and not as a scapegoat or a victim

In my head, somewhere, there’s this muggleborn Ravenclaw at Hogwarts, who loves history. And she’s so excited about History of Magic, she reads all the books she can find, she looks for how it fits in with muggle history…

And then she gets to Hogwarts and realizes that wizards don’t care about history. At all. Class is taught by a ghost who doesn’t care about anything modern and seems surprised when he realizes students actually exist, no one cares if they fall asleep in class, everyone has been assigned the same essay topics every year for the last five hundred years. It’s all about rebellions and wars and treaties, and there’s no social history at all.

And her first couple years she just deals with it, because, hey, new fascinating world she’s learning all about, she can deal with one poorly taught class.

But what made me think about this was the title of Harry’s essay in third year. “Witch-Burning in the Fourteenth Century Was Completely Pointless - discuss.” Because look at that from the point of view of someone who knows something about the motives behind witch-hunts.

So that’s when she loses it and spends the whole summer researching and writing an essay on the historical effects of magical existence on muggles. How wizards let people scapegoat other muggles and especially women for things muggles wouldn’t believe in if there weren’t real wizards everywhere. How pureblood wizards were happy to screw up the lives of the muggles living near them and then avoided all consequences because hey, they had Flame-Freezing Charms if the worst happened, what did they care if someone else was caught and died horribly instead of them. How even today muggles were falsely diagnosed with mental illnesses because wizards weren’t careful enough with their Disillusionment Charms, or because wizards thought Memory Charms were the solution to everything no matter how they affected the victim.

And she hands it in at the start of the year and a week later she gets summoned to the Headmistress’s office.

And Professor McGonagall smiles at her and says “This is a bit unusual, but would you be interested in a TA position?”

abusers don’t want to carry the guilt for their own abuse you know? they wont do it. they let you know it hurts them and they don’t want to experience any of it, they don’t let you hold them guilty, they say the guilt is on you, they force you to take it, they drown you in the guilt and say it’s all your fault.

so you are the one who feels like a monster. you are the one feeling like you’re toxic and somehow a danger to the others, you are the one carrying the shame and the guilt as if you abused someone that badly, as if you caused for someone to abuse you. you are the one who gets self conscious over all of your actions and words, you feel like you’re the worst human alive, you feel like you deserve to be punished and abused for your crimes, you feel like you’ve done something wrong, like you need to be forgiven but nobody will give you forgiveness, you feel like there’s something inherently wrong and evil inside of you, like it can’t be helped because you are you. you end up feeling like the world would be a better place without you in it. you end up hiding and scared that you’ll be revealed for how horrible you really are. you end up feeling like you don’t deserve to exist.

that is what abuser should have been feeling. that is what they should have been carrying. that was forced on you. you haven’t done anything wrong. you’ve been forced to carry their emotional burden. that is what they should have been going through. forcing the victim to feel the guilt and shame of the abuser, forcing them to carry this burden on themselves, together with the burden of being betrayed and abused, that is actual torture.

and it’s devastating because you never got to be in love with yourself, you never got to experience how it feels to be human, free of guilt, free of thinking about yourself as a monster, free of burden and shame, free of self hatred, free of self consciousness and anxiety, free of fear and paranoia that you’re doing something wrong, free of feeling like you deserve to be punished, free of suicidal feelings, free to feel like you deserve being loved! because that’s what you deserved! you have done nothing wrong! you have done nothing to deserve the burden you’re carrying! it’s abuser who should be carrying it. it’s time for it to be returned to where it truly belongs. and that is not on your shoulders.

just so everyone knows, i understand what the show is trying to do

they want to show gray morality. they want to show that the “bad guys” can be anyone, and that nothing is as black and white as it seems. the good guys can make bad decisions, the bad guys aren’t irredeemably evil

but you can show that without turning the victim of oppression and the survivor of ethnic cleansing into a bad guy, over and over and over again. you can show gray morality without making allura into a scapegoat. you can show it without a #NotAllGalra plotline. you can do it without saying allura could be just as bad as her oppressors. you can do it without having allura being the only one making bad moral decisions, while her entire team is consistently against her. you can do it without having allura “blinded” by her grief and “hatred” for the galra. you can do it without saying that keith and lotor are better than she is due to her “prejudices.” you can do it without saying that the oppressed are just as bad as oppressors. you can do it without making allura’s character flaw “reverse racism.”

i get what they’re trying to do. they’re just doing a piss-poor job of it

I’ve come to realize that there’s a large portion of the Steven Universe fandom that doesn’t want character redemption, even if they say they do. Because there’s a similarity in the characters they’ve decided are deserving of redemption.

Blue Diamond, as of the Answer, was considered a horrible dictator at best. But then the whole zoo arc and the trial happened, and now there are a few people who have decided that she deserves redemption. And that redemption can be defined as joining the Crystal Gems to fight against whoever really shattered Pink Diamond.

But Blue Diamond is still a Diamond. And she has never once shown any sympathy to anyone or anything that is not related to the other Diamonds, especially Pink Diamond. But since she mourns in a socially acceptable way, she’s considered deserving of redemption.

And let’s look at the rubies. Up until Room for Ruby, both Navy and Leggy were the rubies that deserved redemption. They were sweet. They were innocent. They weren’t really bad. And after Room for Ruby, Navy went immediately to the completely irredeemable pile, leaving Leggy as the lone redeemable Ruby. Why? Because she’s too young and naive to know any better. Rubies are stupid. Once Steven is nice to her, she’ll run to the Crystal Gems.

