BJ: ''I know you'll never be able to put yourself back together, but must you cause such suffering?"

Another secret one you can get from the SAME ending if certain requirements are met

BJ : THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SEEN YOU LIKE THIS. I CANNOT TELL IF YOU ARE LOST, OR JUST TOO CRUEL TO UNDERSTAND. IS THIS HOW YOU GET YOUR KICKS? IS THIS HOW YOU FEEL POWERFUL OR, ARE YOU TRYING TO LURE ME OUT? I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU KEEP DOING THIS.

jack: Perhaps I am trying to follow Henry.

BJ: YOU ARE A FOOL IF YOU THINK YOU COULD EVER KILL YOUR WAY TO HIS DOORSTEP. HE IS GONE. I MADE SURE OF THAT. I AM GOING TO ASK OUTRIGHT: WAS IT ME YOU WERE LOOKING FOR? OR ARE YOU SEARCHING FOR THE OTHER PIECES?

jack: I refuse to put anything back together. Meaning, Henry hadn't interacted with Jack yet, but jack was trying to contact him, and Jack doesn't WANT to put anything back together again.

They broke HIM, so why should he fix them? You also gotta consider Henry's manipulation towards Jack. Through SEVERAL instances in the third game, we see Henry telling Jack the same things he told Dave. Hell, even Doggo confirms that Henry's only manipulating him. Each route of Jack, they're all the same jack- Just the anger directed towards two different sides, two different extremes.

Good route Jack is one extreme, the one that's willing to do anything and everything he can to put everyone else back together, because he himself was broken.

Legacy/radical route jack is the other extreme, the one that's willing to do anything and everything he can to give back what HE was given.

They broke him, so he's going to break them. Hell, all throughout the games it is PRESSED upon the player just how broken Jack is. Dee says it, Dave says it, Fredbear does- Jack Kennedy is more broken than anyone else. They are TWO halves of the same whole, two ends of the same line. One if fueled by regret, the other is fueled with hurt. Another important thing you also have to take into consideration is just HOW broken this man was, EVEN before the games. Here's a short retrospective on Jack's life BEFORE his parents died- Just gonna throw in his life after his parents died too, because it was kinda rough looking back on it. They died when Jack was 16/17, and he was solely in charge of raising Dee, as Peter had already moved out and living with his wife.

Peter for some reason DIDN'T help, he even apologizes for abandoning them, and leaving them alone in dsaf 3's good ending.

A big fault on Peter's end, but there's an important reason for WHY he did this, and I'll get to that in another post. A 17-year-old would've had to drop out of high school to take care of Dee, and we already KNOW he has problems. So, you take a clearly struggling teenager, who was shoved into the role of being a parental figure in an INSTANT, add the other fact that he probably thinks Peter has something against him because PETER left him behind, and add in the fact that there's no room to healthily grieve his parent's death? NOTHING good comes from that. Jack Kennedy is NOT fit to be raising a whole ass toddler on his own. Even IF Dee is Jack's WORLD before she dies, and I full-heartedly believe Dee was the one thing keeping Jack going at one point, that is NOT enough.

But anyways, you have a clearly struggling guy raising a kiddo, and y'know what? His little sister wants to have her birthday party at where he works.

The Diner.

He thinks, sure, why not? It's safe, I work there, my boss will be there, other adults will be there. Nothing bad could happen. He thinks it's safe to leave her alone for a moment. Maybe to go grab her cake, or to use the bathroom, who knows-

He THINKS it's safe, because, y'know, ONCE again- it's where he WORKS. His boss is there, adults are there, he thinks dee is safe. And when he comes back, she's gone. I think the sheer amount of regret Blackjack has is pretty telling on how much Jack blamed himself. So, Jack, panicked, full of self-blame like he usually is (it's a main part of his character), goes home in a panic, finds his DOG dead. His sister is MISSING, his dog is GONE, and what does he do, because he has NO other way to cope with whats happening? He drinks. I'd imagine that's something he's either picked up from Peter or a family member (There's a scene in the game that show Peter drinking, but that's when Peter's a phone-head, so it might be wrong.) He gets drunk. He wants to find dee SO badly, so he goes to the diner. It's night. That's NOT good. He gets caught by an animatronic, and he's dragged to the back, and shoved inside of a springlock suit. (These are the kids doing this, and it's said during the whole flashback when Jack makes the promise. They purposely murder Jack because they want his help.) He's never been in one before, he only worked the nightshift. He doesn't know how it works. He panics, the springlocks go off, and he dies. Henry finds him, and brings what seems to be dee's corpse into the other animatronic in the room. I have no idea if Jack SAW dee, but I am led to believe that it's Dee, because we know Dee was still moving AFTER Jack was dead.(Horrible to think about.) And the previous two children would've been stuffed away already. So, you have Jack. His soul is gone, he's dead. He's awakened, and every AWFUL thought, every AWFUL feeling is still there. He's STILL stuck in the springlock suit, still drunk out of his mind- but something wakes him up. He hears a voice. You have an intoxicated orange who's probably not thinking clearly and is STILL probably overwhelmed by everything that's just happened. He's just lost TWO important people in his life, and he's dead, and he's in pain and he can't even THINK properly at the moment, yet he's being asked to do something that's so IMPORTANT- Jack blames himself for what happened to Dee. He blames himself to SUCH an extent, that he'd do anything to redeem himself for what he did, So, not thinking straight, in unbearable agony, full of self-blame, he accepts the promise, and he drags himself, CRAWLS out of the saferoom. IT ONLY GETS WORSE, FOLKS. His brother, Peter, sees the news. He believes the news over Jack. Jack has nothing. He's LOST everything, and he has nowhere to go, nowhere to turn. He has been broken without any hope of ever putting himself back together again. God, just imagine how AWFUL Jack must've felt when he saw the news, seeing his own face as the murder suspect. Legacy Jack is nothing more then a broken, BROKEN man who wants to give back the world what they gave him. He isn't black and white, good or evil. Henry took advantage of Jack's anger and spite towards those who hurt him, and used it.

#dsaf #dsaf dave #dayshift at freddys #dsaf jack #jack kennedy #dsaf henry #dsaf jack kennedy #fan theories #discussion #analysis #this is MY own interpretation of Legacy Jack #Just wanted to put that out there

67 notes · View notes

fuckyeahisawthat · 1 month

Note

Hey ho, have you seen The Creator (2023) yet? Unsubtly about US imperialism, but also really moving, aesthetically stunning (Greig Fraser as DP, oh yeah) and John David Washington killing it in the main role. I was surprised by how much there was to love. xoxo

I fucking LOVED The Creator and kept trying to write something about it here but never managed to collect my thoughts. But yeah what a fucking movie, oh my god. I feel like it kind of got buried by lack of publicity but tbh I am not that surprised because it's one of those movies with politics that make you think how the fuck did they get away with making this.

Gareth Edwards, like Villeneuve, is a director I've been paying attention to for a while now, ever since his 2010 movie Monsters, which was a really impressive low-budget sci-fi with effects that just looked seamless and interesting things to say about borders and the human cost of militarized responses to disastrous events.

And then he did Rogue One and pulled off something very impressive, which is to take one of the most famous sci-fi weapons of our era--the Death Star, a metaphor for nuclear weapons so iconic it has become a symbol in itself--and made it actually fucking scary for the first time in the history of the franchise. And he did it by turning the camera around.

Because the thing is that before this point, we had only ever seen the Death Star from the point of view of the people firing it. The idea of a planet-destroying weapon is intellectually horrifying but we didn't really ever feel it. Because for that we need to see the weapon from the point of view of its victims. It's such a simple but radical shift in perspective, and I feel like Gareth Edwards took that idea from Rogue One and then made it into a whole movie with The Creator.

The Creator, for those unfamiliar with the premise, is about a near-future counterinsurgency war in which the US military is hunting down various forms of AI/android/robot beings. It also features a space-based super-weapon that is eerily beautiful but goddamn fucking terrifying. It was mostly shot in southeast Asia and heavily evokes Vietnam War imagery (as the ending of Rogue One did as well); it is probably about as close to "Vietnam War movie but you're rooting for the Vietnamese" as it is possible to make in the American studio system. The protagonist is still an American soldier (who defects and "goes native" fairly early in the movie) but making him a Black disabled veteran was certainly a Choice. And yes it's John David Washington and he's great in it.

It feels facetious to say The Creator is Reverse Terminator, because it's much richer than that, but it's also kind of fucking true. For the entire movie, the characters are just running for their lives from the implacable and overwhelming destructive force of the US military which is just crushing everything in its path.

The movie does a lot of things that you simply do not see in most American war movies, but the one that stands out to me the most is that in every scene of war violence there are civilians, including children, fucking everywhere. It really threw into relief for me how often American war-action movies create these empty video game environments for soldiers to run around in, where any actual people who might live in the place where the war is happening are at best props and at worst completely absent. (Alex Garland's Civil War, in addition to being terrible in every other conceivable way, is a particularly bad offender at this.) The Creator does what really should be the bare minimum of taking time to showing that these are people whose homes and lives are being destroyed and it is shocking how novel it seems. (There's a line that plays in my head all the time where one of the AI characters says something to the effect of, "Do you know what will happen to the humans when we win this war? Nothing. We simply want to live.") I will also say that this made it a very intense watch in late October 2023 in particular, but it is fiction so we get a very satisfying and cathartic ending. And yes it is an absolutely gorgeous movie, the VFX are mind-blowing, and I found it quite moving.

