#Elizabeth's social status was not a problem in itself; it was a problem in the context of queenship and marrying into royalty | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anghraine · 7 months

Note

Hey, I really enjoy your fleshed out backstories on Darcy's family, and I was wondering if you have any thoughts about their origin and history! (ex: I read a really interesting fic where the "first" English Darcy was some sort of knight who received the land he conquered.) Do you have any thoughts on when the Darcy family became distinguished, their ancestry, etc.? I find the Austen contemporary allusion to the real Fitzwilliam family interesting, and was wondering if you think that family's origins also tie into it? So sorry for the rambly text :)

No problem at all! Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this.

First, thanks—I'm glad the pure/nearly pure headcanons are enjoyable, too. I did write a fic sort of like that, actually, longgggg ago (a brief snippet where the English house was basically founded by a Norman knight). I can see quite a few scenarios, though, within the limits of what we know.

This is going to seem like a bit of a tangent, but the interesting thing about the Darcys to me is that the status and consequence they grant Darcy are so overshadowed by the Fitzwilliams in fandom and academia—I think more than in P&P itself. P&P certainly emphasizes the Fitzwilliams more as characters (I do find them more interesting as a family) and the RL referentiality is much more distinct w/ the Fitzwilliams, so it's understandable, but I don't think they're the primary source of Darcy's pride and status in the novel.

In fact, several of the remarks about Darcy's status occur before anyone knows anything about the Fitzwilliams or his connection to them. This is Charlotte before the Fitzwilliam connection is revealed, for instance:

“One cannot wonder that so very fine a young man, with family, fortune, everything in his favour, should think highly of himself.”

I think sometimes the Darcys' position is regarded as "same as the Bennets' but with more money" (I think mainly as an overly sweeping takeaway from Elizabeth's argument with Lady Catherine), but it's noticeable that Charlotte attributes his status to both his fortune and his family's stature.

Here is Elizabeth at Netherfield (again, before anyone knows about the Fitzwilliam connection):

Elizabeth could not help observing, as she turned over some music-books that lay on the instrument, how frequently Mr Darcy’s eyes were fixed on her. She hardly knew how to suppose that she could be an object of admiration to so great a man

She clearly doesn't mean greatness of character, but his status as Mr Darcy of Pemberley, and she clearly feels a sense of pretty profound social inequality here, to the point that even setting aside the insult, she can't really think he'd even look twice at her. It doesn't make her deferential(lol) or lack self-respect or self-esteem—it's more of a pragmatic sense of the disparity of their positions within their class, fundamentally determined by their fathers' families.

It's Wickham who reveals the Fitzwilliam connection, but Wickham also associates Darcy's pride with the Darcys/Pemberley:

“Yes,” replied Wickham; “his estate there [Derbyshire] is a noble one. A clear ten thousand per annum.”

“Yes; it [pride] has often led him to be liberal and generous; to give his money freely, to display hospitality, to assist his tenants, and relieve the poor. Family pride, and filial pride, for he is very proud of what his father was, have done this. Not to appear to disgrace his family, to degenerate from the popular qualities, or lose the influence of the Pemberley House, is a powerful motive.”

Despite Wickham going on to talk about Lady Catherine and Lady Anne, Pemberley's aristocratic scale and the late Mr Darcy's moral character and the Darcys' popularity and influence are all linked together in his account. Now, this is Wickham, so the degree to which that's true is debatable, but it certainly doesn't contradict the treatment elsewhere.

Interestingly, he also suggests that part of Lady Catherine's status comes from Darcy's and not only the other way around. Lady Catherine would likely disagree, lol, but she does have some respect for the Darcys and de Bourghs:

“They [Darcy and Anne de Bourgh] are descended, on the maternal side, from the same noble line; and, on the father’s, from respectable, honourable, and ancient, though untitled, families. Their fortune on both sides is splendid. They are destined for each other by the voice of every member of their respective houses; and what is to divide them?—the upstart pretensions of a young woman without family, connections, or fortune!”

The lack of title is certainly worth mentioning for her, but the support of the Darcys and de Bourghs matters to her, a contrast to her perception of Elizabeth's family as basically not worth mentioning. She cares about the reputation and age of the Darcy and de Bourgh families as well as the titled status of the Fitzwilliams (and earlier, she attributed Georgiana's status to both sides of her family).

I argued in one of my other posts that there's no particular reason to assume that Lady Anne's marriage to a non-peer was a love match rather than an alliance that suited Fitzwilliam interests, given what we hear about the Darcys and given Lady Catherine's marriage into a very similar family. Both sisters marrying into old money, old-influence families looks to me like the Fitzwilliams were getting something out of it and not only the other way around. And Lady Catherine's respect for the ancientry of the Darcys and de Bourghs and the importance she sees in being backed by them fits pretty well with that to me.

So. My headcanon is that the Darcys are a prominent, powerful family in their own right and the connection to the Fitzwilliams was mutually beneficial. Moreover, I think all indication is that their prominence and influence is very well-established, perhaps longer and more securely than the Fitzwilliams'. Both the Darcys and de Bourghs have French-origin names, so given how similar their backgrounds seem to be, the kind of obvious assumption would be that both originated as Anglo-Norman families.

We don't know that for sure, though—they might not have been particularly significant that far back and risen to power sometime later. Mr Bennet does suggest to Mr Collins that Darcy has more to bestow than Lady Catherine does and Pemberley itself seems to be older, architecturally. Rosings is a modern house given to a certain amount of tasteless splendour and Lady Catherine's husband had the windows installed personally, while Pemberley's features seem to be mainly Elizabethan or Jacobean and are described as more elegant. We also know that Darcy's father owned multiple estates.

So it may be that the Darcys have a bit of an advantage over the de Bourghs in terms of how much influence and consequence they have and how long they've had it (though this is by no means sure). And it is intriguing that the nephew Lady Catherine earmarked for her daughter at birth was untitled Darcy rather than any of the others—I've kind of wondered if there was something other than simple wealth that she wanted for Anne and which none of her other nephews could provide.

This is long and meandering! But anyway, my personal headcanon is that the Darcys have been established in the Pemberley area for a really long time, and were reasonably prosperous and influential in their area from early on, but in a much more local way at first. Over time, they acquired more and more land and influence and status through politics and generally very pragmatic alliances through marriage, and had become fairly wealthy and influential by Elizabeth I's time. I imagine that the Tudor-/early Stuart-era Darcys very carefully navigated the political winds of their times and came out really well, with the resources to either drastically overhaul their manor-house or simply build the Pemberley we see from the ground up.

They were even more cautious wrt the civil war but managed to get through well enough, and have basically been on the way up ever since. They're political allies of their ducal neighbors but I kind of imagine there's a long tradition of finding the Cavendishes deeply annoying and somewhat tacky. At any rate, Mr Darcy's marriage to an earl's daughter was quite satisfactory for the Darcys in general, but not unprecedented, and Lady Anne was generally considered to have married a bit better than Lady Catherine.

#anon replies #respuestas #long post #austen blogging #austen fanwank #anghraine's headcanons #etc

26 notes · View notes

mimicofmodes · 3 years

Text

“The Ladies Waldegrave” by Joshua Reynolds, 1780 (NGS NG2171)

I’ve complained before about two very big pet peeves of mine - corset stuff and Regency women being dressed in 1770s-1780s clothes - but one that may dwarf them because of how frequently it comes up in historical and fantasy fiction is the oppression of embroidery.

That’s probably putting it a bit too strongly. It’s more like ... the annoyance of embroidery. Every character worth reading about knows instinctively that sewing is a) boring, b) difficult, c) mindless, and d) pointless. The author doesn’t have to say anything more than “Belinda threw down her needlework and looked out the window, sighing,” to signal that this is an independent woman whose values align with the modern reader, who’s probably not really understood by her mother or mother figure, and who probably will find an extraordinary man to “match” her rather than settling for someone ordinary. To look at an example from fantasy, GRRM uses embroidery in the very beginning of A Game of Thrones to show that the Stark sister who dislikes it is sympathetic and interesting, while the Stark sister who is competent at it is boring and conventional and obviously not deserving of a PoV (until later books, when her attention gets turned to higher matters); further into the book, of course, the pro-needlework sister proves to be weak-willed and naïve.

Rozsika Parker, in the groundbreaking 1996 work The Subversive Stitch, noted that “embroidery has become indelibly associated with stereotypes of femininity,” which is the core of the issue. "Instead embroidery and a stereotype of femininity have become collapsed into one another, characterised as mindless, decorative and delicate; like the icing on the cake, good to look at, adding taste and status, but devoid of significant content.”

Parker also points out that the stereotype isn’t just one that was invented in the present day by feminists who hated the idea of being forced to do a certain craft. “The association between women and embroidery, craft and femininity, has meant that writers concerned with the status of women have often turned their attention towards this tangled, puzzling relationship. Feminists who have scorned embroidery tend to blame it for whatever constraint on women's lives they are committed to combat. Thus, for example, eighteenth-century critical commentators held embroidery responsible for the ill health which was claimed as evidence of women's natural weakness and inferiority.”

There are two basic problems I have with the trope, beyond the issue of it being incredibly cliché:

First: needlework was not just busywork

A big part of what drives the stereotype is the impression that what women were embroidering was either a sampler:

sampler embroidered by Jane Wilson, 14, in 1791 (MMA 2010.47)

or a picture:

unfinished embroidery of David and Abigail, British, 1640s-50s (MMA 64.101.1325)

That is, something meant to hang on the wall for no real purpose.

These are forms of schoolwork, basically. Samplers were made by young girls up to their early teens, and needlework pictures were usually something done while at school or under a governess as a showpiece of what was being learned - not just the stitching itself, but also often watercolors (which could be worked into the design), artistic sensibility, and the literature, history, or art that might be alluded to. And many needlework pictures made in schools were also done as mourning pieces, sometimes blank, for future use, and sometimes to commemorate a recent death in the family. A lot of them are awkward, clearly just done to pass the class, but others are really artwork.

Many schools for middle- and upper-class girls taught the making of these objects (and other “ornamental” subjects) alongside a more rigorous curriculum - geography, Latin, chemistry, etc. At some, sewing was also always accompanied by serious reading and discussion. (And it would often be done while someone read aloud or made conversation later in life, too.)

Once done with their education, women generally didn’t bother with purely decorative work. Some things that fabric could be embroidered for included:

Jackets

Bed coverings and bedcurtains

Collars and undersleeves

Pelerines

Neck handkerchiefs and sleeve ruffles

Screens

Upholstery

Handkerchiefs

Purses, wallets, and reticules

Boxes

Book covers

Plus other articles of clothing like waistcoats, caps, slippers, gown hems, chemises, etc. Women’s magazines of the nineteenth century often gave patterns and alphabets for personal use.

(Not to mention late nineteenth century female artists who worked in embroidery, but that’s something else.)

You could purchase all of these pre-embroidered, but many, many women chose to do it themselves. There are a number of reasons why: maybe they wanted something to do, maybe they felt like they should be doing needlework for moral/gender reasons, maybe they couldn’t afford to buy anything - and maybe they enjoyed it or wanted to give something they made to a person they loved. That firescreen above was embroidered by Marie Antoinette, someone who had any number of other activities to choose from. It’s no different than people today who like to knit their own hats and gloves or bake their own bread, except that it was way more mainstream.

embroidery patterns from Ackermann’s Repository in 1827 - they could be used on dresses, collars, handkerchiefs, etc.

Second: needlework wasn’t the only “useless” thing women were expected to do

Ignoring the bulk of point one for now and the value of embroidery - I mentioned “ornamental subjects” above. As many people know, young women of the upper and middle classes were expected to be “accomplished” in order to be seen as marriageable. This could include skills like embroidery, drawing, painting, singing, playing the piano (as well as other instruments, like the harp or the mandolin), speaking French (if not also Italian and/or German), as well as broader knowledge and abilities like being well-versed in music, literature, and poetry, dancing and walking gracefully, writing good letters in an elegant hand, and being able to read out loud expressively and smoothly.

This wasn’t a checklist. As the famous discussion in Pride and Prejudice shows, individuals could have different views on what actually made a woman accomplished:

“How I long to see her again! I never met with anybody who delighted me so much. Such a countenance, such manners! And so extremely accomplished for her age! Her performance on the pianoforte is exquisite.”

“It is amazing to me,” said Bingley, “how young ladies can have patience to be so very accomplished as they all are.”

“All young ladies accomplished! My dear Charles, what do you mean?”

“Yes, all of them, I think. They all paint tables, cover screens, and net purses. I scarcely know anyone who cannot do all this, and I am sure I never heard a young lady spoken of for the first time, without being informed that she was very accomplished.”

“Your list of the common extent of accomplishments,” said Darcy, “has too much truth. The word is applied to many a woman who deserves it no otherwise than by netting a purse or covering a screen. But I am very far from agreeing with you in your estimation of ladies in general. I cannot boast of knowing more than half-a-dozen, in the whole range of my acquaintance, that are really accomplished.”

“Nor I, I am sure,” said Miss Bingley.

“Then,” observed Elizabeth, “you must comprehend a great deal in your idea of an accomplished woman.”

“Yes, I do comprehend a great deal in it.”

“Oh! certainly,” cried his faithful assistant, “no one can be really esteemed accomplished who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half-deserved.”

“All this she must possess,” added Darcy, “and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading.”

Mr. Bingley feels that a woman is accomplished if she has the ability to do a number of different arts and crafts. Miss Bingley feels (or says she feels) that it goes beyond specific skills and into branches of artistic attainment, plus broader personal qualities that could be imparted by well-bred governesses or mothers. And Mr. Darcy, of course, agrees with that but adds an academic angle as well.

But what ties all of these accomplishments together is their lack of value on the labor market. A woman could earn a living with any one accomplishment, if she worked hard enough at it to become a professional, but young ladies weren’t supposed to be professional-level good because they by definition weren’t going to earn a living. All together, they trained a woman for the social and domestic role of a married woman of the upper middle or upper class, or, if she couldn’t get married, a governess or teacher who would share her accomplishments with the next generation.

(To be fair, almost none of the trappings of an upper-middle/upper class male education had anything to do with the kind of career training that college frequently is today, either. Men were educated to know the cultural touchpoints of their class and fit in with their peers.)

There are reasons that an individual person/character might specifically object to embroidery, but it was far from the only “useless” thing that an unconventional heroine would be required to do against her inclination by her conventional mother/grandmother/aunt/chaperone. Embroidery stands out to modern audiences because most of the other accomplishments are now valued as gender-neutral arts and skills.

“The Embroidery Frame”, by Mathilde Weil, ca. 1900 (LOC 98501309)

So, some thoughts for writers of historical fiction (or fantasy that’s supposed to be just like the 19th/18th/17th/etc century):

- If your heroine doesn’t like embroidery, she probably doesn’t like a number of other things she’s expected to do. Don’t pull out embroidery as either more expected or more onerous than them. Does she hate to sit still? I’d imagine she also dislikes drawing and practicing the piano. Would she prefer to do academic subjects? She probably also resents learning French instead of Latin, and music and dancing. Does she hate enforced femininity? Then she’d most likely have a problem with all of the accomplishments.

