I think we have an issue about how we characterise young teenage girls as "sexualising themselves" because they start wearing makeup, adult dresses, short skirts and red lipstick.
I mean, when we see a 14-years-old boy wearing a suit and a tie, we don't think he's sexualising himself. we just think "oh look, a teenager that's exploring his autonomy and adulthood by distancing himself a little from children, something which is pretty normal at his age". and you can't tell me that it's because suits aren't sexy, because many people think suits are sexy and it's in fact a common fetish.
but whenever a teen girl tries to dabble with a more adult and "mature" presentation, we think of sex. we think she's sexualising herself. I think the root of this issue is that we have thought-patterns based on a fundamental idea inherited from patriarchy that's rarely verbalised explicitly, but that we believe anyway. this unspoken assumption is that the only difference between a girl and a woman is that you can fuck the woman legally. and when that's only difference between a kid and an adult, we can't help but see every sign of teenage normal growth (social, physical and even mental) through the lense of sex. this puts an unfair pressure on girls because we force them to self-police and second-guess every one of their thoughts because *we* (the adults) cannot help but see normal teenage exploration of adult apparel as sexual -but only when it's a girl teen and female adult apparel.
therefore, a girl tries to visually send a message that she's not a little kid anymore, that's she's growing up and maturing, and rather than acknowledging her development and need for autonomy (like we do with boys), we think of sex. and how could we think otherwise? we sexulise adult women as a reflex, everything from their clothes to their bodies. boys can wear a suit; do girls have any equivalent to that? any form of visual self-expression that signals adulthood that is *not* sexualized?
we deny girls the possibility of a nuanced teenagehood, because we (the adults) cannot see a girl separating herself from childhood without somehow thinking about sex. that's disgusting.
374 notes
·
View notes
jiang cheng is a funny character because i fully support either liking him or not liking him, but i see so many takes (especially when he shows up in a supporting role in fic) that seem completely unhinged until i pin down which of what i consider the fundamental facts of his character are just not being applied at all.
it’s like:
1) this is not a mentally well guy, especially after Plot starts happening, and he spends the entire story getting less okay. the only time we ever see any improvement happen in jiang cheng is when wei wuxian piths himself getting the guy out of his suicidal phase, causing many more problems going forward but fixing that one. jiang cheng is not okay and it’s all downhill.
2) he cares so fucking much. like you can write a jiang cheng who is a deeply selfish bastard and you have an excellent textual basis, but it's not because he doesn't care about other people, at least the ones that are his; that's a different kind of problem than the one he has.
he would in fact be less of a problem a lot of the time if he cared less, because he does not have the emotional management tools to be useful about it. also the narrative is conspiring against him but like.
(there are a lot of ways to be selfish and jiang cheng and lan wangji are actually remarkably similar in the basic type of selfish impulses they have. they just have very different childhoods and values shaping how they act about it. and then lan wangji manages to become a mostly functional adult, while jiang cheng is generously an electrified pile of bad coping mechanisms. he's functioning! but like. at what cost.)
3) jiang cheng is dutiful. even the most selfish jiang cheng is someone who perceives and values himself in terms of his function and obligation; he and wei wuxian have different personalities and worldviews, and for that matter expectations placed on them, but they both learned that lesson, presumably together.
4) sort of an extension of 1 and to a lesser extent 2, Jiang Cheng is emotionally insecure as a base state. his parents made some major errors, at least half of which should have been avoidable except they would have had to deal with their own shit first.
it's not out of the question, in a different lifetime where he didn't get several years of compounded irresolvable traumas as his coming-of-age present and then left alone to stew in pain and denial for over a decade, for him to have learned to handle it better and even mostly get over it! that could have happened! it just didn't.
to an extent he's insecure about different things as a grown man than he was as a boy, life experience makes a difference. he's built confidence about some things and become absolutely shattered about others. but he's a person who is easy to wound, in all kinds of complicated identity-related ways, especially by Wei Wuxian specifically, and his kneejerk response to that is to lash out in reply, whether the wounding was intentional or not.
the fact that Wei Wuxian spent most of their lives giving every evidence of being completely immune to being harmed by this reaction masked its toxicity until things got real ugly real fast.
jiang cheng absolutely has the capacity to not do this! it's a deeply rooted bad habit, not actually a fundamental of his character. but it requires self-awareness, will, and (if he's going to keep it up) a lot of practice. it's not the kind of thing that just goes away on its own, even with a bunch of alterations in context.
i don’t have like a closing argument here i just keep finding that takes on jiang cheng that don’t work for me, whether generous or condemnatory, always seem to disagree with me on one of these main points.
2K notes
·
View notes
I come from a family of teachers, so I have been (and still am) in contact with many different kinds of teachers. a frustration that I often hear is that sometimes they will be explaining something about their subject that is legitimately interesting and someone will raise their hand and ask "okay but, will this be in the exam?". it frustrates them because it signals to the teacher that the student isn't really invested in the subject, and is merely focused on passing as fast as possible.
that is a correct assessment, however teachers need to stop complaining about it and start to reflect on how it was the mandatory school system (and by extension, the teachers themselves) who has taught the students that they must be focused on getting at least a passing grade. being actually, personally invested in the subject is optional and often discouraged. yes, it is very good that you enjoy biology so much, but right now you're failing maths, so could you please stop reading about oxygen exchange and do thirty integrals instead?
one of the most important values that mandatory schooling drills into students is that knowledge doesn't actually matter. it doesn't matter if it useful or interesting, and it matters even less if you like it; it doesn't even matter if you will use this knowledge in the far future. in fact, if you can only learn things that are either directly useful to you or that you personally enjoy, you're a bad student. in other words, the content of the course shouldn't matter at all for the student. the only thing that should matter to them is, will this get me a passing grade?
as they spend more and more years in the educative system, students internalise this message and as a result, they often become apathetic about the content they're being presented with. if personal motivation is not important, why bother finding it? a student that only cares about what will be in the exam is acting rationally in the environment they've been forced into.
if, as a teacher, you find this behaviour frustrating or worrying, you should start questioning why you're working in the environment that demands it.
86 notes
·
View notes
Lust for Youth - "Blue Suzuki"
I Am Here Now, When Will You Be Here Again? [Posh Isolation, 2023]
10 notes
·
View notes