And even when a character does have her redemption arc, where she grows and develops, fandom pretends it never happened. I am, of course, referring to Peridot. I can’t count the times I’ve seen people say that Peridot only ever attacked the Crystal Gems because she was alone and scared on Earth. But that ignores that Peridot tried to smash “the Steven” because she thought he was nothing more than an infestation. It ignores that Peridot was perfectly fine with the Cluster destroying the Earth, and only opposed it to save her own gem. No, they’ve decided that Peridot was always good, and that’s why she got redeemed.

Same with Lapis. She did terrible things, for selfish reasons. She dragged Jasper under the sea in order to have a scapegoat for all her pain. But she’s grown. She doesn’t like that part of her. She doesn’t want to hurt others. But so many in this fandom act like she’s sweet angel who did it only to protect Steven. That she’s the eternally suffering, abused victim.

To them, Lapis and Peridot are both characters who were always sweet and good and never once intentionally hurt anybody who didn’t deserve it. They weren’t selfish. They were noble, and eager to learn and grow. But they don’t want either of those characters to grow. They want them to have always been good.

And that’s it. It’s always the characters who were “nice” who deserve to be “redeemed”. But the nastier characters don’t deserve it. Jasper doesn’t deserve to be redeemed because she’s a bully, who deals with her pain by putting others down. Eyeball doesn’t deserve to be redeemed because she tried to kill Steven even though she thought she was attacking Rose. Yellow Diamond can’t be redeemed because she grieves angrily and wants to destroy anything that reminds her of her pain. They’re not “nice”. They’re not “good”.

And there’s the rub. This lovely little hellsite doesn’t like change. If you’ve done, or even thought, something problematic even once, that’s what you always are. So gems like Peridot, Lapis Lazuli, or even Blue Diamond were really always good. And Jasper, Eyeball, and Yellow Diamond always were, and always will be, bad.

Misogyny in Much Ado About Nothing

I’ve read a lot of scholarly articles on Much Ado About Nothing that dismiss Don John as a terrible villain, or criticise Shakespeare for the lack of finesse in constructing him, but honestly, I’ve always felt like that’s the point.

Don John is no sly, silver-tongued Iago – he is crude, brash and malicious. He makes statements like “I am a plain-dealing villain,” goes about attended by idiot henchmen, and takes advice and inspiration for his plots from others around him.

But even so, this weak caricature of a villain nearly brings ruin upon all of Messina.

How?

Because, even before he had made plans to trick Claudio into thinking Hero was unfaithful, the culture of Messina had already done most of the work for him. Don John is not the true villain of this play; he is merely an agent. The real villain of Much Ado About Nothing is the culture of misogyny in Messina.

From the moment Benedick and the soldiers return to Messina, they engage in lewd sexual banter and joke about horns, adultery and cuckoldry. Leonato’s first instinct upon greeting them is to make such a joke, for when Don Pedro politely inquires if Hero is his daughter the old gentleman immediately quips, “Her mother hath many times told me so.” This banter speaks volumes about the underlying misogyny and anxieties about female sexuality that the men share, and it works to create an atmosphere that is ripe for Hero’s shocking rejection.

Thus, all Don John has to do is suggest to Claudio that Hero is unfaithful, offer him a sliver of proof, and the prince and Claudio, made susceptible by popular myths of female inconstancy, find the rest of the proof themselves. Claudio starts to see certain cues as evidence of Hero’s guilt where before they were badges of honour. He declares, “Her blush is guiltiness, not modesty.” And so Hero, by the simple machinations of a cardboard cutout villain, is publicly disgraced, left for dead, and threatened with death by her own father, showcasing how quickly those seemingly harmless jokes about women can escalate to actual violence.

What’s more, this culture of misogyny is what keeps Benedick and Beatrice apart. These two dorks start the play madly in love with each other, but their shared fear of horns and cuckoldry divides them. Beatrice is also repelled by Benedick’s attitude as a self-confessed “tyrant” to her sex, and patriarchal culture has convinced her that no marriage could ever be happy, and no man faithful. Both of them (but especially Benedick) must thus overcome and abandon patriarchal values and the culture of misogyny they are entrenched in. Again, the culture of Messina is the antagonist, not Don John.

Beatrice has the advantage of being resentful and rebellious towards patriarchal culture from the very beginning, and so it is Benedick’s conquering of his sexist attitude that becomes the axis on which the rest of the play turns. He starts off entrenched in a culture of toxic masculinity, but once he acknowledges his love for Beatrice, and after he sees Hero disgraced and left for dead, he becomes sickened by the views he once held. Beatrice flies into a rage at her cousin’s treatment, and in no uncertain terms rails against misogyny and the patriarchy and the culture that nearly killed Hero. She wishes she “were a man for his [Claudio’s] sake,” telling us that, were she a man, she would use her position of privilege and power to protect women rather than abuse them. Her next wish, “that I had any friend would be a man for my sake” is a challenge to Benedick to do what she, as a woman, cannot: defend her cousin with action, not words, and publicly oppose the culture of misogyny in Messina.

This makes her initial request, “Kill Claudio,” less a demand that Benedick murder his friend and more a plea that he break with the toxic culture of male camaraderie. And Benedick agrees. In the midst of a play saturated with jokes about women’s volubility and defined by the rejection of a supposedly unfaithful woman, he then makes the monumental decision to trust Beatrice. He listens to her when she grieves and finally asks her a single question: “Think you, in your soul that Count Claudio hath wronged Hero?” When she replies in the affirmative, her word is all the proof he needs to part with the prince and challenge his best friend.