- If your heroine just and specifically doesn’t like embroidery, try to show in the narrative that that’s not because it’s objectively bad, and only able to be liked by the boring. Have another sympathetic character do it while talking to the heroine. Note that the hero carries a flame-stitched wallet that’s his sister’s work. Emphasize the heroine’s emotional connection to her deceased or absent mother through her affection for clothing or upholstery that her mother embroidered - or through a mourning picture commemorating her. There are all kinds of things you can do to show that it’s a personal preference rather than a stupid craft that doesn’t take talent and skill!

mourning picture for Daniel Goodman, probably embroidered by a Miss Goodman, 1803 (MMA 56.66)

#history #women's history #writing #embroidery #19th century #18th century #17th century #victorian #georgian #regency

1K notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 4 years

Photo

obliquely, this is in reference to how formerly working class bastions in the midwest that used to elect socialists now elect republicans. if we all gave up the theory that LGBT people are normal, we might once again go back to the days where we elected socialists across the country. thomas frank, what’s the matter with kansas:

But its periodic bouts of leftism were what really branded Kansas with the mark of the freak. Every part of the country in the nineteenth century had labor upheavals and protosocialist reform movements, of course. In Kansas, though, the radicals kept coming out on top. It was as though the blank landscape prompted dreams of a blank-slate society, a place where institutions might be remade as the human mind saw fit. Maps of the state from the 1880s show a hamlet (since vanished) called Radical City; in nearby Crawford County the town of Girard was home to the Appeal to Reason, a socialist newspaper whose circulation was in the hundreds of thousands. In that same town, in 1908, Eugene Debs gave a fiery speech accepting the Socialist Party’s nomination for president; in 1912 Debs actually carried Crawford County, one of four he won nationwide. (All were in the Midwest.) In 1910 Theodore Roosevelt signaled his own lurch to the left by traveling to Kansas and giving an inflammatory address in Osawatomie, the onetime home of John Brown.

The most famous freak-out of them all was Populism, the first of the great American leftist movements.* Populism tore through other states as well—wailing all across Texas, the South, and the West in the 1890s—but Kansas was the place that really distinguished itself by its enthusiasm. Driven to the brink of ruin by years of bad prices, debt, and deflation, the state’s farmers came together in huge meetings where homegrown troublemakers like Mary Elizabeth Lease exhorted them to “raise less corn and more hell.” The radicalized farmers marched through the small towns in day-long parades, raging against what they called the “money power.” And despite all the clamor, they still managed to take the state’s traditional Republican masters utterly by surprise in 1890, sweeping the small-town slickers out of office and ending the careers of many a career politician. In the decade that followed they elected Populist governors, Populist senators, Populist congressmen, Populist supreme court justices, Populistcity councils, and probably Populist dogcatchers, too; men of strong ideas, curious nicknames, and a colorful patois....

For a generation, Kansas has been the testing-ground for every experiment in morals, politics, and social life. Doubt of all existing institutions has been respectable. Nothing has been venerable or revered merely because it exists or has endured. Prohibition, female suffrage, fiat money, free silver, every incoherent and fantastic dream of social improvement and reform, every economic delusion that has bewildered the foggy brains of fanatics, every political fallacy nurtured by misfortune, poverty and failure, rejected elsewhere, has here found tolerance and advocacy.

Today the two myths are one. Kansas may be the land of averageness, but it is a freaky, militant, outraged averageness. Kansas today is a burned-over district of conservatism where the backlash propaganda has woven itself into the fabric of everyday life. People in suburban Kansas City vituperate against the sinful cosmopolitan elite of New York and Washington, D.C.; people in rural Kansas vituperate against the sinful cosmopolitan elite of Topeka and suburban Kansas City. Survivalist supply shops sprout in neighborhood strip-malls. People send Christmas cards urging their friends to look on the bright side of Islamic terrorism, since the Rapture is now clearly at hand.

Under the state’s simple blue flag are gathered today some of the most flamboyant cranks, conspiracists, and calamity howlers the Republic has ever seen. The Kansas school board draws the guffaws of the world for purging state science standards of references to evolution. Cities large and small across the state still hold out against water fluoridation, while one tiny hamlet takes the additional step of requiring firearms in every home. A prominent female politician expresses public doubts about the wisdom of women’s suffrage, while another pol proposes that the state sell off the Kansas Turnpike in order to solve its budget crisis. Impoverished inhabitants of the state’s most scenic area fight with fanatical determination to prevent a national park from opening up in their neighborhood, while the rails-to-trails program, regarded everywhere else in the union as a harmless scheme for family fun, is reviled in Kansas as an infernal design on the rights of property owners. Operation Rescue selects Wichita as the stage for its great offensive against abortion, calling down thirty thousand testifying fundamentalists on the city, witnessing and blocking traffic and chaining themselves to fences. A preacher from Topeka travels the nation advising Americans to love God’s holy hate, showing up wherever a gay person has been in the news to announce that “God Hates Fags.” Survivalists and secessionists dream of backyard confederacies out on the lone prairie; schismatic Catholics declare the pope himself to be insufficiently Catholic; Posses Comitatus hold imaginary legal proceedings, sternly prosecuting state officials for participating in actual legal proceedings; and homegrown terrorists swap conspiracy theories at a house in Dickinson County before screaming off to strike a blow against big government in Oklahoma City.

the problem with this simple story is that social liberalism actually grew in lockstep with an economic policy tailored to the poor. in the 70s, the most common place to get gender reassignment surgery was at a catholic hospital in small town colorado. in 2010, in response to deep opposition in the town, the practice was forced to move to california. the second most common place was at a baptist hospital in oklahoma city, where such surgery was viewed as routine until a number of religious leaders decided to oppose it in the 70s. at the same time, many other religious leaders spoke out in favour of the surgery, saying that it comported well with religious tenets.

likewise, colorado legalized abortion in 1967, as did states like kansas, missouri, georgia, and north and south carolina prior to roe v wade. today, these states are considered anti-abortion and anti-lgbt hotspots, yet prior to the late 70s, compassion for such people was viewed as paramount in the life of america’s christians. so what happened? it clearly wasn’t an emphasis on the social aspects of poor american lives that shifted the political arena in favour of religious conservatism. rather, as thomas frank points out in the same book:

Nobody mows their own lawn in Mission Hills anymore, and only a foot soldier in its armies of gardeners would park a Pontiac there. The doctors who lived near us in the seventies have pretty much been gentrified out, their places taken by the bankers and brokers and CEOs who have lapped them repeatedly on the racetrack of status and income. Every time I paid Mission Hills a visit during the nineties, it seemed another of the more modest houses in our neighborhood had been torn down and replaced by a much larger edifice, a three-story stone chateau, say, bristling with turrets and porches and dormers and gazebos and a three-car garage. The dark old palaces from the twenties sprouted spiffy new slate roofs, immaculately tailored gardens, remote-controlled driveway gates, and sometimes entire new wings. One grand old pile down the street from us was fitted with shiny new gutters made entirely of copper. A new house a few doors down from Esrey’s spread is so large it has two multicar garages, one at either end.

These changes are of course not unique to Mission Hills. What has gone on there is normal in its freakishness. You can observe the same changes in Shaker Heights or La Jolla or Winnetka or Ann Coulter’s hometown of New Canaan, Connecticut. They reflect the simplest and hardest of economic realities: The fortunes of Mission Hills rise and fall in inverse relation to the fortunes of ordinary working people. When workers are powerful, taxes are high, and labor is expensive (as was the case from World War II until the late seventies), the houses built here are smaller, the cars domestic, the servants rare, and the overgrown look fashionable in gardening circles. People read novels about eccentric English aristocrats trapped in a democratic age, sighing sadly for their lost world.

When workers are weak, taxes are down, and labor is cheap (as in the twenties and again today), Mission Hills coats itself in shimmering raiments of gold and green. Now the stock returns are plush, the bonus packages fat, the servants affordable, and the suburb finds that the princely life isn’t dead after all. It builds new additions and new fountains and new Italianate porches overlooking Olympic-sized flower gardens maintained by shifts of laborers. People read books about the glory of empire. The kids get Porsches or SUVs when they turn sixteen; the houses with asphalt roofs discreetly disappear; the wings that were closed off are triumphantly reopened, and all is restored to its former grandeur. Times may be hard where you live, but here events have yielded a heaven on earth, a pleasure colony out of the paintings of Maxfield Parrish.

america's workers and small farmers were saved by the reforms of the 1930s, as frank explains, then crushed as the wealthy found out how to squirrel away their taxes (in part thanks to the collapse of the british empire), accumulate wealth away from prying eyes, lobby the government for preferential treatment, and between 1976 and 2000, triumph completely in the political domain. mission hill donates more money to politicians than the rest of kansas combined. unions are swamped in state politics, and see declining fortunes. as a result, neoliberal social atomization takes effect, which sees even workers demanding beggar-thy-neighbour policies. and when thy neighbour is socially distinct from you, it becomes easier to justify voting for such politics based on a survival instinct. the majority of the working class tuned out and do not vote any more. among the rest, low skilled working class jobs in highly stratified and inequitable cities vote democrat, hoping for some patronage from the white collar creative class voters they serve, while blue collar skilled workers tend to vote republican, devoid of any examples of class politics in their lives with the death of unions and hoping to keep their share of wages against their only opposition, the tax man.

ultimately, any socially liberal politics sustained by donations from rich big city donors is unsustainable. on the other hand, the notion that “woke” politics is holding back leftism is, save for a few clearly absurd situations (robin diangelo, for instance) also wrong. economic leftism leads to social leftism, because respect to the working class leads to respect for its identities. neoliberal atomization is a much deeper force than can be surmounted at the ballot box, even in a primary, but it is always an economic force first and foremost.

513 notes · View notes

bookspined · 3 years

Text

❝ that’s all history is after all: scar tissue. ❞

{ cis-man, he/him } huh, who’s FROY GUTIERREZ? no, you’re mistaken, that’s actually SCORPIUS MALFOY. he is a TWENTY-TWO year old PUREBLOOD wizard who is A HEALING APPRENTICE. he is known for being CAPTIOUS, RETICENT, FACETIOUS, DISMISSIVE, and DRAMATIC but also RESOURCEFUL, CONSCIENTIOUS, FERVENT, INNOVATIVE, and OBSERVANT, so that must be why he always reminds me of the song IN DREAMS BY BEN HOWARD. i hear he is aligned with THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, so be sure to keep an eye on him. { merry, 24, gmt, she/they }

CHARACTER PARALLELS: Amy Santiago (B99), Claire Temple (Daredevil), Chidi Anagonye (The Good Place), Giles (Buffy TVS), Michelle Jones (MCU), Simon Tam (Firefly), Elizabeth Swan (PoTC), Spock (Star Trek), Clarke Griffin (The 100), Harley Keener (MCU), Gregory House (House) suggested honorable mention Gizmo (Gremlins)

pinterest [blood, medical imagery tw]

wanted connection ideas

Full Name: Scorpius Hyperion Malfoy Gender/Pronouns: Cis man | he/him Age: Twenty-three Birthdate: January 20th Parents: Draco Lucius Malfoy & Astoria Céline Malfoy (née Greengrass) [Not biologically Astoria’s due to her health, if you ever point this out he’ll flay your eyeballs] Siblings: N/A. Birth place: St. Mungo’s Hospital, England Height: 5’11” Weight: 56 kg Sexual/Romantic Orientation: Demiromantic Bisexual Nationality: British Body Alterations/Marks: A ragged diamond shape scar at the base of his throat.

Blood Status: Pureblood Hogwarts House: Slytherin Wand Arm: Right Pet: His pet toad, Jarvis, recently passed away. Patronus: Arctic Fox Wand: 11 2/3 inches, Willow, Supple, Dragon Heartstring.

Willow is an uncommon wand wood with healing power, I have noted that the ideal owner for a willow wand often has some (usually unwarranted) insecurity, however well they may try and hide it. While many confident customers insist on trying a willow wand (attracted by their handsome appearance and well-founded reputation for enabling advanced, non-verbal magic) my willow wands have consistently selected those of greatest potential, rather than those who feel they have little to learn. It has always been a proverb in my family that he who has furthest to travel will go fastest with willow.

Personality Traits: Brilliance, innovative, empathetic, individuality, openness, social consciousness, inventive, logical, practical skills and self assertion; lack of attachment to people outside his circle and the “real world,” over-intellectualizing of the emotions, dismissive, anxious, crotchety tempered, facetious, rigid, prone to self-isolation, intellectual arrogance, and stubborn. Zodiac Sign: Aquarius/Capricorn Cusp Moral Alignment: Neutral Good Core values: Loyalty, Knowledge, Hope Four temperaments: Melancholic

HOGWARTS HOUSE ANALYSIS

Slytherin Primary and a Burned Ravenclaw Secondary.

Slytherin Primaries prioritize their own selves and loved ones first. Slytherins don’t feel guilty or selfish about this– they feel righteous and moral. The most important thing is to look after your own. Abandoning or hurting one of your own is the worst thing you can do.

A Burned Ravenclaw Secondary might want to be skilled, curious, and prepared, but they feel like they are (or like people think they are) limited, clumsy, or inconstant. Gathering knowledge, hobbies, skills, or tools is the right way to achieve their goals, but Burned Ravenclaws know that’s not going to work within their capabilities. So they take other paths and use other tools– maybe a Gryffindor’s bluntness, a Slytherin’s flexibility, or a Hufflepuff’s slow and steady dedication.

You may have a Hufflepuff Secondary Model.

Hufflepuff is the House of grit, reliability, and determination, and Hufflepuffs use those values to help live, act, and succeed. If you model Hufflepuff Secondary, you also value these things and like to live by them. You like to be hardworking, dedicated, and consistent– but you wouldn’t feel guilty for abandoning those values in the service of other, higher priorities. If there’s another, easier way to get what you want– you’d take it. You think hard work provides valuable rewards– and those rewards are why you work. The work doesn’t have persuasive value in itself.

Despite his very best resistance he’s always been pretty empathetic in nature, he tries to rule his emotions as well as he can but fails more often than not. He was always one of those toddlers that if another kid started crying he’d be right along with them, not because he wanted attention but because he just couldn’t not. A bit of a crybaby, has researched how to magically seal up his tear ducts. Obviously managed to keep the family’s flair for the dramatic there as well. After a few years he leant into the sarcastic vague-snobbishness to hide the core of overwhelming anxiety.

Just managed to scrape through his schooling with nearly all top grades, this isn’t really due to him being a model student. He has always accrued information with a voracious appetite. Any knowledge he could find, even if most people would consider it entirely useless. His mind clicks into that place? You can’t keep him away. However, when there is not an immediate stir of interest on his approach to a topic he has to fight with himself tooth and nail to carry on.

Predictably found exam season highly stressful, was never open about it but was quietly competitive and silently smug over his good grades. Could comprehend well above his reading level from an early age and would often look into experimental research and complicated magic but found himself lost in OWL level History of Magic when chapter upon chapter lay ahead of him about something that didn’t catch his interest. Some people he beat just to spite cause he hates them. It worked, whatever.