#asks answered #the creator 2023 #gareth edwards

24 notes · View notes

viviennelamb · 5 months

Text

Movements that loathe pure women but claim to provide them women with "true liberation":

liberal feminism,

conservative feminism,

radical feminism,

lesbian feminism,

female separatism,

4B6T,

Decentering men,

Divestment,

Pink pill, black pill, every pill in existence,

all sects of religion (except Loving God, of course...) with Satanism being the absolute worst.

They're all superficial dumpster fires which is why their goals will never be achieved because their priority is sex. Compassionate women who seek genuine human connection (while being respectful of boundaries) and the relief of suffering, who work diligently for these groups being their most loyal, dedicated and caring vassals except they are never protected. Noble women are ignored and while fornicators argue amongst themselves about who's more oppressed, beauty standards while intrasexually competing for dick and pussy (while idolizing images of fake characters with fake strength...). When an actual virtuous woman gives them the solution to their problem, they deny its use and she is trampled on and then discarded.

On paper, I'm the most oppressed demographic in the history of every society in existence in every single way and you know what? Not a single persecution I've dealt with has been anywhere near severe as being pure which is why virtuous women of all ages and cultures can relate to this message without vanity getting in the way.

Reamers are addicted to talking about vain stuff like race, beauty standards, political positions, sexuality like any of that matters. Clean people who are black, asian, pacific islanders, aboriginal, african, latin, hispanic, european and white can talk about all the ways they fought to remain pure in this disgusting world and relate to each other as there isn’t a place on the planet were we can one can maintain their innocence (and there is celebration of her blessedness when she does, not jealousy...).

While emotionally obliterated sexophiles go to war over the dumbest shit in existence, think they're capable and deserving of love which is the longest running Cosmic joke. If you can’t love purity, you can’t love anything, especially your own souls let alone the children you fake pity.

But thanks for confirming this generation after generation!

Even though I'm not “white,” the belief that I am "white" showed me that Assholes of Color stereotype each other as much as they say racists do. Nothing I say changes regardless of my physical appearance. Besides that, I don't write like I’m “white,” I write like I love Purity.

#I will admit I am metaphysically White…

28 notes · View notes

ramblings-of-a-mad-cat · 2 months

Note

hi Blair :) I read your post on house elves and i wanted to infodump about my thoughts/headcanons on elves. It’s one of the most interesting parts of the wizarding world to me.

House elves do not actually like being enslaved. So many people jump to the conclusion that “oh house elves love being slaves, and Dobby and Hermione are supposed to be the weird ones.” I don’t think that’s true, for multiple reasons.

-You touched on this in your post but first reason is that house elves are brainwashed. One of the unforgivables gives a wizard the power to control someone. According to the wiki, it’s only illegal to use an unforgivable curse on humans. There’s also other ways of controlling someone in the wizarding world, such as amortentia (keep in mind that there’s a half elf in the fantastic beast series). Even if they aren’t magically brainwashed, house elves have been a part of the wizarding world for ages, and would be raised with the expectation that they would serve wizards.

Second reason is the wars. Dobby mentions that the first war was a dark time for house elves. Goblet of fire takes place before the second war begins. I know elves have magic but it doesn’t seem like they have any defensive magic. They’re small creatures that are easily harmed/forced to harm themselves. We’ve seen how death eaters such as Lucius Malfoy of the Blacks treat their own elves. How would they have fared underneath Voldemort’s regime?

My belief is that elves tolerate captivity in exchange for safety and protection from wizards. Sure, wizards do abuse elves and the Black family specifically beheaded their elves when they got too old. However, without an employer, the elves risk being killed by random wizards or other creatures. This is why I brought up the wars because most death eaters would not hesitate to harm an elf.

This next one is more specific to the kitchen elves. I think they were mad at Hermione because she was condescending and because Hogwarts is the best job they could get. They’re surrounded by fellow elves. They’re not abused. Dobby at least gets paid, and it’s possible some of the other elves are too. Their refusal to touch the socks that Hermione leaves could also be because they don’t want to risk losing this job. I don’t think they would be kicked out for handling clothes, but the risk of homeless is not worth it.

After the second war, more protections were put in place for elves. The biggest is that their owners would face legal repercussions if they abused their elves. More job opportunities opened for elves besides domestic work. Hermione took a more subtle approach this time and worked on deprogramming the younger elves.

Infodumps are the best kind of dumps!

Yes, yes! They are brainwashed! Anytime a story features a group of slaves who are "just so happy" to be enslaved...like, that's not the story saying it's a good thing. You gotta read between the lines. Doctor Who did the same thing with The Ood, and just line with the House Elves, there was more to that story than initially presented. Anytime a slave is happy about their situation, one can assume it's because they are conditioned to feel that way. Especially if they say that they have "no right to feel unhappy when there's jobs to be done and masters to be served." Like, that line has stuck with me since my childhood, it is so fucking chilling. How do Ron and Harry hear something like that and not become immediately radicalized?

I have no idea what sort of magic binds the House Elves into slavery but it must be quite powerful because House Elf magic is otherwise depicted as stronger than human magic. They can bypass things like Anti-Disapparation Charms and everything. I never considered The Imperius Curse but I can't imagine it's that simple either, because the Elves are often "inherited" and seem to retain the conditioning even when they're between Masters. Dobby was free for a couple of years, and made much more progress in his deprogramming, but he still couldn't speak a word against the Malfoys. Fast forward three years later, he had overcome the trauma enough to return to the belly of the beast and confront his old masters, even fight them, for the sake of his friends. So I think the conditioning can be broken, just like in real life, but it would take time. It would take a healthy environment. It would take an elf who actually wants to be free, and with the world House Elves are raised in, most of them aren't going to want that.

I...completely forgot there was a Half-Elf in the Potterverse. I know who you mean, too. The sweet little woman who took care of Credence. (Or maybe it was Corvus? I'm still a little fuzzy on the details.) But either way, that....that is horrifying. That sends chills down my spine, to consider the implications of just how that happened. Because there's no fucking way that was a consenting relationship. House Elves do appear to have human level intelligence so it's theoretically possible...in the distant future when House Elf slavery has been abolished for generations. But, in the nineteenth century? It would never happen. That just gives me the creepy crawlies and I wonder how many monsters out there exploited their Elf's absolute obedience to do the unspeakable.

It seems like a House Elf can do almost anything but their highest law is their master's bidding. Kreacher was ordered to return home from the cave, so he did. It was that simple. On the other hand, he was also ordered to destroy The Horcrux, and he couldn't do that. But Horcruxes are a cut above "usual" magic, so that may just be a special case. All I know is, House Elves would have been miserable under Voldemort's rule. He framed Hokey for murder. He tortured Kreacher and left him to be ripped apart by Inferi. I know it's a general rule of thumb that everything would be worse with Voldemort in charge, but especially for minorities and the House Elves are a minority.

The idea that House Elves tolerate enslavement because it provides protection from being killed in the wild is an intriguing one. I don't think it would be the case anymore, by the time Harry was growing up. But I wouldn't be surprised if this was how they did it. If this was how Wizards successfully subjugated the Elf race. By creating a world where it was sport to hunt them and then offering them a "way out." This would have been centuries ago, most likely. Yet even now, Wizards fear the Elves, even if they would never say so. There's a reason why it's literally illegal for any non-human to carry or use a wand.

I think you're absolutely right about the Hogwarts' Elves. They are likely a reflection of the mindset of Elven culture in general, especially when we look at Winky, but it's also a fact that working at Hogwarts is the greatest job they could hope to have. I know I give Dumbledore a lot of shit, but he did good here. Keeping slaves is never okay, but most of the time, the slaves in question would choose freedom if that was an option for them. These slaves won't do that, so the best you can do for them is give them a job where they're treated well and get to be among their own kind. If the other Elves asked for their freedom, to be paid fair wages, I'm sure Dumbledore would do that. And I don't usually praise the man but he'd have no reason not to.

But the fact is, they'll never do that. Not without real change, the kind of change Hermione wants to bring. Yes, Dobby is paid, but even he turned down fair wages and terms because, as he put it, he liked being free but he also liked working. The other House Elves seem to be embarrassed, even ashamed, at the ways Dobby doesn't conform to the expected status quo. It's also probably at least in part because he was freed. I'm sure a number of these Elves were, but Dobby and Winky are the only confirmed elves at Hogwarts who were freed, and they're equally ashamed of Winky, as she is ashamed of herself.

As for handling clothes...honestly, this gets into woolly territory because the books never answer the question of laundry. Can House Elves handle laundry? I have to assume they can. With that in mind, being freed is probably a more ceremonial thing, where the Master explicitly presents the Elf with a piece of clothing. (On the other hand, we see that this can be done accidentally, so who the hell knows.) I just don't think picking up clothes without even realizing it would count. Also, not for nothing, but....Hermione cannot free the Hogwarts Elves. She is not their Master, she doesn't have that power. She also cannot free Kreacher, despite Ron warning her not to give him clothes. I'm not sure why all of the characters act as if this is something she can do, including Hermione herself, but it just muddies the waters even further, in terms of figuring out how this rule works.