When he meets with Don Pedro and Claudio, they are keen for him to validate their treatment of Hero with his witticisms, plainly desiring to hear the japes about cuckoldry he had trotted out at the start of the play. But with Hero almost “done to death by slanderous tongues,” Benedick knows tongues are as deadly as swords in Messina, and so leaves his wit in his scabbard. He challenges Claudio and informs the prince he intends to discontinue his company, officially cutting his ties with their little boys’ club.

Speaking to Margaret shortly after, Benedick claims he has “a most manly wit… it will not hurt a woman.” He no longer uses his tongue to scorn or denigrate women. Instead, he uses it to delight them, turning his efforts to poetry and song, and courting Beatrice with the jokes and witticisms he once reserved for his male friends. Shakespeare uses Beatrice to convince Benedick, and by extension the audience, of the shortcomings of masculine culture and shows us that true valour comes from men using their strength to protect women rather than hurt them: for this alone may Benedick call his wit “manly.”

Through their love, Benedick and Beatrice conquer the true villain of the play: misogyny. Don John, who is merely the agent, is instead undone by Dogberry and his idiot watchmen, who discover the plot and bring the truth to light. With all put right, the end of the play provides the denouement where Benedick, having proved his valour and cast off misogyny, is at last free to marry the woman he adores. He makes a speech where he mocks the old views about women and marriage he held, gaily advises the prince the marry, and tells Claudio “love my cousin,” the implication being that the only way Claudio and Hero will live happy is if Claudio follows Benedick’s example, throws off misogyny and loves and trusts his new wife as Benedick does Beatrice.

Much Ado About Nothing, quite simply, mocks the hypocrisy of patriarchal society at every turn. It questions why men should demand chastity in women when they display none themselves, and why women are thought of as sexually insatiable when experience generally showed the opposite. The play’s accompanying song Sigh No More is even about the unfaithfulness of men. The lyrics declare “Men were deceivers ever… to one thing constant never,” and the men of Much Ado tend to live up to this, being generally lusty and faithless while the women are constant and faithful. Shakespeare disproves common myths about female inconstancy by making Hero the blameless victim of men’s obsession with female chastity, a scapegoat onto whom all their repressed fears are projected. And Don John, the active agent of the culture of misogyny, is a bastard, living proof of men’s infidelity and unfaithfulness.

So yes, Don John is a terrible villain – but that’s precisely the point. His weak characterisation feeds neatly into the play’s subversive agenda. For what could this bitter, scheming man have accomplished had the culture of misogyny not predisposed Don Pedro and Claudio to suspect unfaithfulness? What power did he have over Benedick and Beatrice, and how did he serve as their antagonist?

Don John is not the true villain. Misogyny is. Hero’s shocking rejection and near-death proves how dangerous misogyny is, and how easily violent words lead to violent actions. Meanwhile, the witty, sparkling lovers journey together to overcome their internalised prejudices, and provide vivid proof of what happiness a marriage based on trust and true equality can bring.

Much Ado About Nothing is play about a battle of the sexes – and only once the two sides call a truce and join forces to overcome the real villain, misogyny, may the happy ending be achieved.

Always the victim. Although this is a parody account, it sums up Flynn quite well. Using ‘scapegoat’ implies that a lot of people are guilty, and that a lot of people knew about broad Russian involvement.

Flynn is upset he got caught. He feels his only crime was the timing of his lying to Pence. No remorse for his treason and espionage.

It’s probably not a secret that I’m madly in love with Lucien. I’ve written and read plenty of meta about him to gather a general insight on what the ACOTAR fandom thinks of him. Often I find that people see him as a tragic character that’s going to either rise or fall to the occasion— and I can relate to that method of thinking. However, I’ve begun to notice that a lot of these comments about Lucien are, in fact, very misleading and are almost always full of double standards. For instance, these are a few of the classics:

  • “I want him to succeed but not until he repents.”
  • “Lucien should just leave Tamlin. He’s a High Lord’s son, right? He’s should be able to just walk out spewing fire everywhere.”
  • “He’ll ally with the Nigh Court after Feyre uses Elain as bait.”
  • “Lucien isn’t as damaged as Feyre, and she managed to escape.”

And on, and on…

It’s disgusting.

I’m going to try to keep this as calm and educational as possible (even though on the inside I’m typing in caps and being bitter) so let me address the first issue with the above statements: they’re all unrealistic, contain harmful representation of a person suffering abuse, and are brimming with double standards. Lucien doesn’t need to repent. I’m tired of seeing this as a scapegoat for readers to think that “after character does X they will be deemed good enough and receive Y at the ending.” Lucien doesn’t need to be forgiven for trying to survive. He’s a victim of immense abuse (*see horrific references below) and he’s only ever acted accordingly to what would keep him alive. I realize that the main scenario readers want Lucien to apologize for is the scene in ACOMAF where he tries to take Feyre back to the Spring Court. Let me break this down for you all.