Tends toward introversion and finds himself tired sometimes quite easily by a large amount of social interaction. Witty and big-mouthed when he feels comfortable or is in the presence of those that embolden him and very likely to get flustered and snap at people when things are becoming a bit too much. Especially if he feels however unjustly that someone is blocking his escape. Has matured slightly in this since leaving school but it happens still, he’s just anxious. Quite fickle and can at the drop of a hat decide that he’s done with you for the day once his Give Me Attention Meter is maxed. Could be an absolute bloody brat when he felt like it but feels he has grown out of it, which he mostly has.

Always been very, very aware of many people’s distrust of him and his family, he used to sneer and play it up if anyone tried to bring up his dad and go on the offensive but was genuinely affected quite deeply by it all. In his early school years, despite his weakness to the cold, he constantly had his sleeves rolled up to the elbow so that his blank forearm was bared as a statement to just about everyone. I am not marked, I never will be. Now he’s older he has more of a handle on things and can be diplomatic in situations where people are clearly discomforted by his presence and his family history.

Even though the war culminated far earlier in this verse I imagine Scor would have had to have been relatively sheltered as a child if not for how emotionally sensitive and prone to periods of ill-health he was, it was definitely for his own safety. He is still the grandson of a known high-ranking Death Eater and that made him a media target and put one on his back for anyone else that might happen to be watching.

Never produced much of a talent for offensive magic and wouldn’t resort to those methods unless he had literally no other choice, not a front line fighter by any means. His talents with strategy, potion-making, healing and his perseverance with defensive magic are what define him to the Order. While everyone kind of knows who he hung out with at school and who his friends are he is deliberately very mischievous with releasing rumours and misleading people. He deliberately keeps his cards very close to his chest so most people don’t know that he is aligned with anyone, he usually uses glamours or a scarf to conceal his identity if he has to.

While he is knowledgeable about healing and anatomy, he is the WORST at taking care of himself. The literal embodiment of Healers make the worst patients, tends to forgo sleep and basic bodily needs if he’s locked into what he’s focusing on. Sometimes needs reminders to sleep and eat, like a child.

Healing is the most satisfying part of his life and he would never give it up, he likes to experiment as he has a fascination with magic and muggle science and where they might intersect. A fucking nerd honestly. While he thinks he’s being fairly subtle about it a large part of his academic life has been doused in research into blood maledictions, for obvious reasons. He does his best not to flutter too obviously around his Mum. She is capable and ten times stronger than he is.

Lives in a small studio flat in Diagon Alley that is mostly stacks of books and makeshift shelves.

the stillness of the world the moment you take the first step into fresh snow, cashmere and fine wool, the pearlescence of dreamless sleep draught, the scratch of a quill on parchment, faintly tremoring fingers, a shiver up your spine in a warm room, the exhilaration of a problem solved, a thunderous grey overcast sky, the bite of a stitching charm, sleeves rolled up to the elbows, petrichor, the burn in your eyes before a well of tears.

Always had somewhat fragile health tending toward sickly. Hands are never warm, his existence is an endless heat seeking mission.

Went to one Slug Club meeting and used his time to verbally berate and or challenge most of the contacts in attendance, he was not asked to return.

Potions Club, Charms Club, used to sometimes be willing to be dragged to Dueling Club but didn’t enjoy himself.

Plays quite a bit of chess.

Bruises like a fucking peach and scars so easily.

Views quidditch as a good fly spoiled.

Is a very skilled pianist almost entirely due to his Grandmother’s tutelage.

Surprisingly great with children/toddlers/babies, no one including himself expected this, he mostly feared them beforehand.

Bit of a mummy’s boy in that he practically GLOWS when people talk of Astoria’s achievements.

When he has time off from healing he will have chipped black nail varnish on.

Highly intelligent but rarely manages to match a pair of socks, chews his quills but no one else’s.

While very eloquent and well spoken, he is markedly less posh than when he first arrived at Hogwarts.

When he isn’t prone to bouts of insomnia he can take a nap pretty much anywhere. He was once found in a tree after several frantic hours search.

[ CREDIT : CHARACTER PSD template by @karmahelper (defunct url) I tried to find a current social this week by messaging around but couldn’t find anything unfortunately. Forgot to copy this over from the google doc! ]

#potterintro #finally #sorry if this is missing anything

23 notes · View notes

architectuul · 4 years

Text

Architecture And Satire

The meme is nowadays one of the most powerful communication tool in social networks. It has everything to be successful, it is simple, direct and concise. Above all of this it creates imaginaries and evolves spontaneously in parallel with trends and social changes.

There are many architectural meme pages that stigmatize the profession. What can happen if the meme is used as a tool to prompt messages and ideas, combining it with architectural design? Alvar Aaltissimo was for example born four years ago as an architectural satire, where randomly funny images were published via different social media. A step forward happened with the evolution of the meme itself. The architects’ project presentation is mostly focused on images and photographs in a purely aesthetic direction, therefore a complex architectural project can be hardly understandable and not compatible with the speed of the fast online publishing reality. Alvar Aaltissimo presents satirical architectural projects, highly expressive in graphics, searching for radical solutions or imagining absurd situations to express the main point of the current situation.

Alvar Aaltissimo started within publishing collages on social media. One of the very first projects presented was the skyscraper inside the Colosseum as the new headquarters of the Italian party “Movimento 5 Stelle”. It was only a post with one image, which later developed in a more complex structure of posts as proposals for the real projects following a specific approach method to raise above a meme and create therefore a clear idea followed by immediacy and fun.

Skyscraper headquarters for the Italian Party Movimento 5 Stelle.

The Trap Museum in Ferrara relates to young Italian trap singers.

Some projects are related to politics, such as the Headquarters of the Democratic Party in Rome and the Electoral Balcony for the European elections. When the Coronavirus pandemic took over, Alvar Aaltissimo responded with projects for social distancing. As architecture is a transformation of space not able to give response to a such immediate problem, a one-person supermarket was born, according on episodes of psychosis in Italian and European supermarkets before the lockdown.

People are forced to stand in line in front of a small building of 3x60 m.

Characters have specific roles; the Queen Elizabeth would never shop alone.

With two types of posts two different space perceptions were created. The immediate one, typical for meme, is funny, irreverent as much as forgettable after a few seconds, while the second is created for an analysis of details searching for deepest meaning behind choices. In fact, this combined method contrasts the traditional idea of meme and focus more on ideas than images.

The vision for the Italian Summer 2020, a radical project on the entire coast of the peninsula, was created because of the social distancing. If Italy can be considered as a place where the only thing that matters is not to miss the holidays, the citizens would agree to completely destroy the landscape just to get the final satisfaction.

Italian Summer 2020 shows the contrast between fulfilling citizen’s needs with constructing concrete walls for preventing social rapprochement.

The Library of Statues was made as response to the strikes that started in the United States regarding the demolition of monuments of Christopher Columbus or Winston Churchill.

Library of Statues is a simple circular library, crowned by all statues relocated from different public spaces.

Little Tower for Spaced Concerts aims to resolve the fruition of the large scale musical events according social distancing.

Alvar Aaltissimo is learning different risks of wrong architectural choices by planing his projects. In such way is bringing architecture back to its meanings, complete opposite as the aesthetic drift from instagram images.

#architecture #meme #alvar aaltissimo

55 notes · View notes

whitehotharlots · 4 years

Text

It’s impossible to square the circle of #BelieveWomen

Let’s think back a month ago, to what turned out to be a pivotal moment in the 2020 campaign: Elizabeth Warren’s bizarre claim that Bernie told her a woman could not win the presidency.

The dishonesty of the attack on Sanders was so manifest that the takes barely need to be re-enunciated: her campaign was stalling so she lied about Sanders, hoping to re-focus media attention on herself while riding the most cynical aspects of MeToo into a poll bounce. Bernie faced an accusation, and since the only properly woke response to an accusation is immediate and uncritical acceptance, he was going to be dinged no matter what happened afterward. (Only, hilariously, he was not dinged. It was actually Liz whose campaign was ruined by the stunt. And this signals, I hope to god, an end to this bullshit).

This is all very basic. Good writers have already covered it. You don’t need me to rehash it any further.

I would like to talk, however, about how this highlights larger and more fundamental problems within the #BelieveWomen/#MeToo cinematic universe--problems that must be confronted if the people who seriously believe in the goals of these movements wish to accomplish anything other than securing book deals for a handful of shitty writers. My framing device here will be a concept introduced by Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper, in their 20-year-old critique of identity politics. This has to do with the split between hard “identity,” a fixed and firm conceptualization of identity that carries immense rhetorical weight but does not hold up to theoretical scrutiny, and soft “identity,” which views identities as protean and constructed--a more theoretically sound concept that has very little purchase in everyday discourse.

To start with an aside: it’s important to note that the malignant strains of identity politics presently infesting liberalism have been around for decades. It’s just that they didn’t have much utility until the Obama years--when it became clear that the promises of Hope and Change really just meant more means testing, more austerity, mass deportation, the wanton destruction of the planet, and an acceleration of our Forever Wars. The Democratic Party had to shift gears. In response to a crushing defeat in the 2010 midterms, their media apparatus decided to aggressively pursue identitarianism. This came with two benefits: 1) It allowed them to differentiate themselves from Republicans and motivate supporters while still sharing 98% of the GOP’s policy positions (this is where we get the logic about it being, like, so important for kids to see Black Panther); and 2) it provided an easy means of discrediting any material politics (“if we broke up the banks tomorrow, would that create more trans CEOs?”). Very little has changed within cultural studies-based understandings of identity over the last 20 years, as will be demonstrated from our review of Brubaker and Cooper’s piece.

Brubaker and Cooper posit that

“Identity,” is both a category of practice and a category of analysis. As a category of practice, it is used by ‘lay’ actors in some (not all!) everyday settings to make sense of themselves, of their activities, of what they share with, and how they differ from, others. It is also used by political entrepreneurs to persuade people to understand themselves, their interests, and their predicaments in a certain way, to persuade certain people that they are (for certain purposes) ‘identical’ with one another and at the same time different from others, and to organize and justify collective action along certain lines. (4-5)

As a category of practice, identity is morally neutral--its goodness or badness depends upon what ends its evocation is utilized toward. The trouble is when this category of practice is spun into a foundation of analysis, at which point the conception of identity becomes reified, made to appear as sort of an inatlertable given. “We should,” the authors note “avoid unintentionally reproducing or reinforcing such reification by uncritically adopting categories of practice as categories of analysis” (5).

Now, you may be fine with the notion that identity markers are un-transcendable, that they serve as the primary or perhaps even exclusive determining factor of a person’s being, worth, or moral stature. That’s what’s called an essentialist point of view. There’s trouble, though, because essentialism is (at least nominally) rejected within most bodies of academic thought. The more prevailing frame is called constructivism, which posits (correctly, I feel) that there’s nothing magical or inevitable about identity groupings, that they are instead social constructs and can therefore eventually be transcended even if their present-day effects are very real. This, the authors note, points to the fundamental contradiction of how identity is actually understood:

We often find an uneasy amalgam of constructivist language and essentialist argumentation. This is not a matter of intellectual sloppiness. Rather, it reflects the dual orientation of many academic identitarians as both analysts and protagonists of identity politics. It reflects the tension between the constructivist language that is required by academic correctness and the foundationalist or essentialist message that is required if appeals to ‘identity’ are to be effective in practice. (6)

Basically, “identity” has been formulated in such a way that it can be utilized in a essentialist sense even while its purveyors issue rote denials of its essentialism--like how someone can shamelessly use the #VoteLikeBlackWomen tag while claiming to not regard black women as ideologically monolithic. Or, more generally, by asserting that social problems can only be addressed by listening to Oppressed Group X or Y, (which is done most commonly as a response to left-materialist suggestions for change), as if all members of those groups would understand each issue identically and would suggest the same response. This is a dishonest and incoherent approach to politics, but it prevails because of its utility--that is, because it poses no real threat to existing power structures.

Here we find a rhetorical move that is foundational to contemporary identity politics: leaning on popular but theoretically indefensible understandings of terms and slogans while claiming that we actually understand these terms and slogans in obscure ways that are unpopular and rhetorically weak. Simply put: this is a lie.

Brubaker and Cooper go on to explain that “weak or soft conceptions of identity are routinely packaged with standard qualifiers indicating that identity is multiple, unstable, in flux, contingent, fragmented, constructed, negotiated, and so on. These qualifiers have become so familiar--indeed obligatory--in recent years that one reads (and writes) them virtually automatically. They risk becoming mere place-holders, gestures signaling a stance rather than words conveying a meaning” (11). And the parallels here to Intersectionality are manifest--like how class is perfunctorily nodded toward but never substantially engaged with, or how what is purported as a means of understanding a multitude of identity positions is, in practice, a victimhood hierarchy that’s used to determine the (in)validity of people’s actions and observations. As long as we keep allowing people to hide within this double-conceptualization, we will continue promulgating an understanding of social problems that contradicts itself so fully that it cannot lead to any actionable analysis.

This is fairly obvious now, in 2020, with identitarians having taken control over our liberal institutions and failing miserably at enacting any but the most superficial of changes. But in 2000, Brubaker and Cooper pointed out the simple fact that “weak conceptions of identity may be too weak to do useful theoretical work. In their concern to cleanse the term of its theoretically disreputable ‘hard’ connotations, in their insistence that identities are multiple, malleable, fluid, and so on, soft identitarians leave us with a term so infinitely elastic as to be incapable of performing serious analytical work” (11). And so they wondered, naturally, ““What is gained, analytically, by labeling any experience and public representation of any tie, role, network, etc. as an identity” (12)?

I find the answer pretty simple: leaning on an intellectually dishonest understanding of identity allows writers to cosplay as radicals without giving up any comfort, status, or power. Liberal leadership (by which I mean, those with power in academic and media spaces, as well as the center-right mainstream of the contemporary Democratic party) embraces this charade, as they realize it poses no threat of disruption or upheaval. Conservatives (Republicans, and more generally those in power in business and finance sectors, as well as the military), however, despise this, and are ideologically unaware enough that they regard it as an actual threat, and react to it with physical and fiscal violence (mass shootings are domestic terrorism are conspicuous examples, but selective austerity is much more commonplace and causes more harm on the whole). But now, most terrifyingly, a whole generation of young humanists have found themselves inculcated into this belief system but utterly unable to interrogate its foundational contradiction. They don’t realize it’s a grift.

This is why the left-leaning criticisms of Warren’s’ campaign stunt fell so flat, even when they were being issued by writers with whom I usually agree. Warren was accused of cynically misappropriating the #BelieveWomen mantra. Writers explained that, actually, everyone knows that we shouldn’t seriously believe every claim by every woman, that the hashtag is instead meant to encourage people to simply be more empathetic and less dismissive to women who claim to have suffered abuse. This is the same fundamentally dishonest contradiction we find in the split between hard and soft identities. The hashtag isn’t #BeSomewhatLessIncredulous. It’s #BelieveWomen. It a blunt mantra, a demand so intense and absolute that no one could possibly take it literally--that it sometimes comes packaged with some post-facto qualifiers does not change this; it just makes its purveyors seem dishonest.

Warren’s stunt failed because most people could see through it. We recognize self-contradiction as easily as we recognize cynicism and hypocrisy, and unless someone has an awful lot of charm we tend to react negatively to all of those traits. A movement founded on such a flimsy edifice is never going to attract outsiders and is never going to achieve anything of value. It’ll elevate a small number of people and make everyone else even less likely to engage with social justice going forward.