I do like to imagine that Hermione took a more subtle approach to dealing with Elf Slavery as her original strategy clearly wasn't working. But I don't know. This is the same girl who lit Snape on fire. Who kidnapped Rita Skeeter. Who scarred Marietta Edgecombe. When Hermione gets passionate about something, she doesn't do things by halves. Still, we know she eventually became Minister of Magic (one of the only things from Cursed Child canon I will accept) so it's safe to say she set the wizarding world on the right path, even if she didn't manage to completely abolish House Elf enslavement in her lifetime.

#House Elves #Hermione Granger #House Elf #Dobby #Dobby the House Elf #Harry Potter #Harry Potter Analysis #Kreacher #Kreacher the House Elf #Ron Weasley #Harry James Potter #Winky #Winky the House Elf #Albus Dumbledore #Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry #Irma Dugard #Is the Half Elf's name #I had to double check but that's it

17 notes · View notes

panicroomsammy · 2 years

Text

One of the things that bothers me the most about the ending of Black Sails is that Thomas’s perspective isn’t considered at all. The way I see it, there are two ways he could react to the war that Flint waged in his name:

The first is that he would be upset that Flint tried to start a war at all. Thomas was never radicalized the way that Flint was, so he likely still holds his “liberal” (quote marks are because this word would not have been used in this context during this time period) views of the world. He never wanted violence. He believed that working within the system could bring about the change he desired. And it could. Rogers succeeded at Thomas’s plan! So if Thomas has had none of the experiences required to radicalize one away from “liberalism,” then he would be absolutely horrified at the violence Flint has done, never mind the fact that it was done in his name.

The second way that I believe Thomas could react is that he would be upset that Flint did not succeed. Flint told Silver that he believed Thomas would want him to prioritize the war over his love for Thomas. I am inclined to believe this due to the first conversation Flint and Miranda have in the London flashbacks. Miranda says that “Great men are made great by one thing and one thing only: pursuit of a better world. They never give up that pursuit.” I trust her to know Thomas better than anyone, and I trust this to be true because it is a story. I therefore believe it is likely that he never stops caring about the world being a better place. If we were to take the plantation only as a literary metaphor for a state of nonexistence, as I quite often do, the any change in a person while there would not be possible. If instead we were to take it as a place that - while socially removed from reality - still does very much physically exist in reality, then we would have to consider the people within it to exist also, and therefore be capable of change. If Thomas is capable of change, then it is impossible that he would not. Even if he was not already established as a character who cares deeply about things, being held prisoner for 10 years for attempting to prevent the violent deaths of an entire group of people would be a radicalizing experience. It would then follow that Flint would be correct and Thomas would not have wanted his war to be stopped.

Either way, the flinthamilton ending is not a happy one.

#black sails #james flint #thomas hamilton #flinthamilton #black sails meta

88 notes · View notes

shingyou · 1 year

Text

RE: Finland

Some people say we never know we're happy until we lose the happiness. That's a sad perspective on life that might hold a bit of truth, but that truth is not inherent to the so-called "human condition", I don't think so. Rather, you might call it a reflection of how the society I live in has overglorified being absent from the present. Waiting on and on for a future that doesn't come, longing on a past that barely was here. In fact, there is something radical to claiming back the free use of your time; resting is revolutionary. So are my introducing thoughts to this open letter I write as I sit in a plane back to my birth country. It isn't somewhere that I'm particularly attached to politically, nor in terms of identity. In fact, as a black person born in Europe and detached from what I consider my culture, I've often felt lost. I thank internet for meeting some people who, although not from the culture I consider my own, showed me a lot about an identity that feels more like home. I feel closer to being at peace, and yet that means I'm angrier than ever. I suppose these are two elements that create an ongoing fight in terms of transmisogynoir; love and rage, radical and pushing against an oppressive policing, both feelings connecting us to years of history.

And so I went to college abroad. Although most people around me might think this has been a negative experience, and that I couldn't wait to go back to somewhere that feels more familiar, I would have to nuance the take. Of course, I've been through literal trauma as I "won" an entirely new phobia, and of course, we could talk about the pitiful state of the apartment I rented, of the sheer amount of whiteness and xenophobia that was seriously aggressive in the way that I couldn't even access to most things, and we could talk about the lack of communication, and we could talk about the racist landlord, and we could mention how the situation of systemic ableism and racism made me unable to care for my neighbour who seemed to be stuck in a home she didn't belong in, and we could mention all of that. But that's not all there has been, although all of that is more than enough to rightfully give in to anger. And so I went to college abroad. I still hate school, in personal ways, yes, but also because we need to abolish it along education [as the unredeemable concept that it is]. Still, currently forced to live one way or another, I appreciate how I manage to hang on. I shouldn't have to, but there is eventually this mixed feeling of pride about survival. "I did it." It would've been easier for somebody else, could've barely been an accomplishment for some people I resent, and would've been impossible for other people I'm closer to. And that's not to say I'm a special individual; it's barely an acknowledgement that under current conditions, there are possibilities that simply don't exist. I'm happy I'm doing well enough not to have to worry as much as some of my friends, and yet I grieve the thought. There are good aspects to the way uni worked here. I was freer in my essays, and those were my very first, I believe. I realised once again and further how much we'd like me not to write what I write. They'd want me to abandon the communities I've been longing for, and finding bits and pieces of on Twitter, making me feel closer to home. They'd want me to say we're wrong, to elevate me into a true academic; to appeal to the white leftist. And so I wrote, but I wrote that they were wrong. I wrote of psychiatric abuse, and I wrote of African genders, and I wrote of intersex liberation, and I wrote of youth oppression. Some didn't like it. For most, I even had to tame my own speech without conceding too much. One called me out on a lack of "proper sources": but academia is white, and there is an ongoing effort for "proper" (i.e. "academically acceptable", i.e. classism that necessarily intersects with everything else) sources to be regulated in dominating ways. Still, I was freer to write, and some appreciated it. I want to keep going that way. I'll make it hard for myself, and I know how I could make it easier and "succeed". But I don't want to succeed; success as we know it is lonely and a betrayal. No, I want to be a failure together. Maybe that's how I'd describe my idea of practising anarchy. Let's be losers, as they call it, because the cores hidden behind those things they discourage are based. Let's be childish, let's be fools. Mostly, it isn't so much that Finland taught me something, rather than it was a context that triggered something in me. My fiction writing started changing too. I used to know what I wanted to write, without knowing what I wanted to give. I know now. I want to give hope and I want to create seeds of radicalism. I can't force people to take them in and water them. I can't, and I don't want to: I've grown because I was challenged, not because I was worshipped. I'm a weird guy treated as a subhuman subject of experiments who can barely exists "IRL"; semi-verbal, still masks in face of eugenism, low physical strength. So I know I won't be the guy who shoots a brick at the government and burns it down. But those are not the only people we need, and that's why we should have each other too. I'll be somewhere else. I'm only at ease with drama [theatre] and writing. Although I'm sincere when I play, it's a role, and role doesn't have to be negative here. So I want to play teaching without being a teacher [without the authority of school, as much as possible]. And I want to write and write, both in uni and in fiction; I want to make that knowledge accessible and unapologetic. I am working on fiction projects, and I genuinely think they're going somewhere good, and every day contributes to shaping it better. I don't want us to ever shut the fuck up. I've grown. And I still grow. That's why I'll never be a grown-up, I don't have that kind of oppressive pretentiousness. Unfortunately, that also means it gets harder sometimes. I'm sorry, I can't be happy about half-accomplishments for the queern't whities we obtained well over 50 years ago any more. I don't long for a past that was never there to begin with now. I'm sorry, I can't be happy about assimilationism any more. I don't long for a future where I betray everyone and will most likely still die because I could never actually be assimilated. There are many things I want to do once I touch land again, in about two hours as I write this. One thing is sure, I'm happier than I ever was, and I want to acknowledge it right now, not after becoming unhappy. But do know that it's not greediness when I say I want more. No, it's our rights, and I'm tired of waiting to be nicely handed them. I'm happy, but not satisfied. Thanks to everyone who has ever been present in my life and influenced me for the better. Thanks to those who are currently here. Today, I smile as I go through clouds and see the sun shine, and yet, may tomorrow the sun be shinier.

June 6th. 8:33-9:32 PM.

#writings #writing #writing thoughts #literature #letter #open letter #finland #home #racism #psych abolition #youth liberation #queer #update

8 notes · View notes

bitletsanddrabbles · 2 years

Text

Oh HEY! I Can Share This Now!

So talking about my shitty pest control job in the last post I suddenly realized: I’m no longer employed there and never will be again. I CAN TELL STORIES!

Okay. So. One thing you learn very, very quickly when you answer phones at a pest control service (or are in any job involving people and animals) is that people know nothing about animals.

Seriously. Not a damn thing. I mean, for example, they get the idea of ‘cat’, but the concept that a ragdoll and a bengal have inherently different personalities, grooming needs, space needs, etc. is a completely foreign concept. In pest control this means that people do not understand that there are some basic differences in how roof rats and Norway rats* function and therefore how you got about getting rid of them, while basically the same - exclusion, baiting, trapping - still requires some fine tuning. You are probably not going to trap roof rats by tossing four traps under the house. And your exclusion points are going to be unique to your house.