While the event was definitely one portraying him as an antagonist, Lucien still believed that the Night Court was evil and manipulate— especially where the mind is concerned. Rhysand literally can place claws inside of a persons mind, and he once threatened Lucien to step aside or have the Autumn Court and his mother executed. (We all know it was for show, but did Lucien? Of course not.) So when this girl, who was deeply in love with his only friend, disappears and is found with a new, wicked attitude that matches Rhysand’s to an extent and Illyrian wings to boot…hell, if I were Lucien I’d probably think some mind control had come into play as well. This is where things get a bit tricky, however. Lucien does realize that Feyre looks healthier and seems to be better off in the Night Court, but he’s not certain if it’s real or a compulsion. Given that he has no way of knowing the truth, and that believing Rhysand had truly helped Feyre get better after Rhysand’s last encounter with Lucien had been full of threats, I’m lead to believe that Lucien was trying to help Feyre escape, even if it meant brining her back to Spring. We also have to consider that Lucien, although having shown signs of being wary of Tamlin’s behavior,  still loves Tamlin because he offered him a home when his own brothers chased him out of his court. So if Tamlin orders him to do something, Lucien will do it out of loyalty and fear. Loyalty, for what he thinks he owes Tamlin because he’s never known what it’s like to be free, and fear because he knows Tamlin will lash out violently if he doesn’t get his way.

The second and third points I’ve stated are probably the worst I’ve seen. Lucien is the seventh son of the High Lord of Autumn, so he more than likely has magic that can rival other High Fae and, possibly, even High Lords. However, we have to consider that Lucien never reveals his magic for a few reasons. He could not know how to control it because no one may have bothered to show him. He could be terrified or disgusted with it, because fire (and let’s assume it’s fire magic) can cause devastating destruction. Or he simply doesn’t have enough power to rival Tamlin’s, and he knows this so he doesn’t try because the one time he DID stand up for himself, when he announced that he would leave his family’s court, he was hunted down.

Much like using one person’s love for another is a prominent motif in this story, Elain could potentially be used as bait for Lucien to “behave” himself in the Spring Court because he probably knows Feyre is up to something. This is wrong and deceitful for so many reasons. If Lucien is to have a character arc that rivals the main character’s own development (which I firmly believe he will) then he needs to come about this revelation on his own terms, not because of someone else— not matter if they’re his mate. If Elain were to be used against him, that would only further his abuse. This would be manipulating and traumatizing a PTSD and abuse survivor. He’s already lost one person he loved, and to dangle his mate in front of him for his cooperation won’t make him realize he’s more than he believes himself to be— it will only continue to make Lucien think that he’s worth less than those around him. Also, Elain doesn’t deserve to be treated like a piece of meat, much less by her sister (so I doubt this will happen, but it agonizes me to continuously see this theory).

On the topic of which character faced more abuse than the other, it’s nonexistent. We should never compare two characters’s trauma for the sake of figuring out who deserves the most sympathy. That’s so incredibly offensive and WRONG.  This applies to all situations, books, and real life events, but for this rant I’m applying it to the concept that Feyre suffered more than Lucien and therefore calling Lucien an abused character like Feyre doesn’t mean anything. It’s important to note that I strongly disagree with this, and that I think their suffering is equal in that they’ve felt it both so strongly that it’s ruined parts of their lives they can never get back. No suffering can be measured, for everyone feels it differently. That being said, Feyre and Lucien DO contain many parallels together—mostly that Lucien is exactly in Feyre’s position, stuck between loving Tamlin and fearing him, but he doesn’t have a Rhysand to help him escape.

*

  • He was treated like dirt in his homeland. 
  • His lover was murdered right in front of him as he was held down by his family.
  • When he stood up for himself and told them he was going to leave Autumn, his brothers hunted him down and tried to murder him.
  • He’s never had real friends aside from Tamlin, so he doesn’t understand how a real friend should treat their friends. 
  • Tamlin helped kill one of his brothers, and Lucien feels indebted to him.
  • Lucien is known as the drunk, flirtatious courtier/spy that isn’t stable and cannot remain in a single court. This has definitely effected the way he thinks about himself and his self worth.
  • Amarantha used Lucien as a flogging board when Tamlin didn’t obey her.
  • Lucien’s eye was ripped out because he once again tried to stand up for himself on a task that wasn’t even his own.
  • No one has even tried to help him battle his PTSD, so it’s only festered
  • Ianthe pursued him and tried to rape him but he managed to escape her
  • Lucien has never had someone to talk to about these things.

Bottom line, treat Lucien better. He deserves so much more.

Sam Winchester

For many Supernatural fans, the Sam Winchester character represent inspiration and hope, proving that even the most victimized of souls can find the strength to turn around and fight one’s cruel fate and change the course of his destiny.  For others, Sam is little more than a scapegoat, taking whatever unjustified blame that other characters dish out upon him.  Even when Sam stands up to his tormentors, enough people  assume it will only be a matter of time before Sam again finds himself at the mercy of another cruel twist.  

But Sam is a survivor in the face of all obstacles that indicates an inner strength that should never be dismissed.  He has come to terms with who he is and he’s always learning and building himself up.  He consistently have hope and faith in humanity that extends to its other citizens like monsters and apocalypse-hungry angels. Sam has fought for his family and the world at large, and we are desperately rooting for Sam to succeed on his own terms.

From here Sam has quiety inspire those around him, including those who earlier had unfairly blamed Sam, sometimes of actions of their own doing.  In 11x17, Cas’s love and fondness for Sam enabled him to briefly break through Lucifer’s hold to save Sam’s life.  Cas sees another world where Sam was never born (12x23) and finally acknowledged that the Winchesters never destroyed the world as he had blamed them in 5x01, but that Sam saved the world.  Dean told a priest (8x22) that Sam has done amazing things that he didn’t think was possible and he has no doubt that Sam will continue to do amazing things, from saving Dean from living his worse fear, a demon, then curing Dean of a cursed immortal mark, to rallying supernatural enemies to stop the Darkness and leading human hunters against a foreign enemy.  Sam never lectured and gave stirring self-righteous speeches, instead he did quiet deeds and lead by example and inspired others to follow him.