23 notes · View notes

abuse-culture · 4 years

Text

Depression Misconceptions

Our abuse culture is fueled by a misunderstanding of mental health.

Online I see many people address depression joking with phrases like “serotonin machine broke”. And in serious cases use the hyper medicalised version of depression and mental illnesses in general as just a lack of a neurotransmitter. Either way, they are presenting depression as only a lack of serotonin.

Mental illness is not the same health struggle as type 1 diabetes and way more complex. Keep in mind even diabetes has other management factors than insulin. Comparing the two as the same or as competition is harmful to everyone.

Mental illness is more affected by environment and life factors than most non-psychological health conditions. Our bodies are complex and our mind cannot be separated from the rest of our body, but mental health is connected to our social-emotional state by treating it like we might a broken arm, heart defect or diabetes.

There is some truth in the idea of depression being only a “sick organ”. There are of course neurological and neurochemical aspects to be considered. The functioning of the Amygdala & Thalamus is altered and the size of the hippocampus are all affected. This was shown in many F-MRI’s, MRI studies. Chemically; Acetylcholine, Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Glutamate & GABA all play a role. Which in itself shows more complex neurobiological levels and shows overlap with PTSD and anxiety on physical and chemical levels.

There are genes linked to depression, but the idea that any depression is purely genetic or generally endogenic is not common. You may see it reported in some places, but the most common belief is that the “depression gene” does not cause depression on its own but instead predisposes you to it. Some studies suggest that possibly 40% of depression in a person may be genetic, but even that shows that 60% is environmental.

This complexity can be exacerbated as there are multiple physiological disorders and health conditions that can induce depressive symptoms due to multiple chemical imbalances and other functions. Chronic low blood pressure, CFS, diabetes, hypercalcemia, hypothyroidism, or vitamin deficiency can all mimic depression. These depressive symptoms can be better by treating the physical chronic health condition if not eliminated. Disability and chronic illness can be a trigger or layer of depressive disorders by both symptoms of the health condition and as a stressor or trauma that influences depression.

But what is key is that mental health is that layer of social, interpersonal, behavioral, environmental and systemic factors. We have to recognize all of this to understand our mental health and improve our situation.

It stops people considering all the factors that might influence the depression we may be suffering with and it’s always a layered experience.

Examples:

Ableism

Alienation brought on by capitalism

Attachment trauma

Child Abuse

Child Emotional Neglect

Classism

Community Trauma

Death of loved ones

Developmental Traumas

Disabilities & Disabilities

Domestic Violence

Environmental factors (Pollution)

Exposure to the criminal legal system

Global traumas

Homophobia

Incarceration

Intergenerational trauma

Lack of health care

Lack of housing

Lack of hobbies or creative outlets

Lack of social supports for issues like relationships or child care

Negative or toxic relationships

Misogyny

Poor Nutrition

Poverty

Our culture’s lack of emotional inelegance

Racism

Rape

The school system

Sexual Abuse

Spiritual well-being deficits

Substances Abuse Disorder

Your Job

Another common phrase is “if you can’t make a serotonin store-bought is a fine” way of addressing depression. They tend to be moderately effective, even the big headlines saying; “The drugs do work” or “antidepressants proved better than placebo”. The studies are not nearly definitive, including admitting the drugs only work moderately well. Many studies show inconclusive evidence or even show almost no evidence that antidepressants have a major curative power for depression, with high relapse rates and rates that are equal or lesser to other forms of treatment.

I’m not against them but we need to be cautious of and more informed. For example, Understand antidepressants aren’t just concentrated serotonin you aren’t taking serotonin or getting “store-bought”. Only a few psychiatric drugs are directly ingesting the neurotransmitter.

The Rates of depression have gone up in the past 25 years, not down. Our most recent numbers (2017) showed a rate of 7.1% in US adults and 1991 there was only a rate of 3.3%. If our steady increase in medications for depression were having a massive effect, we should have a decrease at least in the rates of major depressive episodes a year, if those with chronic depression were treated and the medication fixed the neurotransmitter problems there should be fewer repeat episodes. Now we can say some stigma decrease allows better treatment sure and contributes to higher rates, but the key part is a lack of systemic improved outcomes.

A rate of around 13% is shown in adolescents. A rise in extreme pressure in school, media consumption rates, climate grief and other social factors are all indicated to have effects. If social factors improve, these rates may decrease.

Those social factors show in the data:

Indigenous Americans and Alaskan Natives have higher rates of depression and other mental health groups.

Black and Hispanic populations tend to have more persistent and chronic depression.

Women and adolescent girls both have higher rates than those of the opposite sex.

Mixed-race people have the highest rates of depression among racial groups

Low socioeconomic status is a risk factor in developing depression and all mental health issues.

The hyper-medicalization of mental health is for-profit and born from the dismissal of childhood trauma and connected to misogyny and classism. The APA has had a history of connections to powerful groups and dismissing trauma for years, even going as far as to say horrific abuses like incest, being possibly beneficial or at least harmless to children. To this day they still refuse to understand developmental trauma and DTD. The DSM also tends to pathologize behaviours linked to stress in children, labelling them as oppositional defiant (ODD) instead of asking why.

Social political factors not taken into account, leaving our mental health and social support system lacking the tools to address the specific needs of Marginalised communities.

The hyper-medical model is also politically advantageous. If we do not notice that the way our model of employment, social precarity and systemic failures are causing depression and other illness, then we won’t’ fight back. If we don’t understand how our culture steeped in abuse affects our health we won’t change it. A healthier culture would help combat all mental health problems including depression.

Depression needs to be understood as not just your brain being a sick organ or an illness “just like any other”. Because the fact is it’s not. It’s extremely context-dependent and it’s interesting and complicated. Socio-political circumstance, environment, physical health, childhood and interpersonal relationships all impact our depression.

Which is good in some ways, because we can help alter some of those and important insights showing us combating oppression and our political system would help us! It shows us we have to be holistic in our approach.

If we have people who only think in the medicalised only structure it opens the door for the “sceptics”, “faith healers” and “ The Secret peddler” telling us to pray or “manifest” our depression away. Which is dangerous faith is important and we ought to be critical of pharmacological companies but we can’t throw neuropsychology out entirely and definitely can’t fall into toxic “self Help” or Goop style woo.

It’s healing to know you’re not stuck with a broken brain. But a brain that is struggling through multiple stressors and is currently not operating properly. But you can help it through therapy, behaviour changes, connecting with others, combating alienation, learning, needed medical intervention grounding skills, emotional regulation techniques and becoming embodied.

And by knowing while you can help yourself, you’re not the problem and nor is your body. The problem is also social factors and your history of stress and/or trauma. Which means your body is not fighting against you or failing you. Which is so liberating. Knowing what is and isn’t in your control.

Depression is not just a lack of serotonin or part of your brain that’s broken, it’s complex and complicated and tied in with our culture of abuse and trauma.

Citations undercut

Kirsch I (2019) Placebo Effect in the Treatment of Depression and Anxiety. Front. Psychiatry 10:407. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00407

Martin, Elizabeth I et al. “The neurobiology of anxiety disorders: brain imaging, genetics, and psychoneuroendocrinology.” The psychiatric clinics of North America vol. 32,3 (2009): 549-75. DOI:10.1016/j.psc.2009.05.004

Sandeep K and Rajmeet S: Role of different neurotransmitters in anxiety: a systemic review. Int J Pharm Sci Res 2017; 8(2): 411-21.doi: 10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.8(2).411-21.

Socioeconomic Status and Mental Illness: Tests of the Social Causation and Selection Hypotheses, “Christopher G. Hudson, Ph.D., Salem State College; American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 75, No. 1.

12-19-17 Fact Sheet_Diversity.indd

A., Van der Kolk Bessel. The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. Penguin Books, 2015.

“Big New Study Confirms Antidepressants Work Better than Placebo.” NHS Choices, NHS, 22 Feb. 2018, www.nhs.uk/news/medication/big-new-study-confirms-antidepressants-work-better-placebo/.

Hari, Johann. “Is Everything You Think You Know about Depression Wrong?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 7 Jan. 2018, www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/07/is-everything-you-think-you-know-about-depression-wrong-johann-hari-lost-connections?CMP=share_btn_tw.

Harvard Health Publishing. “What Causes Depression?” Harvard Health, Harvard University, 24 June 2019, www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/what-causes-depression.

Johnson, Adam H, and Nima Shirazi. “Citations Nedded.” Citations Nedded, 6 May 2020, https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-109-self-help-culture-and-the-rise-of-corporate-happiness-monitoring.

Levinson, Douglas F, and Walter E Nichols. “Major Depression and Genetics.” Stanford Medicine, Stanford University , med.stanford.edu/depressiongenetics/mddandgenes.html.

Lorant, V. “Socioeconomic Inequalities in Depression: A Meta-Analysis.” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 157, no. 2, 15, Jan. 2003, pp. 98–112., doi:10.1093/aje/kwf182.

“Major Depression.” National Institute of Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Feb. 2019, www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.shtml.

“Native American Communities and Mental Health.” Mental Health America, MHA, 2016, www.mhanational.org/issues/native-american-communities-and-mental-health.

O'Shea, Breht. “Revolutionary Left Radio.” Revolutionary Left Radio, 20 Jan. 2019, https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/drugs-addiction-and-social-conditions.

Schimelpfening, Nancy. “Factors That Could Increase Your Risk of Depression.” Verywell Mind, Verywell Mind, 21 Mar. 2020, www.verywellmind.com/common-causes-of-depression-1066772.

Weinhold, Barry K., and Janae B. Weinhold. Developmental Trauma: the Game Changer in the Mental Health Profession. CICRCL Press, 2018.

#depression #mental health #mental illness #abuse culture #trauma culture #actuallydepressed #serotonin #childhood trauma #child abuse #trauma #mental health misconceptions #mental health awareness #complex trauma #culture of abuse #cultural trauma #depressive disorders

4 notes · View notes

witch-priestess · 4 years

Text

Wicca and Expanding Worship Beyond the Heteronormative: Changing the Gender Essentialist Narrative in Rites of Passage

Historically in the U.S.A. Wicca and parts of the Neo-Pagan movement have been influenced by the trans-exclusive narratives of second wave feminism in the 1960s-1970s and the patriarchal beliefs of Traditional Wiccan founders Alex Sanders and Gerald Gardner. Both of these sets of beliefs are based on Gender Essentialism. This concept of gender and sex is trans-exclusionary, and denies non-binary, trans and intersex people their existence and identities. Misha Magdalene has two insightful and informative commentaries on the history and the problems with gender essentialism in modern witchcraft and Wiccan practices Tracing the Thread:Critiquing Gender Essentialism in Paganism, Polytheism and Magic and How It “Ought” To Be: The Problem of Gender Essentialism. Ritual and magick at their most fundamental level are about energy. Energy is neutral, non-specific in its natural form. Energy only changes when we put our wills to it. Gender identity and expression affect energy because they are a part of will which then transforms energy from neutral to gendered. Gender expression, like energy, is not a fixed state of being. A person who identifies and expresses as one gender outside of ritual space may express differently while in a circle regardless of being non-binary, trans, cis, agender, or genderfluid. For example: I am a cis woman. In my day to day life I generally project what is traditionally thought of as feminine energy. However, I have had days where I am more connected to the god and traditional masculine energy and I will express male energy. On my masculine energy days I have participated in a public ritual where we have invoked the deities in with a call and response of “Who is the God?!”, “I am the God?”. I have responded with that call. I have seen cis-men invoke the Goddess in the same way. People who are non-binary or agender will connect with the gendered energy of dieties in these moments too. The energy expression of a person does not change the identity of the person. In a ritual circle, it is about who we are in the moment, our connections to each other and the divine energies, regardless of our gender identities, expressions, or roles we play within or beyond that sacred space.

So, how does this fit into Rites of Passage? If we understand Wicca to be a nature religion, where the gods present in whatever way they want, and our roles are about energy, as discussed by Taz Chance in her article Sex, Gender and the Divine, then we must take a hard look at our Rites of Passage and orient them around the concept that roles are not binary or gender specific. Wicca has several kinds of Rites of Passage. I am going to talk about Initiatory and Life Cycle roles and rites this time. Even though I am only covering a couple of examples in this piece, these concepts and ideas can be applied to any Rite of Passage.

Before going on let’s define a role vs a rite.

Role- A position, duty, responsibility, function, or aspect a person is taking on in their life and community. (mother, husband, priest, priestess etc)

Rite- A ceremonial and ritualized observance of a person marking an achievement or life event. Often celebratory (wedding, initiation, croning, wiccaning etc)

Roles make up the different facets of our identities and are expressed in a variety of different ways. Some roles are familial, societal, or social and may or may not have a gender associated with them. Roles help to define ourselves and our relationships to others, our status in the community, our function, and responsibilities. A role is like a feudal title i.e. king. A king is someone who rules over a country, who has power through vassals, who has a responsibility to lead and protect their people, and make decisions of state, they have the highest status in the society. What gender is a king? Did you say male? If you did that is because traditionally it has been, and queen tends to be the term for a female ruler. Queens are often thought to be equal to kings, but it has not always been so. In fact the reason that we think of them as equals is because there were some badass women who made it that way (Queen Elizabeth Tudor I, Catherine the Great of Russia, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth Windsor II) However, the roles are slightly different when there is both a king and a queen. The queen is subject to the king. Which is why Elizabeth I never married, Victoria and Elizabeth II never had their husbands crowned, and Catherine the Great staged a coup and (possibly) had her husband assassinated. In fact Elizabeth I signed her letters Elizabeth Rex, Elizabeth the King, defining the role as a Ruler and King as something separate from her gender identity and expression. Hateshput of Ancient Egypt was Pharaoh and iconography identified her with traditional male symbols. The first time I came across the concept of a king being a role and a title, and not a gender was in The Enchanted Forest Chronicles by Patricia C. Wrede. In the book Dealing With Dragons, a female dragon becomes the Dragon King. When questioned and asked about the gender, the dragon explains that King is a title and set of responsibilities, not about gender, and that Dragon Queen was a different role entirely. This type of gender disassociation with the title King, is also seen in the Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, where Elizabeth Swann becomes the Pirate King. This concept is not new and has found its way into our popular culture as our collective perspective shifts. These examples helped form the foundation of my understanding of roles being separate from gender which were later supported in my studies of Simone de Beauvoire, and the theories that gender is a social construct. Additionally, my personal experience with gender non-conformity, the time I have spent as a member of the queer community and discussing this topic with Trans and non-binary folx further solidified my views.