In short, beware of any company that gives you a treatment and a price over the phone. They are either one size fits none or that price is going to change radically**. I’d even be leery of ‘ballpark figures’. Now, there are different ways to handle pricing that are more ethical - my company did free investigations, another company I know charged for the investigations, but subtracted that from the total if you went with them - there are pros and cons to everything. Just know that if you call in and say ‘I have ants’ and they say ‘That’ll be $50, we’ll be out tomorrow’ you might wanna get a second opinion.

This is especially true of insects, because there are thousands - plural! - of ant species and they do not act the same!

(Okay, this is getting very long for one, short, stupid story, but bear with me. You need to know all of this to feel my pain at the end.)

The chemicals that will quickly get rid of one ant problem will make another ant problem exponentially worse. Now, if you’re a biologist who knows your ants and have nests in areas where you can get to them easily, etc, pretty much any ant can be easy to get rid of. If they’re in your walls, though, you need to at least make sure you have the right damn type of ant! And all ants like sugar, so don’t tell the pest control people you have ‘sugar ants’. That’s not informative at all!

You need your ants (or cockroaches, those are the other biggies) keyed out. The pest control people need to look at the animal, look for species specific traits that frequently require a magnifying glass, and figure out what, exactly, we’re dealing with.

One of the biggest bugbears in that job was people who wanted us to key things out over the phone. I mean, first off, yes, I had a license, but it wasn’t an inspector’s license, it was an operative’s license. Asking me to key crap was like asking an algebra person a question on advanced calculus. And I was the only person in the office who bothered getting a license, so everyone else was even more useless. But above and beyond that, you could not tell me what I needed to know! You couldn’t! Even with Norway vs. roof rats, unless you were very familiar with both species, the identifying traits were so subjective it was insane! Is it larger or smaller? Is the nose pointy or blunt? Are the ears large or small? Are you sure the ‘baby rat’ isn’t a fully grown mouse?

Can’t be done!

But boy howdy, there were people who were determined! They just had to have me try! And the more determined they were, the fewer brain cells they had.

The most memorable one was the lady who had caught a spider. She was concerned it might be a medically important spider and so she wanted it IDed. Now, while there are hundreds of spider species in this state, most of them are not of medical interest. Black Widows. Yellow Sacs. Hobo Spiders, which have actually been taken off the ‘medically important’ list due to lack of evidence. That’s it. But there has been at least one case of a brown recluse being imported and biting someone. I know because it was a relative of mine who caught the spider and took it to the hospital with her! So I could not, in all good consciousness, see if it met the description of a black widow or yellow sac and if not say ‘yeah, don’t worry about it’. I said we’d have to get an inspector out there to properly ID it.

She didn’t want to deal with it. She was concerned, but if it wasn’t dangerous, she didn’t want to take the time. “Look, can I just describe it and see if you can tell me what it is?”

Sometimes you just have to humor people. “Okay, describe it and I’ll let you know if it’s something I recognize.”

“Okay! It’s brown and it has eight long, hairy legs. What is it?”

... ... ...

I think what I actually said was “That’s could be any number of species. I’d have to send an inspector.”

What I wanted to say was “Congratulations ma’am, you have a spider.”

In retrospect, she could have been a prank caller. We certainly had enough of them. But honestly? After over seven years working there, I honestly believe she was just that big an idiot.

*which did not originate in Norway. Sorry, Norway, for whoever stuck your name on these rats.

**If they let you know up front that it might change radically, that’s fine. Ballparks are unreliable, but as long as you’re told it’s a ballpark, I will cast no stones.

#pest control #customer service #stupid customers #more about pests than you probably wanted to know #it was probably a giant house spider #but we'll never know

6 notes · View notes

ziaxghazali · 2 years

Photo

Zia Ghazali is a non-mutant who has been in new york for 1 week where they spend most of their time as a Bodyguard. when i think of them, i think of open fields, tire swings, and scrapped knees. they are in support of mutants.

BASICS

Name: Zia Ghazali

Nickname(s): Z

DOB: October 17th, 1969

Age: 28

Zodiac Sign: Libra

Sexuality: Pansexual

Traits: ( + ) Patient, Kind, Bubbly, Steadfast, Determined, Motivated ( - ) Immovable, Bossy, Quick-tempered, Worrisome

Occupation: Bodyguard

Family: Isik Ghazali (Father) — Living, Ana Ansari (Mother) — Living, Haris Ghazali (Older Brother) — Deceased

APPEARANCE

Height: 5′8

Eye Color: Brown

Hair Color: Brown

Ethnicity: Pakistani

Nationality: American

Aesthetic: Cowboy boots and black leather pants, sunglasses, maroon, acoustic guitars and the smell of smoke.

Tattoos: A peach on her left tricep

Piercings: Double Lobes, Nose stud on right side

BACKGROUND

Zia is a tried and true Georgia Peach. Born and raised in Dublin, Georgia which lives smack dab between Macon and Savannah, she grew up on enough land that she could get lost in her own backyard. She had been mucking stalls and doing yard work since she was tall enough to hold a rake, and had callouses on the bottom of her feet from running around barefoot so often. Her family was picturesque: Father, Mother, and Older Brother who all got on as well as family could, and were well respected members of the community.

Zia will be the first to tell you, though, that she learned everything she knows in life from her Older Brother. He was six years older than her, and a God among men as far as Zia was concerned. She aimed to emulate his every move, and learn everything she could from him so she could grow up to be just like him too. And, for the most part, it was for her own betterment that she mimicked him so closely. He was an upstanding citizen with good grades, friends, and a strong work ethic. There were was not a bad word to be uttered about Haris.

He took his little shadow in stride, too, teaching her everything he could about life. Why everything deserves respect, why it’s important to be a good person and a hard work, and why it was important to be strong. He made sure she knew how to stand up for herself, helped her study, and even went as far as to teach her about how to be there for the people who needed it most. For the people who couldn’t stand up for themselves— whether it be because the threat was far beyond their scope or simply not having a ‘Haris’ to teach them how. She was ten when she learned about mutants for the first time.

Haris was a part of Activists clubs at school. He was wildly in support of the mutant cause regardless of how small it seemed to the rest of the world at the time. His girlfriend in his last years of High School was a mutant. He passed all he had learned from them down to Zia, and Zia held on to every word he said as she always did with Haris.

Her parents didn’t seem to notice her new found morals in support of the Mutant cause until she was thirteen, and the Presidential Address broadcasted. Where her parents saw great strides in the way of humanity, Zia could only feel this odd festering in her soul. ‘He didn’t even do anything’. She had exclaimed, much to the surprise of her parents. And, off she went on a rant about how ‘words would never be enough’ and ‘meaningful action’ was the only way to pave the path to change.

Of course, all eyes turned to Haris, who’s ‘radical behavior’ as some might have called it was not so well hidden as Zia’s. Her parents ripped in to Haris about his influence over Zia, and what kind of ideas he was putting into her head. They wanted Zia to be a happy little girl, not a radicalized activist with a nose piercing and fishnets. It was the only time she truly witness her family fight, and she just couldn’t understand why. Her parents had always told her that doing the right thing was important. But, it seemed to her, they meant doing the nice thing. Because, if she had learned anything from Haris, it was that the right thing wasn’t always easy or nice.

Haris moved out soon after that fight. He said it was time. He was twenty now, and needed to see the world and really start his life. He had gotten a job working on a campaign as security guard of some sort, and promised that he would send back letters and call whenever he could. He was going to see even more of the world, and bring it back to her, so she shouldn’t be sad.

And Zia tried not to be. She threw herself into the Activist Club, taking over where her Brother had left off. She worked hard for change on the level of her school, taking action on the President’s empty words if he wouldn’t do it himself. It was her senior year when word was sent home that her Brother had been killed on the job. Some unidentified attack that they couldn’t give out details on. It sent Zia into a tailspin. Not the ‘drugs’ and ‘alcohol’ kind of tailspin, but the kind where she hardly slept or ate, focusing almost all her efforts into anything but accepting the death of her Brother. When graduation came, and life finally stopped, she was left with no choice but to face the fact that there was nowhere left to hide.

She’s far from healed from the loss, but Zia dedicated herself to living as a person her Brother could be proud of. She forewent College to become a Bodyguard herself. She remained a dedicated activist around Georgia fighting for the mutant cause, and learning as much as she could from the community that had been built there. She bounced all around Georgia guarding different types of people. Actors, Politicians, Journalists— the one line she never crossed was guarding an anti-mutant. If she was going to live a life her Brother could be proud of, she’d have to hold her integrity in the highest regard.

She had watched everything happening in New York unfold across her TV screen. Between reports of riots, rising terrorist organizations, and the Mutant School owned by Charles Xavier, it was a lot to take in. But what really grabbed Zia was the Exposé by the Mutants who had escaped from Essex house. She had remembered crying through the whole thing, astounded at the things human beings were capable of.

The next day was when she got the call from the family of one of those very same Mutants requesting her services. And, when they had shown such bravery in putting a target on their back, how could she say no? That’s how Zia ended up in New York City, a place far removed from her Georgian farm life, in charge of the life of one Monique Washington. Who knew how that would go?

#c23intro #{ vibes }#death tw #somehow #my least traumatized character?

4 notes · View notes

kinetic-elaboration · 2 months

Text

March 19: The Expanse 1x07

My absence from watching The Expanse has nothing to do with not wanting to watch The Expanse but just with timing and, I don’t know, me needing a spring break or something honestly. Anyway, I don’t entirely remember what’s happening, like I can’t remember why the Rocinante crew are going to Eros or who they’re looking for there, etc., so I mostly just had to follow along with this episode on its own merits. I wish the show did like a previously on’ segment because that would be really useful to me.