What Torture is Used For

Torture, historically and today, is generally used for the following effects-

           -To Terrorise: this seems especially true in situations with harsh oppressive governments or occupying forces. Knowing that torture is the price of resistance instils fear in the population, possibly making them less likely to resist. Whether it actually reduces resistance or not I don’t know.

           -To Get Confessions: this may occur in situations where the police genuinely believe in the victim’s guilt, where the police are pressured to ‘produce results’ but no evidence or funding is available, where the victim hasn’t committed a crime but powerful individuals want them jailed or where the guilty party is in a position of power and wants a scapegoat. This is not an exhaustive list. It’s the historical and modern reasons I’m most familiar with.

           -To Punish or Humiliate: this seems to occur when the victim is perceived as guilty either by action or association. This can be targeted towards people who are only vaguely connected to the action they’re being ‘punished’ for, ie members of the same race, political party or religion. Perceived ‘otherness’ of the victim seems to be a persistent theme in anecdotal accounts.

           -To Maim: in this case torture is aimed at stopping the individual victim acting in the future, either by traumatising them to the extent they isolate themselves or by making them physically disabled or perhaps both. Remember action can be anything; children have been killed for going to school, doctors for treating people, civilians for being on the ‘wrong’ side of town. I feel it’s also worth mentioning that in some countries the penal code allows mutilation as punishment for certain crimes, the most famous being amputation of the hands for theft.

These are still practiced today.

You’ll notice I didn’t put ‘interrogation’ or ‘gaining intelligence’ on that list. I’m aware that people claim torture is used for those purposes but there’s a small problem with that-

It doesn’t work.

The reason is to do with how human memory functions and how the human brain responds to stress and pain. In essence human memory is not very accurate but stress, pain, fear, lack of sleep, dehydration and starvation all make memory worse. If someone is asking you to remember something while you are afraid or in pain you are demonstrably less likely to remember it accurately. And you’re unlikely to be aware of how badly your memory has been affected, ‘remembering’ things that never happened or details suggested (sometimes without meaning to) by the interrogator.

Pain and extreme stress destroy our ability to learn and accurately recall previously learned information. Torture for information destroys the evidence it is trying to obtain.

There will be a Masterpost on memory retrieval under stress discussing some of the studies which show case this effect.

Over the next few months I’m going to go over some historical examples that I feel illustrate when, how and why societies use torture. I’m going to try and cover some of the common effects on torture victims and torturers and I’m going to briefly talk about definitions of torture in international law.

For now, I hope that’s a useful summary of when and why torture has been (and is) used. I’ve written it focusing on what I think interests writers. This isn’t the way academics categorise torture. Their systems tend to focus on what features in society make torture more likely and why. I’ve tried to focus this on a more individual level, one that’s more easily applied to small groups of people or a general fictional situation. I’ve put this together in a way that I hope will help writers think about torture.

I’m open for questions, but please read the Before You Ask page prior to sending your query.

If you feel like you are unsure whether you over-react to abuse or you are justified in being upset when you are lied to, conned by a love fraud, are cheated on, are beaten or sexually assaulted, threatened with murder, etcetera… your mind and body are already experiencing symptoms of extreme C-PTSD.

Chances are you are likely to be developing a form of Stockholm Syndrome based on trauma bonding with your Abuser. When and if a trauma bond forms, the biology of the human form does a couple of things.

First of all — if you are healthy and sane, you will tend to trust your own eyes and ears as well as sanity. If you catch a partner cheating, for instance, but they blame YOU? Or an Enabler tries to convince you that your abuser loves you in their own way? Or they tell you that physical assault is for your own good?

Seriously — if you believe them you are already likely to be living with adrenal fatigue and heightened forms of pervasive social anxiety soon.

The following list of anxiety disorder types was compiled by the Mayo Clinic. The healthcare organization describes many of the most common conditions as follows:


Agoraphobia (ag-uh-ruh-FOE-be-uh) is a type of anxiety disorder in which you fear and often avoid places or situations that might cause you to panic and make you feel trapped, helpless or embarrassed.
Anxiety disorder due to a medical condition includes symptoms of intense anxiety or panic that are directly caused by a physical health problem.

Generalized anxiety disorder includes persistent and excessive anxietyand worry about activities or events — even ordinary, routine issues. The worry is out of proportion to the actual circumstance, is difficult to control and affects how you feel physically. It often occurs along with other anxiety disorders or depression.

Panic disorder involves repeated episodes of sudden feelings of intense anxiety and fear or terror that reach a peak within minutes (panic attacks). You may have feelings of impending doom, shortness of breath, chest pain, or a rapid, fluttering or pounding heart (heart palpitations). These panic attacks may lead to worrying about them happening again or avoiding situations in which they’ve occurred.

Selective mutism is a consistent failure of children to speak in certain situations, such as school, even when they can speak in other situations, such as at home with close family members. This can interfere with school, work and social functioning.

Separation anxiety disorder is a childhood disorder characterized by anxiety that’s excessive for the child’s developmental level and related to separation from parents or others who have parental roles.

Social anxiety disorder (social phobia) involves high levels of anxiety, fear and avoidance of social situations due to feelings of embarrassment, self-consciousness and concern about being judged or viewed negatively by others.