In Wicca, roles tend to be defined in Archetypal Terms, and are often thought as gender specific; for example Priest being male and Priestess being female. Priest or Priestess doesn’t define the gender identity of the person, it defines their place in the circle and community. As positions within a coven, they denote learning and status, they also have spiritual meaning for the person who claims the title, and they have specific responsibilities. A Priest in this role has the job to protect the Priestess and participants in a coven, provide guidance, support the coven, help maintain stability in the coven, lead and connect others to the divine. A Priestess in this role is to lead and connect the participants to each other as well as the divine, grow and nurture the coven, provide teaching, and maintain lineage and liturgy. In a ritual circle it is the priest’s duty to pull in active/dynamic energy, provide protection for the priestess and participants, maintain balance in the circle, and move energy. A priestess in a ritual circle calls the receptive/creative energy, leads the participants in energy raising, connects the divine to the circle, and directs the energy to its purpose. It has nothing to do with gender identity or genitalia, but everything to do with how they use their skills, express and move energy. Historically and in Gardnerian tradition first, a Priest will initiate a Priestess, and then a Priestess will initiate a Priest strictly within cis-sex roles as there were no trans practitioners at the time. As trans-people became involved it was expanded to gender polarity. We can expand and redefine the tradition to reflect the LBTQ+ members of our community by allowing anyone to take on the leadership role that their energy reflects, and still keep the initiatory rite of passage tradition of a Priestess initiating a Priest and vice-versa. There is room in our theology for this, it shifts us from a gender essentialist fertility view to a gender-inclusive nature view, and it won’t really change the mechanics of Initiation itself.

These expanded perspectives can likewise be applied to Rites of Passage. Every rite of passage ceremony is based on a tradition, and it has a specific pattern that we build on, just like every other ritual that we celebrate. The pattern, the rhythm, and associations will flow based on your tradition influenced by the mechanics of how magic works. Rites can be performed for a certain individual, or they can be performed for a group. When performing a rite it is important to ask “Who is it for? What is its purpose?” I understand such a ceremony as first and foremost for the person undergoing the ceremony, and secondly for the witnesses. I believe that it is important that Rites of Passage be tailored to the individual experiencing the Rite, rather than using the same ritual for everyone. Consider the ritual and pattern of a wedding; even though they have the same purpose, each wedding is uniquely tailored to the people getting married.

Similar to the roles, there are traditionally gendered rites. Many of the rites can be expanded by separating the role from gender and focusing on the energy. Some rites, however, are embedded in physiological/biological processes and need to be reworked. Womanings/ Mannings and Mothering/Fathering Rites fall under this. The typically female Maiden-Mother-Queen-Crone archetypal cycle is based on menses, giving birth, menopause, and post-menopause. So, without further ado, let’s talk about the Mothering Rite of Passage.

Traditionally the Mothering Rite is specifically reserved for a woman who has gone through a pregnancy and given birth (via c-section or vaginally). In some traditions it is only vaginally. It is attended only by women who have given birth. The purpose is for the woman in question to receive advice, support, and commune with others who have had this experience, as well as a recognition of her new role. If you say you are going to perform a “Mothering” rite to older members of the community, this is what they will understand it as. When I learned this I was infuriated because it is the most narrow understanding of motherhood reducing women down to their biological capabilities. I pushed, railed, discussed, and argued against it. In fact, it was this discussion that led me to start this blog series.

First, the above excludes adoptive mothers, mothers by surrogate, foster mothers, trans-women, step-mothers, and mothers who have experienced C-sections (in some traditions), and it defines biological mothering as the only type worth recognizing. Second, this understanding denies the fact that trans-men, non-binary and genderqueer folx become pregnant and give birth without, not necessarily, taking on the role of Mother. Lastly, the definition denies that a person of any gender can take on this role, i.e. men in same-sex relationships, stay-at-home men, single parenting men, intersex, and genderqueer folx can and do define themselves as Mother. Each of these types need to be included under this rite because they are all Mothers, and they deserve community support and recognition. There are some things about being a mother to a child that are universal no matter how the child came into your life, or what your gender identity is. Theologically and philosophically Mother is more than a biological and social function. It is the act of bringing something to being, and letting go. It is about love, sacrifice, and nurture. A mother undergoes a revolutionary experience of creating a bond so strong that they focus on another being in a completely different way. Physical pregnancy and birth are not required for a person to take on the role of Mother. It is an archetypal expression of the Goddess, and role for humans to take on. As archetypes and deities do not have a physical sex as we understand it and roles can be separate from gender we must expand the definition to include all types of mothers.

The reason that I propose that Mothering change to an umbrella term to cover several different types of rites for mothers, rather than coming up with a new term for each type is this: if birthing rites are the only ones called mothering, it is denying the variety of ways one is and can be a mother. It is a type of “separate but equal”, and “separate but equal” is never equal. An adoptive or foster mother is just as important and worthy of being called mother as a biological birthing mother. The purpose of this rite of passage in its essence is to provide communion with others, recognition, and allow a person to transition into their new role as a mother in their personal and public life. We should tailor the ritual to the person asking for this type of rite. We can build on the original pattern and make the adjustments to fit the person. Also, having a rite specific to those who have experienced the physical birthing process can be done. I propose renaming it under the overarching umbrella of Parenting Rites to include non-binary, trans, and cis identies by changing the title to Birthing Ritual. In this way it can fall under any parenting rites and give the person the opportunity and experience to commune with others who have had the same physical changes, traumas, and joy in this particular experience. We can also create rituals for adoption and step-parenting that will fall into the category of Parenting Rites. Expanding a definition to include others doesn’t negate the tradition or the need for it.

Keep in mind that the process of restructuring and growth is slow. It is important to take a look at our traditions and history to see where we can be better, and it is okay to keep traditions that we like. In making adjustments it is good to experiment, discuss with your groups/covens/teachers, and community. When making changes to be inclusive be sure to really listen to the people that you are trying to include and ask what they want to see and experience to reflect themselves.

Remember that when we recognize people in their many facets as they transition and take on new roles helps us grow. The role is important, but it is about the person, and their relationship with their community. Roles are not defined by our gender identity or expression, but the functions and responsibilities that are performed. Rites can expand and be broadened in understanding without denying people tradition. Adjustments that are made can be supported through both theological and sociological foundations. It moves us forward into a greater understanding that our practices can evolve with us and reflect who we are and our natures.

Further Reading:

https://transphilosopher.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/terfs-essentialism-and-normality/

https://medium.com/@faithwinship/the-evolution-of-trans-exclusionary-feminism-3d1b9c5a6d45

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095846595

https://godsandradicals.org/2015/08/07/on-the-importance-of-intersectional-witchcraft/

https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=socanth_honproj

Mother Goddesses and Subversive Witches:Competing Narratives of Gender Essentialism,Heteronormativity, Feminism, and Queerness in Wiccan Theology and Ritual

http://www.important.ca/wicca_religion_rites_of_passage.html

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/mom-dad-parenting-gender-stereotypes

2 notes · View notes

qcpmedia · 4 years

Text

“Birds of Prey”: A Crisis of Infinite Harleys

by Chris Clay

Ok-- let's get this part out of the way first: I love Harley Quinn.

Have done since her debut on Batman The Animated Series. My mother let my dad take me to see Tim Burton’s brilliant 1989 Batman film (I was 5 at the time) because she was under the assumption that Batman was always the high camp she remembered enjoying in the television show from her childhood. Thanks, Adam West! My journey into comics began shortly after learning to read with classical mythology, so I was totally prepared for all manner of tales about monsters, demons, serial killers, human traffickers, etc. Quickly becoming an avid comic reader, 10 year-old me was a DC & Marvel veteran who spent a lot of mental energy filling in the blanks on the softened-for-cartoons versions of Bats, Spidey & the X-Men.

After years of seeing "versions" of my favorite supers onscreen, I thought this new character, originally the Joker's jester henchwoman, was a breath of fresh air. She seemed like the perfect fit for both the show and the Joker, the first real Manic Pixie Dreamgirl. She was funny but also scary, vulnerable and just overall awesome. Best of all? She didn’t seem nerfed for kids tv. She just seemed oddly... real. And she was contagious. That complex reality bled onto anyone she shared enough screen time with. She helped me to see Poison Ivy as the troubled yet brilliant and sensitive person the show had always hinted she was. Besides Catwoman, no other character tested Batman's rigid sense of right and wrong more beautifully. Even Joker seemed multifaceted when Harley was around. I cheered as loudly as anyone when she ditched that clown, and those Harley/Ivy episodes were some of the best the series had to offer.

OG Harley & subsequent versions over the years tended to show a woman that was preyed upon by a master manipulator who pushed her to the edge of sanity. To the edge, not over it. She was definitely traumatized, but the original portrayals never presented any extreme mental problems. Sure, she was codependent & had a temper. And shitty taste in men. Those traits in moderation are not craaaazy. That's just being human.

Harley continued to evolve over the years, shaped by many creators and performers across multiple mediums. Her look has changed, her status as villain or antihero has vacillated and her relationships have been presented more and more as on her terms rather than something foisted upon her by chance.

The characterization problems started in comics, but David Ayers' disappointing 2016 Suicide Squad film brought this lesser Harl to the masses, along with a version of her *ahem* more revealing New52 costume, seemingly metahuman durability & chalk white skin. I always loved the idea that Harleen had the ability to take her jester clothing & clown makeup off, sit around with an equally dressed-down Ivy and talk about who they really were, what made them tick. This new Harley (like her modern comics counterpart) was always "on", displaying very little of the soulful, mature character many of us comics & animation fans know and love. Despite that, she was definitely the highlight of the film, and there were flashes of brilliance that made me believe Margot Robbie could get to the fundamental truths of the character if given another chance.

And that brings us rather neatly to Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn).

Harley Quinn, last seen in the aforementioned Suicide Squad, has just been dumped by the Joker & is forced to make her own way in Gotham City’s underworld. In short order, she meets Dinah Lance, Renee Montoya, Helena Bertinelli & Cassandra Cain. All of these ladies have, for various reasons, fallen onto the radar of neat-freak gangster Roman Sionis, played with scenery-scarfing delight by Ewan MacGregor. Forced to band together to survive, they eventually learn that despite their considerable individual talents, they're more formidable as a team.

For some reason I still can’t quite articulate, I remember being slightly underwhelmed when the cast was announced. I liked all of the actors... hell, each of them has had at least one role I absolutely loved them in-- but I still felt they were odd choices for their respective roles in this movie (more on that later). The trailer was where I got genuinely worried that Warner might be climbing back into the hole so many creators toiled to pull the DC film properties out of.

However, as I said in the beginning, I love Harley Quinn. I was definitely going to see this movie. In Margot Robbie, I felt Harley had a champion on par with Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool or Hugh Jackman as Wolverine; an actor who would work tirelessly to get their character right, on the page & onscreen, however many tries it took. Plus she was saying some interesting things about what she thought the the film & the character should represent during the rollout (and I know the movie isn't the trailer), so I was at "cautious optimism" by the time I sat down to watch the film.

I was totally wrong about one thing: the cast is the best thing about the movie, and that’s not some backhanded compliment. K.K. Barrett's production design is great, colorful while not feeling cheap or phony, and Cathy Yan has a great eye for fun directing choices that keep things zipping along... but the cast is the real MVP. They’re actually great.

Jurnee Smollet-Bell is understated & surprisingly physical as tough-as-nails chanteuse Dinah Lance, a classic “woman trying to keep her head down in a bum situation”. She gave modern comic book moll vibes & I Stan. Rosie Perez's Renee Montoya brought a dose of realism to the candy-coated insanity swirling all around her while also giving Harley an entertaining foil for the first 2 acts. She has probably my favorite fight scene in the entire movie.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead, the person I went into the movie thinking was the most grossly miscast, is hands down my favorite character in the film. She's equal parts ruthless & socially awkward, a take on Huntress that is somehow both anachronistic & perfectly in step with her comic counterpart. Even newcomer Ella Jay Basco brings a unique charm to what could have easily been an irksome reimagining of fan favorite Cass Cain as a sassy teenage pickpocket. MacGregor’s turn as Sionis is less a character than he is a symbol, acting as a stand-in for various brands of broken maleness, but the guy’s clearly having a blast and he has decent enough chemistry with the leads. Chris Messina as Victor Vsasz is an absolute snoozefest, a waste of both character and actor that I’ll give no more space or attention.

Now for the elephant in the room: Margot Robbie's Harley is my least favorite thing about the whole movie.

"But Chris..", I hear you yelling at your computational device, "...you said she was the lone bright spot of SS!"

True, but in a film with clever, unmuddied direction & other actors that actually display some semblance of emotion or charisma for more than one scene a piece, the bar has been raised this go round & Robbie's frantic mugging limbos under said bar by a mile. What’s worse is that she actively takes screen time that could be better spent fleshing out one of the other four characters. Only Huntress (who has probably the least screen time of any of the leads) actually has a backstory, but her origin is a large part of the plot. One could be forgiven for thinking the she wouldn’t have had one at all otherwise. We don’t really know anything about Cassandra Cain, Montoya is literally just Stock Cop, and you could make a whole movie out of how the hell Dinah ended up singing at Sionis’ club. And where the hell is the Joker?! Why is he letting Harley destabilize Gotham’s balance of power or letting Sionis threaten his ex-puddin’ while also claiming to be the the underworld’s top dog? Instead of answering these questions, we get a bunch of throwaway characters attacking the newly-emancipated Quinn and Suicide Squad flashbacks that look even uglier than before when placed side by side with the production design of this film. The fact that most of these characters are so thinly characterized yet still connect is a testament to the performances and chemistry of the central cast.

You get the feeling that a lot of this movie was Robbie as producer, exerting her ideas & energy onto a massive production that needed a lot of moving parts to line up in order to work. It's not easy to have everything riding on you, whether it’s the future of the DCEU, progressive representation of women in film or just your own movie stardom. I understand that and I sympathize. This frantic, flailing movie is the product of some 3 years of rewrites and pitching, shooting on and off for 9 months, plus all the promo stuff. Every interview that I've seen the cast do has basically been Robbie explaining things ad nauseam while Jurnee Smollet-Bell or Mary Elizabeth Winstead kind of quietly nod in agreement, with the exception of the recent season premiere of Hot Ones, where capsaicin finally allowed someone else get a word in edgewise. The real problem with that comes when you see the movie and realize she’s contextualizing so much of the film on other media outlets because the film itself doesn’t really seem to have the time or interest, leaving it’s star to try and explain what we actually see onscreen on the press tour. This leads to a situation akin to Final Fantasy XV, where the player needed heaps of supplemental content to understand what could and should have been included in the story proper. She just seems overworked, similar to when Ben Affleck wanted to perform the Herculean task of writing, directing & starring in the next solo Batman film. Maybe Margot & Harley both need a little break?

The internet is scrambling to diagnose why a well-reviewed movie starring a beloved character played by a popular actress is underperforming at the box office, citing everything from the trailer to the rating to the movie’s title, with many (including BoP creator Gerry Conway) blaming the lackluster box office on sexism, but I think there might be a simpler answer: this version is trying to pull from the entire history of Harley to create a singular characterization from sometimes disparate portrayals. It doesn’t help that Robbie’s Quinn exists in a universe that’s constantly shifting under her feet after every film.

Most comic characters are criticized for being inaccurate to the source material but Harley has arguably the opposite problem; almost a Crisis of Infinite Harleys, where Robbie and Warner Bros. want to stuff the best elements from every version of Harley into every movie she’s in. It’s supposed to be fan service but instead, often feels scattered and tiring. Not to mention the stuff these films just pluck straight out of thin air that don’t work...

The DC Universe version of the character chose to leave the Joker on her own terms and I thought that was a brilliant and socially relevant writing choice, so it was strange to then see the more mainstream (and arguably more popular) version of Harley be dragged out of Joker’s hideout, kicking and screaming. In a film who’s title was purposely made ridiculously long to accentuate the character’s supposed newfound self-sufficiency, For all of the things that do work well, Birds of Prey just doesn’t feel like what’s explicitly promised on the tin.