I’m starting to enjoy Alex a lot more. I found him sort of annoying at first but he’s growing on me. I really liked his late-night radio DJ/smooth trucker voice, like, don’t mind me boys I’m just a simple country black ops captain on a long haul down the highway… Like was the voice necessary? I don’t know, but it was fun. He feels like the most stable of all of them at this point, too.

I liked Amos in this ep, too. I feel like a lot of people want to do characters like him and then chicken out about it (I include myself in this category, ngl). He really is violent, straightforward, simple—dense but not in a dumb or negative way. Just like physically big and imposing and with a very clear, set survival mindset. He’s not malicious, but he’s not nice. He is absolutely dangerous if not controlled. And again, like, definitely not dumb, still three-dimensional, but I’d be kind of surprised if there’s some hidden depths of compassion and sweetness buried in there. And disappointed. Now we’re getting to see Amos off Naomi’s leash (he’s not your dog? Ma’am, he is.) I thought the way he interacted with the spy was interesting and a good view into his character—I think it’s that he doesn’t have an ego, in a way. He has a survival instinct, which includes avoiding pain and suffering, but no grander sense of himself in the overall design. He is not a hero and under no illusions about it. I think that’s the trait I’m trying to get at. Anyway, that was interesting but I did feel bad for the spy. But I don’t think Amos was necessarily wrong that, from their point of view, from the point of view of his crew’s survival, this guy is a huge liability and probably should be eliminated. Tough but true. He straight up has orders to black bag all of them, like… come on. And, perhaps because we never saw them so they were never really ‘real’ to me, I thought Amos kinda was objectively correct about opening fire if the Martians boarded. Like obviously the hope was that they wouldn’t board. But what if they had? What was Holden going to do about it? He, and I think the narrative with him, was so intent on this being some huge line that they just can’t cross, we are NOT going to shed innocent blood here, the Martians are our FRIENDS, we will simply take PRISONERS and then… mumble mumble mumble do something with them. Yeah, okay. The moral high ground is for people who have a viable Plan B. Maybe I’m just sort of conflating the whole moral grey area of the universe as a whole with these people in particular, and on a narrative level, they probably do need to stay spotless to be the heroes—as they are so far, within the span of the episodes themselves, basically just always in the wrong place at the wrong time and that’s it. It would not be good for the story for them to open fire on some randos. But like in universe… he wasn’t wrong?

I really liked the Montana homestead. The action within that B-plot… it was okay. I haven’t literally heard it before, the 8-parents thing is pretty unique lol, but it felt sort of…surface, familiar to me. I don’t know. I didn’t vibe with it so much. I didn’t really feel like I learned enough or that there was anything terribly shocking and I had a hard time emotionally investing for some reason. I would like to hear more details about the Holden family and their radical… I’m going to say environmentalism. Like that sort of relationship to the land in a space-travel-based future is really interesting, especially in the context of comments others have made about Earth being overly built up and ill-treated, and so I feel like there’s really something to explore there. But it wasn’t really explored so much as it was referenced. Eh. But I loved the set. I think I’ve said this before but I like how the Earth sets acknowledge that, like, it’s the future but all our old stuff is still here. Like people have expanded and developed and built more but within the landscape that we would know in the present day. So there are the familiar skylines but then more; there are houses that just look like houses but some of the tech people are using in the house is different. The Montana landscape is the same, but it has these big-ass funky-looking windmills in it. It was a little disappointing to me that they fell into the cliché of ‘paper books will be obsolete any day now’ because I feel like the world building in other respects is much better than that, but that’s just a personal pet peeve. In case anyone was wondering, digital objects and especially the cloud are not reliable long term preservation options—books aren’t perfect either but a book will outlast cloud storage!!

Anyway. Three more episodes. I hope stuff in the next one triggers me to remember roughly what’s happening, large scale. I need some more expository re-cap dialogue especially as all the characters converge.

#the year 2024 #2024: fandom thoughts #2024: the expanse

0 notes

chiropterancreed · 3 months

Text

(disclaimer: TERFS/RADICAL FEMINISTS THIS POST IS NOT FOR YOU FUCK OFF!!!) so many people (lots of cis women) are so into true crime. many of my coworkers are and when i asked one (cis woman) why she is, she said she's fascinated by the way murderers think. that's a common theme i think, wanting to understand them. in my opinion, the answer is very simple. the vast majority of murderers are men. we live in a patriarchal society. men murder because they are raised to dehumanize and disregard women. they murder women because the type of men that do don't view us as people. the men that murder other men do it because of internalized homophobia and knowing that (usually) people don't give a shit about gay men and queer people. men murder within their own social groups. the type of people that do this do it because the legal system doesn't care about black women, about sex workers, about gay people, about trans people, indigenous people, and impoverished children. they target vulnerable groups because these groups go historically unprotected. the powers that be don't give a shit about them. so they know they can get away with it, at least for a little while. the only good thing about the modern true crime community, is the exposure and awareness people have developed about these violent crimes. i say this as someone who has lost family to this type of violent crime. i am also partially interested in true crime - not to intense "fandom" levels, but out of general curiosity. the more i learn about these crimes, the less and less i trust cis men. i know that's prejudiced of me, and i know that isn't entirely rational, but the men that commit these crimes are never expected to. they are often normal citizens, perhaps even charming in certain circumstances. the abuse and torment and horror they are able to commit against women is genuinely terrifying. this is one of the reasons i don't want to try dating again. these types of people can be unassuming. they can manipulate the women in their lives to help them pray against other women (one thinks of the woman who helped her boyfriend kill a lesbian they had lured onto a few dates). i just... don't trust people in general anymore. i avoid going too many places out of a sense of paranoia. my local gay club could be bombed. someone could come into my church and shoot the attendees because my local episcopal chapter supports the LGBT community. being an american, i could be shot and killed literally anywhere. i live in a "bad" neighborhood, i could be assaulted outside my apartment on the busy road i live on. like my family member who was killed, i could be kidnapped and murdered and my family left grieving and hoping i'd turn up. the women i know at work have all suffered at the hands of abusive partners. my own mother and other female family members have faced violence and abuse at the hands of their partners. the saddest thing is, i know good men. my grandfather was a very good man and person. the men i work with are good men, respectful and compassionate. i have dated good men. i know they're out there. and that's the saddest thing. that to find good people, a woman has to wade through the shit and the muck that are people who aren't trustworthy - and don't reveal that part of themselves until it's too late. i don't know where i'm going with this. only that TERFS FUCK OFF AND DIE THIS IS NOT FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

#delete #true crime #intersectional feminism

1 note · View note

lets-talk-spirituality · 1 year

Note

Hello, There's someone I've known for 9 years. I always loved him. I always waited for him. He never loved me. I told him my feelings. He didn't care. But I have a cosmic connection with him. I feel you thinking of me. This may sound strange. I get excited when I feel that you're thinking of me. It's like a river is flowing into the sea inside me. My hands and feet are tingling. Whenever I feel like this, he texts me! He now has a girlfriend. I felt you were thinking of me the other day. Soon after, Instagram deleted her profile picture and other photos. I was shocked. Oh my god!! What was that? But he still hasn't texted me. But I think he broke up with his girlfriend. What do you think these are the things I feel? What connection do I have with him? How can I improve this? Can you help me? Or do I have talents? OMG!!! I am very curious. Thanks.

First off. Baby, this doesn’t sound like love, it sounds like obsession. True love doesn’t ask you to wait, it asks you to grow. If you or anyone loves someone you’re not with to the point you can’t or choose not to actively open yourself up to love, this is not love.

Just because you have a soul connection doesn’t mean this is who you’re meant to be with. If they wanted to be with you, they would. Don’t lower yourself by waiting for someone who didn’t choose you. Move on until they can meet you where you’re at, and they may never be able to.

Just because he doesn’t have a girlfriend doesn’t mean he wants to be with you. Just because you have a connection doesn’t mean anything will or should come of it.

What do you think these are the things I feel?

I think there is something about him that speaks to some insecurity or piece of you that’s wounded. If he were to choose you, what do you think that says about you? Are you trying to win love from somebody who could never love you because that mirrors some trauma in your childhood? Is it safer loving him knowing he could never love you because you’re actually terrified of intimacy deep down? There’s a lot to examine, you gotta dig deep.

What connection do I have with him?

He may be here to show you the exact things I just listed up above, your own lack of self worth, your own self issues. Rejection is divine protection. What the connection is matters way less than what it can teach you and how you can grow. Try to approach everything with the perspective of how can I grow?

How can I improve this?

Improve what? Your relationship with him? Stop trying to manipulate it. Let the relationship be what it’s meant to be. Let go. Let what’s meant to be, be. If he is yours, that doesn’t change and if he’s not, that doesn’t change. In no scenario can you control or make things different from him, you can only control yourself. I think you need to focus on yourself and spend the energy you do on him on yourself. Radically and daily choose you.

Can you help me? Or do I have talents?

I do think this shows you have some psychic abilities. I’m gonna pull an oracle card for clarity.

Starseed— what lights you up?