Specific phobias are characterized by major anxiety when you’re exposed to a specific object or situation and a desire to avoid it. Phobias provoke panic attacks in some people.

Substance-induced anxiety disorder is characterized by symptoms of intense anxiety or panic that are a direct result of abusing drugs, taking medications, being exposed to a toxic substance or withdrawal from drugs.
Other specified anxiety disorder and unspecified anxiety disorder are terms for anxiety or phobias that don’t meet the exact criteria for any other anxiety disorders but are significant enough to be distressing and disruptive.

Folks who actively abuse and enable other abusers love telling their abuse victims that they are somehow socially, emotionally, and intellectually deficient. They are huge fans of abusing the crap out of their target, then when caught or confronted about their behavior choices they love nothing more than playing the victim.

The more extreme the personality disorder the more likely social predators are to enjoy harming or humiliating and dominating other people.

Not only do they expect their willing Narcissistic Supply Sources to consistently play SUB-servant, they wholeheartedly expect and demand total obedience from any preferred scapegoat they like to claim ownership of and to toy with psychologically and emotionally on a regular basis.

People who get trapped* in the CYCLE OF NARCISSISTIC ABUSE tend to know something is not right with the claims the Cluster B person makes, but unless they are well educated about things like how to spot the warning signs of a Cluster B pack or egocentric Abuser, love fraud tactics, and are made aware of verbal abuse and mind control tactics, predators make incredible logical fallacy statements and appeals to emotion that sound — at least plausible — to an unaware listener.

If a target makes the mistake of reverse projecting and presumes that all human beings — INCLUDING CLUSTER B PEOPLE AND VERTICAL THINKERS — have the same core values as roughly 75-80% of the global human population, that is the instant chaos manufactures or pot stirrers have the ability to start mind assaulting trouble.

People who are exposed to physical abuse, sexual assault, verbal assaults of a poignant or pervasive nature, financial abuse, social persecution, and the word choices of dehumanizers seeking to sadistically or callously persecute tend to develop extreme social anxiety, pervasive stress related illnesses, and extreme confusion over knowing they are good folks in their heart and mind but hear constant ad hominem attacks against themselves by bullies and manipulators all the time.

If you are being harassed, bullied, messed with at work, are being picked on by family members who display Cluster B behaviors, an ex has done some crappy thing like tried to smear campaign, or worse…

Or you are feeling the literal weight of an angry and hostile narcissistic led faction world…

You are not alone in suspecting being around mean people can damage your health. Verbal assault can lead directly to neurological damage to the part of the brain that houses complex emotional reasoning centers and the body fatigues and organ function is medically depleted by the fear-induced surge of toxic adrenal chemicals.

Seriously.

Life-threatening illness tends to develop in humans who feel TRAPPED by an Abuser (unable to flee) or who are held hostage by toxic thinkers seeking to silence and oppress their scapegoats, targets, and control the fear-based psychology of their toys as well as any collateral damage victims.

[Abusers tend to rage at anyone who offers one of their preferred scapegoat targets humanitarian aid or social support. Doing so tends to produce the effect of socially isolating their targeted victim while humiliating and truly frightening them further when and if people passively choose to stay out of it or to enable, leaving the target even more vulnerable to further pervasive overt (as well as extreme covert) situational abuse. ]

The more healthcare workers start to realize if a patient presents with stress illness and psychiatric symptoms that the patient is more than likely showing physical signs of complex psychological and emotional duress more than likely being caused by ongoing exposure to Narcissistic Abuse or an Ambient Abuse promoting environment, the sooner human beings of neurotypical nature are likely to be able to end the healthcare crisis beginning to plague most modern nations.

anonymous asked:

I feel like we can't talk about Asian struggles without other pocs coming at us. Just because we're speaking of our struggles doesn't mean we're erasing problems within our community. I see this in insta pages everyday - non-asian pocs defend anti-asian pocs, saying asians are horribly racist, not even addressing the problem. It's a problem I see within pocs often - if it fits their narrative, then 'it's not an oppression competition'. if asians are discriminated against, then we deserve it. ugh

Agree with you.

There’s a time for calling out Asian folks but there’s also a time for understanding that we have issues too. It’s not about erasing anyone or anything, it’s just that we need healing spaces for us.

Rather than the “model minority,” I think of us as being the “scapegoat minority.” White people use us to push their anti-black and racist agendas while on the other side, our fellow People of Color use the “basically white” label to exclude us from spaces of color. Then us Asian folks victim-blame ourselves, we discredit our achievements, and we force our own community to absorb the issues of everyone else without addressing our own as if we have none, because you know, we’re “privileged” lol. Then we wonder why Asian people have all kinds of racial-identity crises.

I’ll never deny that we do have some privilege and sure, there are a lot of legit callouts on us for anti-blackness, appropriation, and etc. But does that mean the majority of Asian folks can’t have healing or productive spaces? I think not. Asian folks need to grow a damn backbone and push back against racism from the whiteys and exclusionary prejudice from our fellow People of Color. And I know some people may not agree with me but it’s not a matter of agreement or disagreement, it’s about acknowledging the truth because all of this exists and we all damn well know it.