I still love Harley Quinn, and I still think Margot Robbie’s the right person for the job. No need to Pattinson her or anything... just put less on her plate and give the character and the movies she’s in a clear, singular direction. Pretty please, puddin’?

#birds of prey #harley quinn #dceu #margot robbie #ewan macgregor #jurnee smollett bell #rosie perez #dc comics #black mask #renee montoya #batman #ben affleck #robert pattinson #movies #essay

6 notes · View notes

crvores · 5 years

Text

SCORPIUS HYPERION MALFOY really is the spitting image of FROY GUTIERREZ, right? For someone only 22 years old, SCOR has been forced to endure so much. Yeah, that PUREBLOOD has been scraping by at the sanctuary since AUGUST, 2028, working as a HEALER-IN-TRAINING AND RESEARCHER in the DIVISION OF HEALING. HE is a CIS MAN and is known to be CAPTIOUS and DISMISSIVE but also FERVENT and RESOURCEFUL. Best of luck surviving through this.

CHARACTER PARALLELS: Amy Santiago (B99), Claire Temple (Daredevil), Chidi Anagonye (The Good Place), Giles (Buffy TVS), Michelle Jones (Spiderman: Homecoming), Elizabeth Swan (PoTC), Spock (Star Trek), Clarke Griffin (The 100), Gregory House (House) suggested honorable mention Gizmo (Gremlins)

[tw for patricide/parental death, desc of blood, substance abuse/addiction, under the cut]

scorpius was living in a tiny flat along diagon alley, flooing in to saint mungos for his healing apprenticeship monday to friday. when the wards came down around wizarding london he was holed up as the chaos ensued below, frantically trying to floo call the manor.

when he arrived at malfoy manor after crawling out of a skylight and apparating to the road alongside the driveway he was greeted by the gates hanging off their hinges. though he can only speculate, due to his father’s continued reclusiveness and refusal to return to assist the death eater ranks a horde were nudged none-too-gently toward the isolated house.

draco opened his eyes after burning through a fever too high to be calmed by any spell from his mother’s wand. just as he had always been. upon returning to consciousness he didn’t immediately reach for his wand, a fact which both astoria and her son found to be terribly odd. no matter the ailment, the circumstance, the time, draco malfoy had always curled his fingers around the hawthorn like a talisman when waking since it had been returned to him after the war.

the ensuing twenty minutes are something which scorpius has begged to have scoured from his mind, yet he knows he can never let himself forget killing his father. it fundamentally changed him in a way that is irrevocable.

as he and astoria fled the manor, no hope of the two of them alone eliminating the inferi on the grounds and securing it, his mother clamped a hand around his wrist and attempted to apparate them to an old greengrass property, a magical panic room of sorts. scor was badly splinched and ended up dumped 80 miles away from where his mother had landed.

he gathered copious notes from observations of the inferi in his time on the outside. temperature recorded, time of day, wind direction, sentience, and activity were all meticulously written down in an attempt to conserve his sanity while on his own. scor feels as though he had no trouble discerning infected from the living when he was out there and when he was filled in upon joining the others he speculated that a part of his brain concerning the glamours had just been burnt out. unfortunately since arriving this has been completely disproven and he’s trying to work out if the fear response or any other factors had anything to do with it.

since arriving at hogwarts, half-starved and wild-eyed he has thrown himself into the effort with a single-mindedness of someone attempting to forget every aspect of their own life. he doggedly continues his healing work, any time not spent at the infirmary is glued to his workbench and harassing the living shit out of the research department. drawing up hypothesis after hypothesis from the bits of infected he’s managed to have the privilege to pick at. if anyone interrupts him or makes what he decides is an unnecessary contribution he has a horrid habit of biting their head off.

while before he would play up and sneer, act posher than posh and generally fucked with anyone who had a problem with his family, specifically his father, now he will go absolutely stone-faced and has several times nearly had to be restrained because he will go off like a tiny, weedy bomb with a dangerously extensive knowledge of human anatomy.

neglects a lot of his own needs; goes days without sunlight, only eats when prompted to, hardly sleeps. a mess but trying his best. has a dangerous habit of consuming dreamless sleep but guilt at using valuable resources is essentially the only thing stopping him from launching headlong into addiction. lily and various others have a tally going on how many times scor says the words ‘i’m fine.’ in a single week and he suspects theres a pretty wide pool on the betting now.

he’s not all bad tho!! he can be a right softy if he knows you well enough and always always always wants to help. just… he’s a lil prickly rn.

skinny and kind of sickly, he never had the best health as a kid. he scars very easily and bruises like a gd peach. pretty alright on a broom but he has no real interest in playing quidditch. he’s always cold, he’ll be sitting in direct sunlight and complaining about needing a scarf. yeah hes that dude.

kind of craves attention? while being an introvert sometimes he just wants someone to pay attention to him until he gets annoyed by it and tells them to piss off. fickle.

his url is the italian word ‘cruores’ which means flowing blood and the latin ‘cruor’ which roughly refers to coagulating blood; gore.

Full Name: Scorpius Hyperion Malfoy Gender/Pronouns: Cis man | he/him Age: Twenty-two Birthdate: January 20th Parents: Draco Malfoy & Astoria Malfoy (née Greengrass) Siblings: N/A. Birth place: St. Mungo’s Hospital, England Height: 5’11” Weight: 56 kg Sexual/Romantic Orientation: Demiromantic Bisexual Nationality: English Body Alterations/Marks: Terrible splinching scars up his left hand, arm over to his chest and shoulder blade.

Blood Status: Pureblood Hogwarts House: Slytherin Wand Arm: Right Wand: 11 2/3 inches, Willow, supple, Dragon Heartstring. Hogwarts House: Slytherin Pet: A crested toad named Jarvis. Special Abilities: None. Patronus: Arctic Fox

Personality Traits: brilliance, innovation, individuality, openness, social consciousness, inventiveness, practical skill and self assertion; lack of attachment to people and the “real world,” over-intellectualizing of the emotions, dismissiveness, a crotchety temper, rigidity, intellectual arrogance, and stubbornness. Zodiac Sign: Aquarius/Capricorn Cusp Moral Alignment: Neutral Good Core values: Loyalty, Knowledge, Hope Four temperaments: Melancholic

HOGWARTS HOUSE BREAKDOWN

Slytherin Primary and a Burned Ravenclaw Secondary.

You may have a Hufflepuff Secondary Model.

so excited to be back in this verse >:)

#inferiintro

6 notes · View notes

depulsorpg · 5 years

Photo

WHATS IN YOUR FILE.

NAME: Bellatrix Black. GENDER & PRONOUNS: Cisfemale, she/her. HOUSE & YEAR: Slytherin, 7th. BLOOD STATUS: Pureblood. AFFILIATION: Death Eaters.

WHAT DO THE RUMORS SAY.

POSITIVES: Fascinating, Intuitive, Alluring. NEGATIVES: Amoral, Sadistic, Manipulative. LOOKS LIKE: Elizabeth Gillies.

WHAT IS THE TRUE STORY.

The firstborn, and the perfect heir for her parents.

Used the Cruciatus Curse for the first time at age eleven.

She is entirely loyal to her Dark Lord, and is his lieutenant.

Betrothed to Rodolphus from age fourteen, but has been fighting the wedding off.

One of the most formidable duellists in the wizarding world.

SHE WAS TOLD TO GROW A SPINE AND GROW ONE DID SHE EVER —

The product of Druella Rosier and Cygnus Black, Bellatrix was nothing if not the apple of her mother’s eye, and something that produced a source of pride for her father. They say she came out; kicking and screaming into this Earth; with molten eyes and a smile made for war. Her parents demanded perfection, and so it was perfection that she would bring. She might have been the eldest child, the favoured in her father’s eyes — but that did not mean his immediate respect and love. No, she had to gain it like another. And it was under her father’s hand that she moulded to become the perfect little soldier. One that grew up to learn the art of war in lessons taught by her father. Whilst other heirs may have learnt to become the proper pureblooded child, she was taught the extra step. And whilst she may have looked like any other, beneath her charming smile and lilting words lay the beating heart of one who was made for much more. She would be the pride and joy of her family; pushing the Black name to the forefront of high society.

Yet in the midst of Bellatrix’s tutelage to become the heir that her father so demanded, she had come to adore her younger sisters; the pair that she had come to cherish and treasure. They were the one flame that she would not snuff, and they were what she sought to protect. Her father had often taught her that family came first; and that was more than apparent when it came to the eldest Black and others. If anyone dared to come near her Andie or Cissa, they knew that they would be risking the wrath of Bellatrix, the one who would swoop in to save either in their times of need. Perhaps the only things she loved in this world, but it suited her. She would become steel for them. Unbreakable, resistant to all harm, in order to be their shield. And at the end of the day, they were the only people that she would risk everything for — perhaps to even lay down her life.

HER VERTEBRAE HAS BROKEN THROUGH HER SKIN LIKE SHARP KNIVES, WINGS HAVE SPROUTED FROM HER BACKBONES —

And it was so that she learnt any spell she could uncover, developing a slight sadistic tendency when it came to inflicting pain onto other creatures. At the age of eleven, she discovered the forbidden curses in a diary of a long ago deceased Black relative, curious to see the possible ramifications and effects such curses could lay waste to on other creatures. Yet instead of asking her father about the Cruciatus curse, she decided that she would take it upon herself to discover how exactly to cast it. And one afternoon, as she cast it onto a stray bug that had landed in her room, she watched with fascination at the way it writhed and struggled beneath her command. Bellatrix had always been interested in the outcomes of certain spells, but this seemed to draw her attention, especially with the word ‘forbidden’ associated with it.

It came to be that by the time Bellatrix arrived at Hogwarts at the age of twelve, she was far more prepared than any other child. She had been taught all types of subjects under various tutors; the more sinister spells and potions one needed by her father, how to charm others into being underestimated by her mother, and she had two wands just in case the dear Headmaster decided to check their wands in case her acts were detected. She knew it was a time to further her connections; ones that she had already had since a young age from social gatherings, but it was an opportunity for her to be able to develop her own system of ‘little birds’ in able to gain the upper hand in all situations for the Black family. For so long, they had been hearing whispers of a certain Dark Lord beneath the shadows, one that sought for a new world — dominated by purebloods, and her father had commanded her to learn as much as she could.

HER TEETH HAVE GROWN INTO FANGS, SHE HAS BECOME A DEADLY DRAGON —

And do that, she certainly had. Within the first couple of years within Hogwarts, she had easily established her reign within Slytherin. They had come to fear, yet love such a creature as her; one that rewarded those who offered her information that came to be useful, punishing those who decided to irritate or disobey her commands. And through these connections did she ever learn about the Dark Lord Voldemort, one that she had been curious to uncover more details about ever since the rumours had begun. Utilising a proxy as an invitation to meet the man himself, Bellatrix found herself enamoured in a way she had never been before. Seduced by the promise of power and glory for her family; and the creation of a new world at her feet, she swore her fealty to Him, knowing that beneath his command that they would forge something beautiful.

This allegiance had suddenly changed the game for Bellatrix. She was suddenly thrust forth the ranks for the Dark Lord, as he came to see how useful she could be. With many connections forging throughout Hogwarts itself to offer new individuals in the ranks, power dripping at her fingertips and intelligence to match; she was a formidable match. And whilst others would have been jealous at the ease she had found in moving through the circles to reach the upper circle, to be placed as a Lieutenant by his side; her duelling and spell casting ability quickly disrupted their disagreements. Just like the students of Hogwarts, they came to fear and respect the young Black girl, one that had seemed to do the impossible. Yet there was just one problem that it seemed she could not remove. At the age of fourteen, Bellatrix had been betrothed to one certain Rodolphus Lestrange. Angered and irritated at the thought of being united in marriage to any individual, she had implored her Lord for any solution.

AND SHE ISN’T AFRAID TO BITE —

She had always been a faithful follower to her parents, and certainly to her Dark Lord, heeding every command. But Bellatrix couldn’t fathom nor imagine being married. And her Lord’s solution delighted Bellatrix, encouraging her to be an even more faithful servant, regardless of the consequences. With his promise to remove the impending marriage if she would help him deliver the world upon a platter, she easily agreed, knowing that this would be done within the impending next few years as their plans continued. The thought of marriage still agitates Bellatrix, and horrifies her. And if there is anything that can be done, she will do it in order to remove the betrothal. Yet one part of her is resigned to her fate, although she will never be a demure pureblooded bride like so many of her followers. She is the Lieutenant to her Dark Lord, and one of the most respected duellists in the Wizarding World. And they’re yet to see the full brunt of her capabilities.

WHAT ARE YOUR RELATIONSHIPS.

NARCISSA & ANDROMEDA: Sisters, wishes to protect. RODOLPHUS LESTRANGE: Betrothed, prefers to avoid. EMMA VANITY: Close friends since childhood. LUCIUS MALFOY: Former old flame. GRETA CATCHLOVE: Finds bemusing to torment.

#harry potter rp #marauders era rpg #new rp #hp rp #bellatrix black #bellatrixbio #t #s #de

6 notes · View notes

relationshipsandpolitics · 4 years

Text

How I Alienated My Potential Readers Part #2

And we’re back. Here’s how we are looking after Part 1:

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Beto O’ Rourke, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, John Delaney, Pete Buttigieg

Well, some things have changed so we can just go ahead and remove Beto, which is a shame because I had a good rant about him sucking. Alas, my genius will have to wait.

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, John Delaney, Pete Buttigieg

I debated where to put climate change in this breakdown. For me, climate change is issue #1b for me. If a candidate denied it, that would be an automatic disqualifier. It should be for every voter. But I am surprised about how we all agree this is a dire issue that needs to be dealt with immediately, but the only candidate who made it their chief issue, Governor Jim Inslee, got virtually no support and was one of the first to drop out. We really talk out of both sides of our mouth on climate change. We all agree it is going to kill us, but we don’t seem to prioritize it, do we? I have some thoughts about that, but I digress.

The good news is all remaining candidates agree climate change is happening and that we need to act. The bad news is many of the candidates do not appear willing to take those drastic steps needed to stave off the worst outcomes. This is a problem. Even the remaining candidates who are best on this issue leave a lot to be desire. As it stands, I’m not removing anyone because no one is Republican levels of awful on the issue, but also no one meets the bar that needs to be set on genuine change. But seriously, we are all awful on this issue, me included. We need to be taking steps in out personal lives to cut back on carbon emissions, and we need to be willing to pay more to save our planet. The truth is if the leading scientific minds announced that to save our planet, we needed to raise taxes by 2% on everyone, we’d instead spend double that to buy front row seats to the end of the world. We as a people truly suck.

Now let’s finally get into the issues that differentiate the candidates. This is really the whole game for me. Because there are certain issues I care about tremendously, issues that I feel we need to address if this country is going to survive or if we will slip fully into the oligarchy we seem destined towards. I’m talking about corporate power and workers’ rights. Look, we all know the stats. Income inequality is worse now than at any time since the Gilded Age. That preceded the Great Depression. Billionaires and corporations hold more power than the bottom 95% of the population combined. They can write a measly $5,000 check and get face time with the most powerful politicians in the country, and another $5,000 check gets them their full support. I know this because part of my job is to write those checks. I don’t try to get into too much about what I do, but suffice it say I work within politics very much behind the scenes. I don’t like what I do, even if I believe in the interests I advocate for. People like me should not exist, but our corrupt political system not only enables me, but empowers me.