Yeah I think you definitely have gifts and this connection is showing that. Oh! That makes sense. I’m getting this connection you feel is actually you recognizing a soul that shares a starseed race with you and you’re recognizing that. That’s why you know things, it’s very psychic and telepathic where you’re from. (My scalp is tingling while writing this. Oh I’m so excited! This is a missing piece. They’re giving me a revelation to give you, wow.)

I see the color blue, almost like avatar or krishna, blue with a light beam that comes from the third eye and that is how they communicate, directly via third eye on a light wave. Wow. They look like regular people just blue skin. Like this is some skinny guy with spiky black hair and an orange jacket, cargo khaki pants, tshirt, very skater boy vibes, stoner type of dude. Maybe this was him on that planet. Anyway, you recognize a shared starseed race. I’m gonna pull a card and see if any races come up specifically. You definitely have some telepathic abilities and I think you may be clairauident. I feel like you knowing this is like unlocking a locked door. This feels really big to understanding your purpose and journey.

Trust the Niggle— what is the niggling feeling trying to tell you

I think the fact you sent this ask in shows you know deep down he’s not your person. But I think this card is saying you need to trust and follow your intuition more. This will help with your discernment. You are very gifted but you misinterpret what you get sometimes because you are not embracing your gift enough. It’s a muscle. You have to get swole by working it everyday.

A bunch of cards came out with funnily on point messages— water your garden (nourishment, body care, tenderness, rest); Star ancestors (hidden secrets, lost wisdom, look a little deeper); and We the Hathors (deep love, mothers milk, birth as a portal); star bathing (light body, crystal grid, transmission, activation)

DM me if you wanna talk further. I’m being prompted to offer you a helping hand as you learn more about all this. Like I actually feel they want me to help guide you through this? This message is literally activating you to so much. Like I feel it.

The Hathors are a starseed group, look into them and also Pleiades.

#ask box #starseed

0 notes

pentanguine · 1 year

Text

Python Rambles About Gender (Take 2)

This was originally a four part post where I waded enthusiastically into the weeds of every thought, feeling, and experience I’ve had about gender since February, and that was…kind of a lot. So I edited it down to the most relevant, most joyful highlights that I actually feel comfortable sharing with people!

2022 was the year I socially transitioned, I guess, for want of a better phrase. I didn’t set out to make an Event of it, but I am just at such a radically different place than I was last year, and the whole way I think about my gender is so different. I’m out in all areas of my life now, including to my entire family. I’m out to my doctor, and my nametag has my pronouns on it at work. No one uses them, but still.

I did it! I actually cut all my hair off. Got rid of it, freed myself from inside of it like it had been suffocating me my whole life. I feel about my hair the way some people feel about their chests: it was a physical and mental weight, a fundamental barrier to being seen as who I am, something painfully visible to others that felt like it existed as a public art exhibit for their consumption, a major source of dysphoria and utter disconnect from myself, something I owed to other people, something that defined my whole body and identity and sense of worth; it felt insurmountable to get rid of. But I did it!!

I feel like I actually have a body now. My hats fit me. They touch the back of my neck and they hug my head and stay on my head and my shadow looks like “person wearing a hat.” I actually need to wear hats, because my ears get cold. I love running my hands over the short parts in the back and feeling it bristle and finding short little hairs on my clothes after I get it cut. I love combing my hair. I don’t have a quarter of my brain devoted to thinking about my hair at all times. People who are meeting me now don’t have to know that I ever looked different, and that feels empowering, like a relief.

I have a black shirt with flowers on it! I have a shirt covered in stars and a shirt covered in ferns, and a lovely green shirt with flowers and leaves on it that makes me feel like I just rolled out of a tree. I have a pair of lucky gender socks with bright red poppies on them! I’ve been addressed as “you in the Hawaiian shirt!” These are just things, but to paraphrase a post I read once, I’m at the stage where you can see more of me with my clothes on than you can with them off, so those things are important to me.

Something I’ve noticed over the years of reading about people discovering their (trans)masculinity is that the majority of them describe it as something “easy” or “natural,” a default that they “almost never think about.” And that’s not true for me at all. Masculinity is something very deliberate for me, that I have to actively decide and pursue. There are some ways that I guess it’s more “natural,” in the sense that I’m letting my body default to being hairy, or that I feel more confident, but honestly, it feels like work. It’s good work—I think it’s work borne out of caring about my appearance for the first time in my life, and it’s not drudgery, or artifice. But I’m just so aware of how I am constructing myself, and making myself real. I feel like it’s useful to share different perspectives on what feels authentic and makes us happy, because for years I assumed that if I was meant to be a masculine person, it would come a lot more naturally to me. But even though culturally-coded masculinity feels like a lot more effort than femininity ever did for me, it also makes me happier, and more at ease. Fuck the naturalistic fallacy, fuck masculinity as a neutral default emptied out of agency and joy.

At this point, I call myself a trans guy, just because that feels like the most factually accurate way of describing how I think of myself. But it’s complicated, because what do I even mean by that? I’m always feeling caught between “trans guy” sounding too tidy and binary, and “genderqueer” feeling a bit too androgynous/neutral. Sometimes I call myself a man, but it’s always a little bit of a joke, and I don’t think other people would get the joke. What I (don’t) want from transitioning is eccentric enough that there will always be something genderqueer about my approach, even if I am somehow A Man™, so I’m trying to just be ok with the mess (I used to run a blog about sorting people into categories, so this is hard for me).

I get read as a guy somewhat often (not most of the time, sadly, but on average once or twice a week), and it’s just the best thing that’s ever happened to me in my life. I thought there’d be some level of disconnect to it, but instead I wander around giddy and smiling and feeling like I’ve made it somewhere and succeeded at existing. Every time someone walks away from an interaction with me still thinking I’m a guy, I feel like I’m growing more and more real, like each person carries a little piece of my reality away with them, and that reality spreads over the earth like seeds being carried by the wind, and anchors me to the earth a little bit more. (I begrudgingly admit that maybe literally everyone was onto something when they said “don’t worry about labels, live your life and the labels will sort themselves out.”)

Sometimes I feel kind of “hm” about interactions where strangers ask me my pronouns, or if I want to update my name in their system, because I was just as trans before I cut all my hair off, but no one ever treated me that way. There are all kinds of trans/nonbinary people who still don’t look gnc, and never will, because they don’t want to, and they don’t get this. There needs to be some kind of standard where questions can be asked politely without singling some people out and ignoring others who would appreciate them, but fuck me if I know what it is.

I sort of stumbled into using they/he pronouns a year and a half ago, and I…guess they’re my actual pronouns?? I’m pretty sure only two friends have, very occasionally, called me he in real life, and every time it’s sounded kind of weird and try-hard. But I have been called he by random strangers quite a few times now, and each time it’s exciting and fulfilling and makes me feel real and a little more in sync with the flow of life. I don’t know what this discrepancy means, if anything, so I’m just plowing ahead with it.

I love my name and don’t plan on changing it, but it does sometimes feel a bit like a spanner in the works of my gender. It’s actually a lot like telling people that my favorite band is Coldplay: This is 100% true! And yet… It’s very unrepresentative of my music/gender preferences as a whole, and I feel like a large and meaningful part of myself is going unnoticed if the conversation stops there. At the same time, I’m not ashamed of it and I’m not going to change it to seem more coherent for other people. But sometimes I want to lie so that I can tell more of the truth, if that makes sense.

Mostly what I want to convey is that I am very happy, and socially transitioning is the most miraculous joyful wonderful thing I have ever done in my life. I see a lot of people saying that HRT is what gave them those feelings of peace and euphoria, but I feel that way just about getting a haircut and coming out to more people in my life. There are all kinds of ways to find trans joy.

#yes this is the condensed version i promise #i am long winded and unashamed #personal #uh #i should probably have a tag where i talk about my personal experiences with gender and i'm just now realizing i don't #maybe #betwixt and between #i can workshop that later

1 note · View note

writingwithcolor · 3 years

Text

(1800s Western) non-racist White characters interacting with Black and Native people

Anonymous asked:

My story has two white main characters who live on the western frontier in the late 1800s (specifically 1877) and will of course have to interact with both natives and Black people at some point. When they do interact with them, I don’t want these characters to seem like they’re all knowing on the interworkings of racism and how it affects people, but I don’t want them to seem racist either. How could I show that they’re ignorant on some stuff without having them be straight up racist?

Writing a fluffier piece

Lesya will come from a more historically accurate and detailed perspective. I will answer this as if your piece learns more towards escapism, in which you aren’t trying to perfectly replicate true race relations, but more of a “softened” version of history while not explicitly erasing the history.

The white characters don’t need (and should not) be seen or portrayed as heroes or saviors and not “bumbling idiots” either. They can walk somewhere in the middle. They can treat BIPOC with respect and like humans, so normally, as they would their fellow white characters.

Get the racism out of the way (off screen)

Do not make the people they meet in the story the first Black or Native people they’ve ever met. If they truly were more ignorant in the past, which I would assume they were, let’s just assume they got most of that ignorance out of their system off screen some time ago; previous bias shattered and corrected for the most part by actually meeting BIPOC. I would highly doubt they’re perfect and unbiased completely, but just better than before and not actively looking to harm People of Color in the story.

Micro aggressions or larger scale incidents

Including small incidents of racism or prejudice (micro aggressions) would be realistic. After it occurs, it should be corrected or acknowledged in some way, you as the author noting somehow that the racism is wrong (For example, you might show others’ reactions, the character being confronted, acknowledging and feeling shame from their words or actions, etc)

You could also include singular larger incidents of racism or racially charged-events or tragedies in the storyline, for realism, and have the characters affected or comment on the incident(s).