Angry Asian Guy

8

As many of you are aware, we suffered a terrible tragedy here at the Litchfield Correctional Camp yesterday. As warden, it is my job to ensure that this prison runs safely and effectively. Because we are a women’s camp, that responsibility is often underestimated. The assumption being that minimum-security women do not pose a physical threat, that as long as they are clothed and fed, the ship will run smoothly. Well, our ship ran off it’s course yesterday. And because of that, a young woman lost her life. Sadly, there is nothing we can do to bring her back. Now, I understand, in these situations, everybody is hungry for blood, everybody is looking for a scapegoat. But in this case, the officer responsible… Well, he was set up to fail. He was a victim of circumstance. Every day, my officers deal with convicted felons. Every day, they interact with women who were sent here to serve their time, to repent for their crimes. Any allegations coming from them or any other source are just not credible. My officer fulfilled his duty, and I defend his actions. He will take a short leave of absence, and be back in uniform, pending investigation. Thank you all. I will not be answering questions at this time. 

kurozu501  asked:

three awesome things, for utena!

1. One of the central conceits of Utena is the power of the cultural narrative- how the stories we tell each other and the way we reinterpret history and myth can be twisted into a form of propaganda that serves those in power. It’s a fascinating subject I think of all the time and the way Utena offers one of the most powerful demonstrations and criticism of it I’ve ever seen. The way Anthy and Akio’s story was retold and reinterpreted to fit in with the “all girls are either princesses or witches” narrative is just a really perfect and powerful metaphor for how our cultural mythology demeans and scapegoats women- especially Anthy taking all the punishment the world has to offer, constantly and horribly, because of it. It’s still one of the most affecting and hearbreaking things I’ve seen in a story period.

2. Anthy as a character in general- how she doesn’t fit into the neat categories of saintly victim or evil fallen woman, yet everyone tries to see her as one of the other and how it comes back to bite them. How she’s bitter and vindictive, how she does terrible things, how she’s full of love and willing to sacrifice for those she cares about, how she’s torn and conflicted, how she’s caught in the terrible stranglehold of abuse and sees no way out, how she just needed someone to accept her in all her good and bad and reach out a hand to her in the end. Anthy acts as a criticism of how we demonize and simplify and objectify and victim blame women, all while functioning as a complex character in her own right. 

No matter how the fans react and miss the point, the narrative firmly comes down saying that women like Anthy- messy, hard to understand women who’ve been screwed over by the world and want to screw it back,who are suspicious and can lash out at even those who are trying to help- are still worthy of love and support and personhood, and in fact need that kind of thing to be able to heal and be free. Anthy is just one of the best characters in media period, because of that.

3. I saw something that really annoyed me and then made me realize I appreciate how Utena does this- I saw a post complaining about Utena always presenting sex negatively and NO SHIT IT DOES, THE ENTIRE CAST IS FUCKED UP CHILDREN BEING MANIPULATED BY A PREDATORY ADULT, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT ANY OF THEM TO HAVE HEALTHY CONSENTING SEX? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PUT A POSITIVE SPIN ON THAT?

 Utena doesn’t condemn sex period, it condemns sex as a shortcut to maturity and as a tool used by those in power. The fact is, in the world of Utena, it’s very hard to have a positive sexual encounter that’s not wrapped up in fucked up ideas about how sex= maturity and sex= ways to manipulate and have power over people. JUST LIKE THE REAL WORLD. WOW. And I really appreciate that honestly, I think that’s something we miss a lot when we say simplified “be sex positive!!!” stuff, it’s very hard to untangle sex from from the fucked up cultural narrative surrounding it, and there are lots of kids that are pressured into sex for the wrong reasons and before they’re ready. I like that Utena shows that.

(Support for “Utena hates sex” in that post was that time Utena said her feelings for Anthy were more “pure” than Juri’s for Shiori, which ignores a). even within the text Utena immediately corrected herself and said “actually I’m not saying your feelings aren’t pure, they are”, realizing what she’d said was fucked up and b).Utena was, as she had been throughout the whole series, struggling against heteronormativity and trying to deny her romantic feelings for Anthy, which she wasn’t able to fully admit until the very end. What I’m trying to say is Utena is a narrative where we’re NOT supposed to take the things the main character says as inherently “right” or “good” bc she’s just as fucked up thanks to society as anyone else and that’s why it’s cool.)

anonymous asked:

hey! i have an honest question if you don't mind answering. in "the good place" a genderless, non-human supercomputer is played by a jewish actress, d'arcy carden. it got me thinking, characters like her, and padme and leia, who as far as we're concerned don't observe any religion... is that bad jewish representation? i know it's important to cast jewish actors in otherwise "neutral" roles, but it's hard to articulate why other than showing that white is not the default.

I don’t mind answering, but I’m afraid I don’t have a good answer! I’ve been thinking the same thing re: Janet, particularly in terms of the insistence that she’s “not a person,” given the antisemitic stereotype of Jews being manipulative lizard-people/inhumans. I generally never give media the benefit of the doubt, but I do actually think that at least that thread of Janet’s characterization is an unfortunate coincidence of how hard the show is trying to be secularist despite playing off Christian ethos and theology.

As far as Janet being played by a Jewish actress but having no religious or ethnic identity of her own on the show, I feel like since the whole schema of The Good Place is that no one has a religious identity or any valid belief system (beyond maybe “be a good person”), it’s not… like, it’s erasing D’arcy Carden’s identity, but it’s not ERASING it in the way that supplanting her identity with a Christian character would be? IDK. It’s complicated additionally by the way the show has done at least some legwork with establishing and maintaining the specific cultural, racial, and ethnic identities of Chidi, Tahani, and Jason, but totally ignoring D’Arcy’s Jewishness in Janet.

Maybe I feel like… I don’t even know if this makes sense, but in her specific case, it almost is like, “it’s erasure, but not necessarily antisemitic in its root”? I really have been thinking about this issue a lot wrt media in general, and I don’t have a good answer.