We all want a candidate we can trust to act in the average American’s best interest. But we so willingly elect people who knowingly fuck us over in favor of the rich and corporate interests that it’s a wonder they even bother going through the motions trying to appease us. And what have we got for it? Unions have been decimated as lawmakers pass corporate-sponsored Right to Work laws. Wages have stagnated while wealth for the top 1% has skyrocketed. Americans are more productive than ever but seeing a smaller share of that productivity. Compared to all other industrialized nations, we offer no guaranteed paid vacation, family leave, or health care. This is despite being the richest nation in the world. College is a necessity to obtain a well-paying job, yet it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain, meaning anyone graduating with loans will be paying them off until they retire. Or die.

These developments are not a coincidence. They are the results of deliberate efforts by monied interests. Next, they will come after Social Security and Medicare, claiming we need to reign in the deficit. And both Republicans and Democrats will heed their call, and we will buy their sudden concern about deficits. They’ll vote to raise the retirement age and cut benefits, we’ll get mad, and then re-elect them anyway.

How does this rant relate to the upcoming 2020 elections? It relates because the next decade will mark the point of no return, in my estimation. Either this country will wake up to getting screwed and finally vote to do something about it, or it will cement its acceptance of the status quo. Our descent into oligarchy has been relatively gradual because even the Democratic administrations have done little to stem the tide. They’ve just slowed it down by promoting policies benefiting the rich while throwing tokens of support to the working class, which is everybody else. They bump up the income tax rates slightly while ignoring the ways the rich really make their money. They threaten anti-trust lawsuits but never follow through. They bail out the banks and refuse to prosecute the heads of those banks. Then they appoint them to run the Treasury Department. Republicans do these same things; they are just more brazen about it. Whereas Democrats will announce tighter regulations on businesses but include weak enforcement and huge loopholes, Republicans simply get rid of the regulations. Republicans cut the taxes of the rich, Democrats keep them at the status quo.

The next president has a unique opportunity to finally right the wrongs of decades of neo-liberal fiscal policy. They can bring the country in line with the rest of the democratic world by pushing policies that help the poor, working and middle classes. Young parents would be able to afford to have a child. College graduates would be able to afford to buy home and have a crazy thing called disposable income because their college debt was wiped out and college itself became affordable. People would stop fucking dying because they don’t have health care. Seriously, on this last point, what in the ever-loving fuck is wrong with people for not being willing to raise their taxes to fund universal health care?

We need to begin assessing potential candidates by what they want to accomplish to fix this issue. And we can best determine if they will remain mired in the status quo of empty gestures and corporate checks, or if they will fight for us, by their words and actions. With that in mind, I’m going to base my choice on whether the remaining candidates can be expected to support the fundamental restructuring of government and wealth equality. I think you all know where I’m going with this one.

Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, John Delaney – The Technocratic Legislators

Here you have some good moderate Democratic legislators. Booker, Harris and Klobuchar are sitting U.S. Senators while Delaney is a former Representative. I don’t really have an issue with any of them, save maybe Delaney. They all are effective legislators, even if they may be more moderate than I’d like. I particularly like Booker and Harris as people if not politicians. But at the end of the day, I can’t really rely on them to push the things that need to be front and center. I don’t exactly know what their broad policy even is. Sure, they will come out with a good sound bite or a good proposal on some smaller but still important issue. Booker is doing great things on tackling issues facing inner city youths. Harris is good on gun reform. But Booker is way too closely tied with Big Pharma. Harris has an awful record on criminal justice and did nothing to help homeowners defrauded during the housing crisis.

They both illustrate a major concern we should all share. When you have a record of being too cozy with some terrible industries, it shows that the voters can’t truly trust you to have their back. Campaign contributions are par for the course. You need them to win elections. But when you take a disproportionate amount of money from very specific industries, it means you are probably bought by them. Don’t be surprised if Booker nominates a Pharmaceutical lobbyist to head up CMS. And when private equity managers donate to Harris, as Blackstone’s Tia Breakley did in March, 2019, they are doing so because there is a reasonable belief that Harris and others won’t come after them.

Again, I think Harris and Booker are good people and good legislators. And the critique about money is not limited to them, as I plan on thoroughly ripping into Buttigieg and Biden on it. But when you take these facts along with the truth that neither candidate is pushing the sort of structural reforms needed in this country, I think it’s fair to say their presidencies would be rather unremarkable.

Amy Klobuchar and Jon Delaney share the money problem, but they have so much more going for them! Klobuchar treats her staff like absolute shit, which only matters when you remember that we are relying on her to protect all low-level workers. She clearly has contempt for people beneath her on the career ladder, and a wise woman once said “when a person shows you who they are, believe them.”

Klobuchar and Delaney have spent their entire campaign advocating not for what they believe, but for trashing other candidates who dare to dream. Klobuchar and Delaney come from the school of Democratic politicians who believe things are too hard to try, and we might lose Republican voters by trying to be Democrats. The Klobuchar’s and Delaney’s of the world would be happy to adopt every major Republican fiscal position if it meant they got to be President. Also, Delaney is the moron who thought it was a good idea to trash Medicare for All at the California Democratic convention.

I would vote for Harris and Booker and not feel bad about it. I’d feel weird about voting for Klobuchar, and Delaney has as much chance of the nomination as Scott Baio. They are out.

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg

We’re going to go after the young guns now. The candidates we all secretly wish were just a bit better so that we didn’t have to choose from three candidates in their 70’s. But these candidates are ultimately empty shells of better candidates who seem too concerned with appearing like the rational voice in the room to have a vision for our country.

Let’s start with Mayor Pete Buttigieg. I was talking with my mother about who she was going to support in the primary. Let me be clear that I did not initiate this conversation. I’d literally rather talk to my mother about our respective sex lives than politics. But my mother has a bit of a control issue, and this blog was cheaper than therapy.

Anyway, my mother said she was supporting either Biden (shocking, I know) or Buttigieg. She said she liked that he was young, and it was great he was gay. I asked my mom what positions of his did she support, and she couldn’t really name any except that he didn’t support Medicare for All. This was a selling point for her. See, my mother represents a huge segment of the Democratic base that is upper middle class, socially liberal (except Kaepernick should’ve stood) and fiscally moderate (aka conservative but they swear they have homeless friends). What this really means is they are Democrats when it doesn’t hurt them to be. They think what’s going on at the border is abhorrent, but they know someone who was mugged by an “illegal” and we need a wall. And they support the idea of everyone having health insurance, but no way will that mean they have to pay more in taxes. They agree housing is too expensive, but then they’ll oppose affordable housing development in their neighborhoods because they attract a “bad element.” For these people, Buttigieg is the ideal candidate. They get to keep their money and nice gated communities, but because he is gay they can call themselves progressive. Plus, we know Buttigieg won’t do anything monstrous like keeping refugees locked up or denying basic rights to LGTBQ people, so how could anyone not support him?

Well, let me be the first to say that Pete Buttigieg is awful. First, keep in mind this guy is the Mayor of South Bend. That’s less a city and more a place for Notre Dame fanboys to “romance” the gold helmets in a sleazy motel. He won his last election with 8,500 votes. And he still managed to piss off a sizable number of his constituents by botching police relations with the black community. And now people think he can run a country. But he’s taken seriously because he raised a boatload of money and the pundits (also rich white people generally) like him. Never mind where that money is coming from and what favors he now owes to those people, right?

Mayor Pete came out for Medicare for All but decided when it was political opportune to trash it using Republican talking points. His actual healthcare plan is truly awful. Pete Buttigieg is the darling candidate for voters who don’t want anything to change, like my mother. They have good health insurance. They own their house and see it as an asset, not a noose. They don’t have any student debt, mainly because they attended college when it cost the equivalent of an iPhone. Buttigieg is a technocrat with a nice haircut. He is a lot like Obama, minus the everything. But his message is one of comfort to the people who own vacation homes in upstate New York and tie rainbow bandannas around their dog’s neck for Pride Week. Under a Buttigieg administration, civility will return and nothing else will change. If the biggest criticism of Sanders and Warren is they have pie-in-the-sky ideas, then Buttigieg’s biggest critique is he has no ideas. It’s just sad how little that matters to the people who will decide this election.

Julian Castro: you’re next. Here’s someone I kind of like. He is great on housing, one of the core issues keeping Americans from feeling secure. I live in an area once considered cheap for housing. But that’s changing. They keep building and building but rents still shoot higher and higher. Sometimes I feel the laws of supply and demand don’t work with housing. I mean, it works when there is low supply and high demand like in Los Angeles and San Francisco. But where I live, there is plenty of supply, yet rents are increasing as much as 10% year over year. Likely this is because demand is still high to live near an urban center. It doesn’t matter if there are tons of vacant units. Renters are willing to pay the cost and don’t do a good job shopping around. Also, as rents continue to soar while jobs continue to navigate towards major cities and people continue to need to live near those jobs, our commutes will get longer and longer. This means more cars on the road, more pollution in the air. Solving the housing crisis means putting a huge dent in climate change. No one seems to understand the impact of not having affordable housing, but Castro comes fairly close. I think I would go for him if he wasn’t so milquetoast on every other issue. He gets completely lost in the shuffle. I think Castro supports Medicare for All? I mean, I do know where he stands because I follow this stuff closely, but it should be clear to the average voter. Castro is young, attractive and is relatively progressive compared to the field. But he isn’t charismatic. He doesn’t articulate his message clearly enough, and my big concern is whether he can create a narrative that gives his administration a chance to pass meaningful legislation. It’s not that I can’t get on board with Castro based on policy, but I just don’t think he has the chops to get it done. Castro’s other problem is he doesn’t speak to workers’ rights issues enough. He pays them lip service, and I’m sure he believes in increasing union membership and raising the minimum wage. I just can’t envision him fighting hard for those issues once in office. I, quite frankly, see him as another politician pushing incremental change on some areas and tackling the low hanging fruit issues of the Democratic base rather than swinging for the fences.

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders

And then there were three. I think we all knew it was coming down to these three. Let’s not kid ourselves here. We know who is getting the next ax, but the bottom line is these are the three true contenders and until things change, they are the only horses in the race. So we will tackle them together in Part 3, which is hopefully coming soon.

#politics #2020 #bernie sanders #pete buttgieg #elizabeth warren #joe biden #kamala harris #corey booker #elections #2020 election #democrats #julian castro

2 notes · View notes

ghoulishboyhummel · 5 years

Text

HOLY SHIT IS THAT [ AVAN JOGIA ]?! Oh, wait it’s just [ AARON HUMMEL ]. Damn, [ HE ] looks good for [ 21 ], good thing that they’re [ BISEXUAL ], I might have a chance. I hear that they call them the [ MISCREANT ] of the [ SOUTH SIDE ]. I guess that’s because they’re [ SELFISH ] and [ DISRUPTIVE ]. But I don’t think a lot of people know that they’re also [ CHARISMATIC ] and [ PROTECTIVE ]. Can’t wait to see what kind of trouble [ LOGAN/24/CST ] will bring.

01. BASICS

Full Name: Aaron James Hummel

Nickname: Ronny was something some of the other orphans called him, he doesn’t really “do” nicknames.

Sex/Gender: Male

Birthday: October 31st

Age: 21

Astrological Sign: Scorpio

Occupation: Dealer

Spoken Languages: English and ASL

Sexual Orientation: Bisexual

Birthplace: Northside of Riverdale

Relationship status: Single

02. PHYSICAL TRAITS

Hair Color/Style: Black, about shoulder length. Occasionally it’s in a ponytail.

Eye Color: Dark Brown

Face Claim: Avan Jogia

Height: 5′11

Weight: 156

Tattoos: Ghoulie tattoo on his left forearm

Piercings: A helix piercing on his right ear

Unique Attributes: Birthmark on his back

Defining Gestures/Movements: He cracks his knuckles pretty often

Posture: Very poor, slouches constantly.

03. PERSONALITY TRAITS

Pet Peeves: People who walk slow and snitches.

Hobbies/Interests: Videotaping, and though he isn’t much of a music guy he does know how to play the guitar.

Special Skills/Abilities: He knows how to sneak around pretty damn well

Likes: Drinking, parties, messing around on his guitar, spicy food

Dislikes: Police, reading, doing drugs, Northside.

Insecurities: He does have slight abandonment issues, and is almost constantly on the verge of thinking the Ghoulies are going to leave him.

Quirks/Eccentricities: Sometimes, Aaron can be seen messing with his hair.

Strengths: Persistent, persuasive, straightforward, and versatile

Weaknesses: Contemptous, stubborn, selfish, rude

Speaking Style: So casual, always an underlying tone of rudeness and boredom.

Temperament: He can go form 0-100 real quick, it’s pretty easy to set him off.

04. FAMILY & HOME

Immediate Family: Burt Hummel (Adopted Father), Elizabeth Hummel (Adopted Mother), Kurt Hummel (Adopted Brother)

How do they feel about their family? He doesn’t get along well with his dad, especially after he ran away and became a Ghoulie. He misses his mom a lot, even if he only knew her for a year, and though he doesn’t admit it and pretends to dislike him in public, he loves Kurt a lot.

How does their family feel about them? Burt is tired of him, honestly. He tried very hard in the beginning to get Aaron back home but it didn’t work, and now there may come a time when he’ll have to lock up his own son. But despite all of that, Aaron is still a Hummel, and Hummels stick together.

Pets: None, he’s considered getting a cat but doesn’t really have the time to take care of one.

Where do they live? He has his own trailer on the Southside.

Description of their home: Pretty small, but enough for one man to live there. Pretty disorganized and messy, but he claims it “adds character”.

Description of their bedroom: Bed. He doesn’t have many decorations up since the main time he’s in there is sleeping or “entertaining a guest” Compared to his room with the Hummels though, it’s a barren closet.

05. THIS OR THAT

Introvert or Extrovert?

Optimist or Pessimist?

Leader or Follower?

Confident or Self-Conscious?

Cautious or Careless?

Religious or Secular?

Passionate or Apathetic?

Book Smarts or Street Smarts?

Compliments or Insults?

Pajamas or Lingerie?

06. FAVORITES

Favorite Color: Blue

Favorite Clothing Style/Outfit: Jeans, jacket, casual style overall. Plus his piercing is almost always in.

Favorite Bands/Songs/Type of Music: He’s not actually much of a music guy, but indie rock and alternative is probably what he listens to the most.

Favorite Movies: Documentaries, mostly. Or horror films, he loves those.

Favorite Books: He’s not a huge reader, you can occasionally see him reading a history book or historical fiction but it won’t be often.

Favorite Foods/Drinks: Pizza and wine.

Favorite Sports/Sports Teams: He doesn’t keep up with sports.

Favorite Time of Day: Morning

Favorite Weather/Season: Winter

Favorite Animal: Elephant.