Now, to Lesya for a deeper historical analysis, with a focus on Native American interactions.

~Mod Colette

Writing a more historically accurate piece

As I outlined in White and Jewish Men, Native American Interaction in 1880s, stories set in this time period are on the cutting edge of genocide. One particularly salient source is going to be List of Indian Massacres in North America, which will be able to give you some idea of some levels of non-war deaths by state per year. You can also check out stuff like Magical Person in History, Not Intervening on Human Rights Issues that gives more genocides of that time period, which are often not outlined in sources like lists of massacres, because wars are counted separately.

What this means is: the level of racism from your average white person at the time is going to be way, way higher than your modern white person, and making them “just ignorant” by our standards is going to make them radically progressive for the standards of the time.

This is the era of the Inconvenient Native, where Native people were “in the way” of American manifest destiny. Pick a newly-founded state and you have found a war with the Native population happening. Residential schools are starting to kick up. Reserves/Reservations are starting to force settlement.

Just seeing Native people as deserving to live on the land beside white people would’ve been a pretty radical opinion at the time. Like… really, really radical opinion. You can spot a handful of isolated incidents where like… one town in an area never broke a treaty, but there are maybe a dozen of those across America? It’s really not many, at all.

For context, one of the most progressive American anthropologists around this time period was Franz Boas; he actually founded the American school of anthropology based around his methods of writing down every detail of culture he could find about these Indigenous groups. He was writing it all down because he was under the impression that assimilation would be inevitable and soon all of these cultures would disappear under the heel of colonialism, so best to preserve the old ways before they vanished forever.

And this guy was a dedicated anti-racist who actually saw value in Indigenous communities. He did things like tried to debunk skull shape equating to intelligence in order to get Eastern European immigrants treated better and Black people treated better.

Like. That’s progressive. Finding the cultures worth recording. Finding reservations worth allocating. And under that progressive thought pattern was still the belief that cultural death and removal of all Indigenous peoples was inevitable.

I’ve seen an analysis of Huckleberry Finn that says its racism and its denouncing of racism with all of the slurs involved is actually a really progressive take for the time, especially considering it was written within a generation of emancipation happening.

You’re… going to be dealing with characters who are a lot more racist than we are in the modern day. That’s just kind of the bottom line.

Now this isn’t to say that you can or should toss in a bunch of slurs to show that things were different back then. This will, after all, still be read in the modern world, where those slurs are much trickier to handle.

But you’re going to need to decide a couple of things:

1- where, exactly, it is

I know “the western front” is a catchall and has a collection of tropes akin to Fantasy World 29, but if you want to have some grounding in history, pick a state whose history you feel you can work with and do research roughly in that geographic area.

This will determine stuff like:

What tribe you’re discussing

What the state policies of genocide at the time were (they will exist, it’s just how severe)

If there are any areas where Indigenous/white relations are good/okay (this will be a needle in a haystack but good luck!)

What are the competing resources (cows vs bison, water-hogging crops in a desert, etc)

Determine what wars were happening which will influence the anti-Native attitudes of the time

This’ll also help you determine how many cowboys are Black or Mexican (considering Mexico would have owned quite a lot of the West Coast and southern plains all of 20 years prior), which will help you flesh out the demographics of this “Western” area.

2- What your own comfort levels are

Look. Even anti-racist people of the time would be considered racist by today’s standards. See: Huckleberry Finn and Franz Boas above. Huck Finn was really shockingly progressive for having a white character renounce his faith and his family to say slavery is bad and Black people are equal. It uses slurs left and right because that was the language of the time.

White people then were working with a much different toolkit than what we have now. They were in the middle of debating whether or not Native and Black people were fully human. There were laws in place that said only the first Christians to inhabit the land were the ones who owned it, and no “heathens” could lay claim to it (the Marshall Trilogy of cases, which, btw, are still in effect today).

If you’re looking for any sort of grounding in historical reality, you’re dealing with that climate. There is absolutely, positively, no way around it. There is no way to make modern anti-racism and modern levels of ignorance fit in anything grounded historically.

And the thing is, the people who would go to settle the West would have been pro Marshall Trilogy. They would have agreed that the first Christians to walk the land were claiming it; why else would they bother moving? A lot of Western expansion in North America was based off attitudes that lead to the Marshall Trilogy going the way it did.

Are you comfortable with that? Are you comfortable with a white character’s level of ignorance being, at best, “oh you’re not quite human, you should be happy we’ve given you any land at all because we’re such good people to save a slice of our land for you, but I’ll invite you over for a classic American dinner and give you good American clothes”?

It’s okay if you’re not. But if you aren’t, then you’re going to need to start looking at essentially creating a historical AU where the racism at the time was a lot less, which means colonialism at the time would be a lot less, which means “The Western Front” is going to look a lot different. I cover colonialism in the western genre heavily in the cowboy tag.

But for reference, you can still have people move around if the Marshall trilogy went differently, and people were just exploring for exploration’s sake. It’s perfectly valid to have them explore just for exploration’s sake, but I’d be cautious to paint them as brave explorers just wandering for the sake of wandering in a historically grounded work. That’s veering into historical revisionism, and ignores manifest destiny attitudes.

But historically, these missions towards the wild west were federal government sponsored specifically to get more land for white America. You start looking at the early settlers and they would have been doing it specifically to gain access to the West Coast because of a belief that they deserved it. Or you have religious extremists or white supremacists founding their own states to write their own history, like those who settled in Oregon and the Mormons in Utah.

It honestly wouldn’t even take much work to establish a different history, since a lot of the laws that made things so toxic were so new at the time. Something as simple as thanking the Natives whose land they’re using, learning how to grow food from the Natives of the region (even a simple line like “the newer settlers hadn’t quite gotten a handle on [insert Indigenous practice here], but the landowners said if they don’t, we’ll struggle to get food in a few years”), and mixing Western structures with traditional structures of the area is plenty to show that Natives (including Black Natives) are equal.

Other ways to show equality are:

Having the white people be nomadic or semi-nomadic alongside a tribe, should you pick an area where that’s necessary

Western lines for clothing, Indigenous materials; Indigenous materials, Western lines

Food being a hybrid of what actually works well in the region from other regions and stuff local to the region

The bad guys trying to oust Indigenous people from their lands and the white people fighting back along with the Natives

Mixed relationships on equal footing (Black/Native, Black/white, Native/white)

Political marriages between groups

If you’d rather just write fluffy escapism…

Colette’s tips are great! Make Black and Native people equal for literally no reason other than you want the story to be safe for those groups to read. Pick a rough geographic area just to give your Indigenous peoples around this Western Front town a culture (or three, because the Western front is full of nomadic groups), and you’ll be fine.

But it will be historical fantasy, and should really be treated as such. There’s just way too much racism that happened, casually, in the 1800s for anyone to just so happen to be “an average racist person” by modern standards.

If you want to do something historically based…

Then you’re gonna need to resubmit with our Motivations PSA in mind and say what you’re trying to accomplish with this story; the advice will change based off if you’re trying to show history as it was, critique a certain aspect of the genre, or shedding light on where so much racism comes from in modern day.

Cause “not racist” and “the 1800s” don’t compute, sorry. As we have outlined over and over again, the 1800s is a period of pure unadulterated racism with hundreds of colonial teeth and thousands of mass graves.

Trying to shoehorn modern race politics in that period without consciously modifying history and making it obvious you’re modifying history is, in the end, just historical revisionism so white people can feel better about where their wealth and land comes from.

~Mod Lesya

Published Oct 2021

#asks #Western #Western frontier #settings #racism #racism in history #1800s #BIPOC #Black #Native #Mexican #American History #Historical accuracy #writer resources #Native American #Indigenous

749 notes · View notes

puttingherinhistory · 3 years

Link

“Covid has unleashed the most severe setback to women’s liberation in my lifetime. While watching this happen, I have started to think we are witnessing an outbreak of disaster patriarchy.

Naomi Klein was the first to identify “disaster capitalism”, when capitalists use a disaster to impose measures they couldn’t possibly get away with in normal times, generating more profit for themselves. Disaster patriarchy is a parallel and complementary process, where men exploit a crisis to reassert control and dominance, and rapidly erase hard-earned women’s rights. (The term “racialized disaster patriarchy” was used by Rachel E Luft in writing about an intersectional model for understanding disaster 10 years after Hurricane Katrina.) All over the world, patriarchy has taken full advantage of the virus to reclaim power – on the one hand, escalating the danger and violence to women, and on the other, stepping in as their supposed controller and protector.

I have spent months interviewing activists and grassroots leaders around the world, from Kenya to France to India, to find out how this process is affecting them, and how they are fighting back. In very different contexts, five key factors come up again and again. In disaster patriarchy, women lose their safety, their economic power, their autonomy, their education, and they are pushed on to the frontlines, unprotected, to be sacrificed.

Part of me hesitates to use the word “patriarchy”, because some people feel confused by it, and others feel it’s archaic. I have tried to imagine a newer, more contemporary phrase for it, but I have watched how we keep changing language, updating and modernising our descriptions in an attempt to meet the horror of the moment. I think, for example, of all the names we have given to the act of women being beaten by their partner. First, it was battery, then domestic violence, then intimate partner violence, and most recently intimate terrorism. We are forever doing the painstaking work of refining and illuminating, rather than insisting the patriarchs work harder to deepen their understanding of a system that is eviscerating the planet. So, I’m sticking with the word.