07. MISCELLANEOUS

Fears/Superstitions: He’s afraid that his birth parents did want him, his whole life has been spent angry at them for abandoning him, it’s part of why he lashed out at Burt so badly. If they did want him, then he ran away from a really nice family for nothing.

Political Views: Liberal

Addictions: He did have a bit of an alcohol problem for a while, but he’s been working on it.

Best School Subject: Social Studies

Worst School Subject: Science

School Clubs/Sports: N/A

How does he get money? He’s one of the many dealers in the Ghoulies, though his deals range from drugs to weapons to just about anything.

How is he with technology? Okay, he doesn’t use it very often.

08. PAST & FUTURE

Fondest Memory: Getting adopted, the Hummels were really nice to him and he was glad to get out of the orphanage.

Deepest, Darkest Secret: He does want a better relationship with his dad, and has contemplated on numerous occasions on leaving the Ghoulies and trying to move back to the Northside.

Dream Vacation:

Best thing that has ever happened to this character: Meeting the Ghoulies when he ran away, a place where he can finally have a family.

Worst thing that has ever happened to this character: Elizabeth dying, or getting put up for adoption in the first place.

What do they want to be when they grow up? When he was younger he had plans of being a filmmaker, but now he just says he’s content being a Ghoulie.

Perfect Date: A bed and wine, movies optional.

09. BIO

Put up for adoption at age 5, Aaron vaguely remembers his parents, but not enough to really recognize and start a search for them. In the orphanage itself, he was generally a well liked kid, albeit a little touchy with his things. He stayed there for just two years before being adopted by Burt and Elizabeth Hummel, but unfortunately, it was only a year later that Elizabeth passed away.

That’s when things got a little heated in the Hummel household. Sure he didn’t have a problem with his older (though as Aaron likes to point out, not by much) brother, but any anger that Aaron had at being left by yet another parent was directed at Burt. It wasn’t fair, but he didn’t care. Then Burt became Sheriff of Riverdale and was home even less, and spending time with Kurt just wasn’t enough at that point. He wanted a family that would stay, and wouldn’t be taken away from him again. With not many options, he ran from the Hummel home when he was 14, heading to the Southside of town and quickly ran into the Ghoulies. Who he joined immediately.

These were the people that wouldn’t abandon him, or pass away after a year. It didn’t take long for Sheriff Hummel to figure out where his teenage son ran off to, but any attempts to get him back home were met with yelling and swearing. Eventually, he backed off. Aaron was on the Southside to stay, he was a member of the Ghoulies for the foreseeable future, and no one could change that.

#gdhqintro

3 notes · View notes

mimicofmodes · 6 years

Photo

(Not fashion. I wrote this as an answer to a question elsewhere and nobody saw it.)

Mary Tudor was the first queen regent of England. Was this noted at the time? Was there any significant reaction, positive or negative, to having a solo female ruler?

The only previous time in English history that a woman attempted to rule in her own right as her father's natural heir was Empress Matilda (1102-1167), the daughter of Henry I and granddaughter of William the Conqueror; at this time, it hadn't even been fully established that princesses could pass inheritance rights on to their sons, so it's remarkable that Henry decided to make her his heir in the absence of other legitimate children of his own. The following summary of the situation may sound familiar to you if you read or watched The Pillars of the Earth. When Henry I died in 1135, his nephew, Stephen of Blois, was able to get crowned in London since Matilda, married to the count of Anjou, wasn't able to make the journey immediately - the idea of the heir immediately becoming ruler on their predecessor's death wasn't yet a tradition. In 1139, she did travel to England, though, and sought out the support of local barons to wage a military campaign against Stephen. She prevailed and ruled for a short time in 1141 but didn't make it to a coronation before being dethroned, and kept on being "Lady of the English" until her half-brother and chief supporter, Robert of Gloucester, died in 1147. She then left for France, giving up on her own personal claim to the English throne.

In the very small number of primary sources left about Matilda's short reign and longer campaign, there's a lot of discussion of her gender. Without any precedent for a woman ruling England (though Anglo-Saxon queens had been able to wield their own kind of power as kings' wives or mothers), she had to construct a version of female kingship that led to her taking on a lot of masculine features. Henry had had her take the same normally-masculine oaths her late brother had made as heir, and while her gaining this position required her to remarry far beneath herself in order to produce her own male heirs, instead of taking on that new title she was considered largely as her father's daughter and an empress (her first husband had been the Holy Roman Emperor) and held onto most of her dowry. Once she began her quest for the crown against Stephen, she threw off conventions of gendered behavior and acted quite openly in her own interest: she captured opponents and held them in chains, legally appealed Stephen's succession, and, well, acted as a king among her own vassals.

Although there hadn't been any explicit opposition to her claim just on the basis of her gender, opponents did use her status as e.g. the wife of the Count of Anjou as tools to delegitimize her standing. Once she had some power, though, her lack of feminine reticence and modesty became a problem even in the chronicles that otherwise supported her. It wasn't so much an issue that people said, "hey, women shouldn't rule," but that once a woman was actively exercising power on her own behalf without cloaking that in concern for her son(s) or a pretense of not wanting to do it. Most kings had queens to project softer, interceding, and more forgiving royal power by their sides, rounding off their corners while they were able to make the hard choices and do nasty, bloody things. Matilda simply didn't have the advantage of this kind of partnership, and couldn't be both the king and queen.

So, Mary. While in general Matilda is not considered a proper queen regnant because she was never crowned (let's note that nobody has this problem when it comes to Edward V, one of the princes in the Tower, just saying), there is no doubt that Mary I ruled officially. Matilda was her only pattern when it came to English queenship, and due to the above, she was more valuable as an example of what not to do - despite the centuries between them, it would still not have gone over well if Mary had flouted what was expected of a woman and simply behaved like her father as a monarch.

Mary's Catholicism was a much bigger issue than her gender as a fact on its own, in a kingdom that had recently switched to Protestantism as the state religion, with a government full of people who'd fully bought into it. Where her gender came into it was the concern about where her husband - someone she was regarded as needing in order to produce her own heirs to keep feuding cousins from starting another civil war - would stand in relationship to the throne. Married women were considered femes couverts in English law, subsumed into their husbands' legal identities, which implied that a queen's husband perhaps might automatically be in charge of the country. Edward VI's "Device for the Succession" (which outlined who would follow him to the throne, since he had no heirs) excluded both Mary and the Protestant Elizabeth out of concerns about their marrying foreign princes - as would be appropriate to their station, being born princesses, even if they'd been later declared bastards - and subjecting England to foreign rule, diverting the line instead to Jane Grey, already married to an Englishman, "and her heirs male". (Jane was, technically, of course, another precedent for Mary. She planned to make her husband a duke, rather than allowing him authority over herself.)

Once she'd declared herself the queen, Mary quickly attracted support from the local gentry and nobility despite her gender: she didn't have a husband ruling over her yet and was also no longer a ward of any man, and therefore feme sole, a totally independent woman. While Mary did have to start off with a bit of military violence, unlike Matilda she had no real challengers and was therefore able to drop the masculine-coded aggression in defending her right to rule, inhabiting the office of kingship as a "normal" woman without really upsetting the overall patriarchal power structure. (It was also enshrined in law by this point that daughters could inherit from their fathers and brothers, so it simply made logical sense to most people that she was now the monarch.) She went to her coronation in cloth of gold and with her hair down, as in the famous coronation portrait of Elizabeth I, the traditional way for a king's wife being crowned to appear, and later billed this ceremony as her marriage to the realm, a marriage in which she was obviously the bride. In general, she modeled herself on her pious mother, Catherine of Aragon, rather than her powerful and somewhat arbitrary father - typically, this is presented in pop culture as just a part of her fanaticism, rather than the use of a traditional aspect of queen-consortship. She was publicly rather submissive to her advisors and ambassadors, confirming her status as an unmarried woman above her status as monarch and allowing them to believe that she was naive and trusting, as they expected her to be due to her gender. Before she wed Philip II of Spain, she talked up her desire to remain chaste and made it clear that her main reason for marriage was the succession (the ensuring of which would make her pregnant and therefore extra-womanly); she allowed it to appear that she was totally uninvolved with the negotiation process for his hand, as though the men were deciding her fate. (Despite all of this, she made it clear in her marriage paperwork that she would continue to be the ultimate authority, reducing him to the traditional female role of intercessor and soft-power-holder, and that Philip's title of "king" was only a courtesy, and she also brought no dowry at all to the match - far from the expected behavior of a royal bride, in general!) Rather than bringing herself into the masculine role of king, basically, she brought the role of kingship to herself while staying firmly in the female sphere, and while her sister's reign was longer and more successful, it's clear that Elizabeth took a certain amount of direction from the way Mary handled her gender.

Both of the two "first" queens regnant of England had a great deal of trouble in ruling (and in later biographies) as a result of the way that others perceived their gender and their ability to conform to its conventions. Their problem was the social practices surrounding their gender, that is - not just their gender in and of itself. It's difficult to get into the historical mindset that saw women considered the property of their male relatives throughout their lives (unless they were lucky enough to become rich widows) and yet also considered women not biologically unfit to rule a country. In part, this difficulty is supported by hundreds of pop cultural depictions of historical men as total chauvinists who thought women were simply stupid across the board, which ignores the reality that elite women did a lot of work in estate management and diplomacy, and which they recognized as valuable. It's a contradiction. People have a lot of contradictions, even today - we don't run on pure logic, although many think they do and use that to prop up their own internal contradictions.

You might be interested in reading The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History, by Charles Beem (2006), which is 100% about this issue and was my major source for this answer. It's great! In general, I recommend all of Palgrave Macmillan’s Queenship and Power series.

#history #tudors #english history #medieval #royalty #queens #gender #god I love queens and gender #such great topics #mary i #empress matilda

53 notes · View notes

hcsmca · 6 years

Text

Community Change, From the Inside Out

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. —Margaret Mead

From infectious disease to opioid addiction to sexual violence, there’s a myriad of pressing health and social issues facing communities around the globe. Sometimes the global community steps in to help, providing aid where needed, but other times local communities are left to fend for themselves. Unfortunately, low-income and underserved communities not only have limited resources to tackle such issues on their own, but they also often find themselves facing an intricate web of many other deeply-rooted challenges. Despite the injustices of these situations, we often see people within these communities who take it upon themselves to inspire the change they want to see around them. At TEDMED 2018, we’ll feature 4 Speakers and 1 Hive Innovator who are employing innovative ideas and unwavering determination to address the complex challenges facing their communities. Through their work, these individuals are proving that the most sustainable and effective change often starts at the local level—from the inside out.

In Malawi, nearly 1 in 5 babies are born prematurely, and the southeast African country has faced significant challenges supporting these babies with basic functions such as breathing, feeding, and body temperature regulation. Refusing to be a bystander in the face of these heartbreaking statistics, pediatrician Queen Dube and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital have been working with Rice University in Texas, along with other international partners, to test and implement life-saving technologies through the NEST 360 program in order to avoid preventable deaths and save babies’ lives. These technologies are unique in that unlike most medical equipment, they are built to withstand the harsh environments in which many African hospitals operate. In an interview with the BBC, Queen describes one of the life-saving technologies, a bubble CPAP machine, which her hospital uses with premature babies who are struggling to breathe. Between these new technologies, government initiatives, and innovative partnerships, infant mortality rates are now on a steady decline in Malawi.

Infant receiving care at Queen Elizabeth’s Hospital

Sometimes a community is forced to face an onslaught of seemingly insurmountable challenges all at once—such as when it is confronted with a natural disaster. After Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico found itself in this difficult position. With power outages that lasted over 8 months and an alarmingly high death toll that wasn’t updated until nearly 11 months after the initial tragedy, many Puerto Ricans reported feeling a lack of support in their efforts to rebuild after the storm. Fortunately, amidst the devastation, there were community members like Christine Nieves who rolled up their sleeves and got to work. A few weeks after the hurricane, Christine and other community members opened Proyecto de Apoyo Mutuo Mariana (Project for Mutual Aid Mariana), a “comedore social” (social kitchen) in La Loma that not only provides the community with rainwater collection and filtration for cooking, solar panels, and free Wi-Fi, but also serves up to 300 meals per day. As Christine put it, she saw “Hurricane Maria [as an] opportunity to see the power is in ourselves and not in America.” Following in the footsteps of Christine’s community-led approach, buildings across the island now display a new motto: “Puerto Rico se levanta” (Puerto Rico raises itself). Not only is Christine’s work helping to revive a struggling community, but it is also instilling a strong sense of community pride and inspiring more community-led recovery projects across the island.

youtube

While it’s no secret that the United States has an unfortunate history of exploiting its farmworkers, many might be surprised to learn that there are still American farms utilizing slavery practices today. Greg Asbed co-founded the Coalition for Immokalee Workers (CIW), a worker-based human rights organization, to help end the systemic abuses he was seeing in Florida’s tomato fields. In the years following, Greg helped to expand CIW’s standards into a broader framework called the Fair Food Program (FFP), a unique partnership between farmworkers, Florida tomato growers, and select retail buyers. With the help of Gerardo Reyes Chavez—who was a farmworker for most of his life and is now a key leader of the CIW and FFP—the organization has helped to liberate over 1,200 farmworkers from farms where they were being held against their will and forced to work. Additionally, the CIW has gotten major corporations such as McDonald’s and Whole Foods to sign “Fair Food Agreements,” in which the companies agree to only do business with tomato farms that provide workers with fair pay and labor, education, complaint management systems, health and safety agreements, and more. Greg and Gerardo’s Worker Driven Social Responsibility model is now being applied beyond the agricultural industry—as far away as in garment factories in Bangladesh. In addressing and improving the unfair food system, Greg and Gerardo are giving a voice to an underserved community and paving the way for large-scale social impact.

CIW-organized farmworkers’ protest

Affecting community change often demands addressing systemic challenges head-on. Toyin Ajayi co-founded CityBlock Health to tackle the barriers to good health facing people in underserved areas and to provide these populations with the personalized care that they require. Driven by the belief that truly serving a community means extending healthcare services beyond the doctor’s office, CityBlock Health works to become active and responsive members of the communities they serve—providing its member base of Medicare and Medicaid enrollees, as well as people living in underserved city neighborhoods, with high-quality care where-needed and when-needed. The company’s tech-enabled model not only effectively meets the complex care and social needs of its members, but it’s also helping to shift care away from the reactive, hospital-based acute healthcare system and toward a system that is more focused on prevention and community support. By providing customized local health care, CityBlock Health is improving the health of its community, block by block.

When it comes to driving meaningful change, sometimes it takes someone on the inside to clearly identify the problem and to find the best path forward. From Queen’s work implementing life-saving new technologies in Malawi, to Christine’s inspiring community resilience efforts in the wake of Hurricane Maria, to Greg and Gerardo’s victories in improving working conditions for Florida’s tomato farmers, to CityBlock Health’s implementation of personalized and localized healthcare solutions for underserved neighborhoods, TEDMED 2018 will showcase individuals who are not accepting the status quo. These outstanding Speakers and Innovators are stepping up to the plate and solving health and social challenges from the inside out.

The post Community Change, From the Inside Out appeared first on TEDMED Blog.

Read more from TEDMED https://blog.tedmed.com/community-change-from-the-inside-out/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

#TEDMED #California #HCSM #2016

1 note · View note