In this devastating time of Covid we have seen an explosion of violence towards women, whether they are cisgender or gender-diverse. Intimate terrorism in lockdown has turned the home into a kind of torture chamber for millions of women. We have seen the spread of revenge porn as lockdown has pushed the world online; such digital sexual abuse is now central to domestic violence as intimate partners threaten to share sexually explicit images without victims’ consent.

The conditions of lockdown – confinement, economic insecurity, fear of illness, excess of alcohol – were a perfect storm for abuse. It is hard to determine what is more disturbing: the fact that in 2021 thousands of men still feel willing and entitled to control, torture and beat their wives, girlfriends and children, or that no government appears to have thought about this in their planning for lockdown.

In Peru, hundreds of women and girls have gone missing since lockdown was imposed, and are feared dead. According to official figures reported by Al Jazeera, 606 girls and 309 women went missing between 16 March and 30 June last year. Worldwide, the closure of schools has increased the likelihood of various forms of violence. The US Rape Abuse and Incest National Network says its helpline for survivors of sexual assault has never been in such demand in its 26-year history, as children are locked in with abusers with no ability to alert their teachers or friends. In Italy, calls to the national anti-violence toll-free number increased by 73% between 1 March and 16 April 2020, according to the activist Luisa Rizzitelli. In Mexico, emergency call handlers received the highest number of calls in the country’s history, and the number of women who sought domestic violence shelters quadrupled.

To add outrage to outrage, many governments reduced funding for these shelters at the exact moment they were most needed. This seems to be true throughout Europe. In the UK, providers told Human Rights Watch that the Covid-19 crisis has exacerbated a lack of access to services for migrant and Black, Asian and minority ethnic women. The organisations working with these communities say that persistent inequality leads to additional difficulties in accessing services such as education, healthcare and disaster relief remotely.

In the US, more than 5 million women’s jobs were lost between the start of the pandemic and November 2020. Because much of women’s work requires physical contact with the public – restaurants, stores, childcare, healthcare settings – theirs were some of the first to go. Those who were able to keep their jobs were often frontline workers whose positions have put them in great danger; some 77% of hospital workers and 74% percent of school staff are women. Even then, the lack of childcare options left many women unable to return to their jobs. Having children does not have this effect for men. The rate of unemployment for Black and Latina women was higher before the virus, and now it is even worse.

The situation is more severe for women in other parts of the world. Shabnam Hashmi, a leading women’s activist from India, tells me that by April 2020 a staggering 39.5% of women there had lost their jobs. “Work from home is very taxing on women as their personal space has disappeared, and workload increased threefold,” Hashmi says. In Italy, existing inequalities have been amplified by the health emergency. Rizzitelli points out that women already face lower employment, poorer salaries and more precarious contracts, and are rarely employed in “safe” corporate roles; they have been the first to suffer the effects of the crisis. “Pre-existing economic, social, racial and gender inequalities have been accentuated, and all of this risks having longer-term consequences than the virus itself,” Rizzitelli says.

When women are put under greater financial pressure, their rights rapidly erode. With the economic crisis created by Covid, sex- and labour-trafficking are again on the rise. Young women who struggle to pay their rent are being preyed on by landlords, in a process known as “sextortion”.

I don’t think we can overstate the level of exhaustion, anxiety and fear that women are suffering from taking care of families, with no break or time for themselves. It’s a subtle form of madness. As women take care of the sick, the needy and the dying, who takes care of them? Colani Hlatjwako, an activist leader from the Kingdom of Eswatini, sums it up: “Social norms that put a heavy caregiving burden on women and girls remain likely to make their physical and mental health suffer.” These structures also impede access to education, damage livelihoods, and strip away sources of support.

Unesco estimates that upward of 11 million girls may not return to school once the Covid pandemic subsides. The Malala Fund estimates an even bigger number: 20 million. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, from UN Women, says her organisation has been fighting for girls’ education since the Beijing UN women’s summit in 1995. “Girls make up the majority of the schoolchildren who are not going back,” she says. “We had been making progress – not perfect, but we were keeping them at school for longer. And now, to have these girls just dropping out in one year, is quite devastating.”

Of all these setbacks, this will be the most significant. When girls are educated, they know their rights, and what to demand. They have the possibility of getting jobs and taking care of their families. When they can’t access education, they become a financial strain to their families and are often forced into early marriages.

This has particular implications for female genital mutilation (FGM). Often, fathers will accept not subjecting their daughters to this process because their daughters can become breadwinners through being educated. If there is no education, then the traditional practices resume, so that daughters can be sold for dowries. As Agnes Pareyio, chairwoman of the Kenyan Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Board, tells me: “Covid closed our schools and brought our girls back home. No one knew what was going on in the houses. We know that if you educate a girl, FGM will not happen. And now, sadly the reverse is true.”

In the early months of the pandemic, I had a front-row seat to the situation of nurses in the US, most of whom are women. I worked with National Nurses United, the biggest and most radical nurses’ union, and interviewed many nurses working on the frontline. I watched as for months they worked gruelling 12-hour shifts filled with agonising choices and trauma, acting as midwives to death. On their short lunch breaks, they had to protest over their own lack of personal protective equipment, which put them in even greater danger. In the same way that no one thought what it would mean to lock women and children in houses with abusers, no one thought what it would be like to send nurses into an extremely contagious pandemic without proper PPE. In some US hospitals, nurses were wearing garbage bags instead of gowns, and reusing single-use masks many times. They were being forced to stay on the job even if they had fevers.

The treatment of nurses who were risking their lives to save ours was a shocking kind of violence and disrespect. But there are many other areas of work where women have been left unprotected, from the warehouse workers who are packing and shipping our goods, to women who work in poultry and meat plants who are crammed together in dangerous proximity and forced to stay on the job even when they are sick. One of the more stunning developments has been with “tipped” restaurant workers in the US, already allowed to be paid the shockingly low wage of $2.13 (£1.50) an hour, which has remained the same for the past 22 years. Not only has work declined, tips have also declined greatly for those women, and now a new degradation called “maskular harassment” has emerged, where male customers insist waitresses take off their masks so they can determine if and how much to tip them based on their looks.

Women farm workers in the US have seen their protections diminished while no one was looking. Mily Treviño-Sauceda, executive director of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, tells me how pressures have increased on campesinas, or female farm workers: “There have been more incidents of pesticides poisonings, sexual abuse and heat stress issues, and there is less monitoring from governmental agencies or law enforcement due to Covid-19.”

Covid has revealed the fact that we live with two incompatible ideas when it comes to women. The first is that women are essential to every aspect of life and our survival as a species. The second is that women can easily be violated, sacrificed and erased. This is the duality that patriarchy has slashed into the fabric of existence, and that Covid has laid bare. If we are to continue as a species, this contradiction needs to be healed and made whole.

To be clear, the problem is not the lockdowns, but what the lockdowns, and the pandemic that required them, have made clear. Covid has revealed that patriarchy is alive and well; that it will reassert itself in times of crisis because it has never been truly deconstructed, and like an untreated virus it will return with a vengeance when the conditions are ripe.

The truth is that unless the culture changes, unless patriarchy is dismantled, we will forever be spinning our wheels. Coming out of Covid, we need to be bold, daring, outrageous and to imagine a more radical way of existing on the Earth. We need to continue to build and spread activist movements. We need progressive grassroots women and women of colour in positions of power. We need a global initiative on the scale of a Marshall Plan or larger, to deconstruct and exorcise patriarchy – which is the root of so many other forms of oppression, from imperialism to racism, from transphobia to the denigration of the Earth.

There would first be a public acknowledgment, and education, about the nature of patriarchy and an understanding that it is driving us to our end. There would be ongoing education, public forums and processes studying how patriarchy leads to various forms of oppression. Art would help expunge trauma, grief, aggression, sorrow and anger in the culture and help heal and make people whole. We would understand that a culture that has diabolical amnesia and refuses to address its past can only repeat its misfortunes and abuses. Community and religious centres would help members deal with trauma. We would study the high arts of listening and empathy. Reparations and apologies would be done in public forums and in private meetings. Learning the art of apology would be as important as prayer.

The feminist author Gerda Lerner wrote in 1986: “The system of patriarchy in a historic construct has a beginning and it will have an end. Its time seems to have nearly run its course. It no longer serves the needs of men and women, and its intractable linkage to militarism, hierarchy and racism has threatened the very existence of life on Earth.”

As powerful as patriarchy is, it’s just a story. As the post-pandemic era unfolds, can we imagine another system, one that is not based on hierarchy, violence, domination, colonialisation and occupation? Do we see the connection between the devaluing, harming and oppression of all women and the destruction of the Earth itself? What if we lived as if we were kin? What if we treated each person as sacred and essential to the unfolding story of humanity?

What if rather than exploiting, dominating and hurting women and girls during a crisis, we designed a world that valued them, educated them, paid them, listened to them, cared for them and centred them?“

#women #coronavirus #life and style #world news #inequality #Covid 19 #COVID-19 #feminism #womanism #gender inequality #gender equality #corona virus

553 notes · View notes