As a contrasting example: Mila Kunis, a Jewish actress, voices the character of Meg Griffin on Family Guy, who is not only a Catholic character – erasing Mila’s identity – but also is the butt of A LOT of the jokes on the show, which I feel like stems from the showrunner’s intense, overt antisemitism. Even though Mila is playing a Christian character, she’s being targeted as a Jewish actress by the entire showrunning process.

As far as Leia and Padme go… I think about this A LOT.

Like, A LOT.

So I’m going to have a really rambling answer that doesn’t really answer anything, and I’m going to bullet-point it I think?

  • As far as their characters not being specifically Jewish: I often feel like that’s debatable, and/or maybe it’s part of why there are such disparate ways of viewing Star Wars, as a franchise, in terms of theme and stuff? Because I… feel like both Padme and Leia have very Jewish storylines and characterization, and they’re played by Jewish actresses.
      • (Han is also played by a Jewish actor, and he plays the most secular/irreligious character in the franchise.)
    • Leia is one of the few survivors of a genocide. She watches, immobile, from afar, literally bound by the enemy, as her people are slaughtered and no one – in the Senate, of the Noble Houses, in the Core – does anything to prevent this from happening. Afterwards, it falls to her to not only keep the memory of Alderaanian culture alive, but to prevent this kind of genocide from happening again and educating the entire rest of the Galaxy, forever, about what Alderaan stood for, how Alderaanians lived, and why Alderaanians were targeted to die.
      • And no: it was not merely a political target; the Empire sent stormtrooper squads to hunt down and eliminate all surviving Alderaanians after the Battle of Yavin, so they were killed FOR BEING ALDERAANIAN, not just for Being On Alderaan. They were killed for their space!ethnicity, not their space!politics.
      • In LPoA, Leia’s Day of Demand ceremony is functionally a Bat Mitzvah. The existence of candles in the Star Wars universe (candledroids) was canonized specifically for Alderaanian ceremonial use. Her coming of age ceremony is about joining the adulthood of her people through community service and defense of her planet/people. There are specific texts to be memorized and recited – an Aliyah – and she has to complete a series of tests and services to others before she can be seen as an adult.
      • If you want to get REALLY pedantic: despite her status as an adoptee, she would still be matrilineally space!Jewish, if challenged later in life, and Bail/Breha know that and could defend it if they had to.
      • The Alderaanian people, at the time of their genocide, included converts (the refugees from Raada and other planets), humans and humanoids across space!races and space!ethnicities, and diasporic expats (particularly the cluster on Sullust).
      • The Alderaanian culture has a specific, trained manner of singing that has to be taught in an Alderaanian context – I always think of Pareece and Tace as space!cantors, but even if they’re not, then they’re the traveling Yiddish Theatre of space.
    • First and foremost when it comes to Padme: she was the first victim, and the political scapegoat, of the Chancellor and his Empire.
      • Even within the fandom, Empire/FO stans tend to put a lot of energy into blaming Padme for the Empire with the “I will not condone a course of action that leads us to war” line, ignoring that it was Palpatine who orchestrated the whole thing with the Space!Axis Powers of the Offensively Orientalist Cato Nemoidians.
      • And yet: once she was older, no longer naive to Palps’ machinations, she saw the writing on the wall first wrt what was coming. Don’t forget: the human Nabooians had to flee from their native planet of Grizmallt in ancient times, and on the planet where they settled, they were immediately targeted and attacked, and that discord lasted for millennia until literally Padme herself was able to make peace. To cast an Israeli-born Jewish actress for that role was not an accident, let’s be real here.
        • Also, PADME WAS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDER OF THE REBELLION BECAUSE SHE SMELLED FASCISM ON THE WIND BEFORE ANYONE ELSE DID even if for some fucking reason george wrote her as being willing to deal with it in her shittyass boytoy. Padme was Space Emma Goldman as much as she was Space Princess Diana.
        • THIS IS HOW LIBERTY DIES! WITH THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE!
      • Padme’s storyline in TPM is aaaaarguably comparable to the story of Purim, what with her being a queen who does not reveal herself on pain of death until she needs to beg for the aid of an ally-king and reveal the plot of an evil usurper trying to destroy both of their kingdoms, and whatnot. All the disguise and cunning and beauty and self-sacrificing bravery and tricksiness.
        • (This also makes Qui-Gon-as-Mordecai’s views on the Force and purpose of the Jedi, in constrast to Yoda- and Mace’s views, make a lot more sense and a lot more interesting, insofar as Qui-Gon literally preferring other Force traditions to those of the Jedi [spec. the Guardians of the Whills, who have an entirely different view of the afterlife than the Jedi].)
      • Could Padme and her handmaidens make a minyan? Discuss.
      • What’s really interesting to me re: Padme, actually, is that despite her marrying the Force Jesus Slash Hitler, which in itSELF is some pretty intense commentary on Christianity right, like… we never learn what Padme believed in. Besides her politics and social justice beliefs, I mean. We never learn what Padme, or her culture, believed about the Force. Obviously the Nabooians trusted and believed in the Force if they hired Jedi as bodyguards, but Padme herself really didn’t WANT Jedi bodyguards (or at least: she didn’t want Anakin to be one). We don’t know what role she felt the Force had in the Galaxy. That was hidden from the audience, and I think that was a disservice to both Padme’s story AND the audience’s understanding of Star Wars mythos.
  • So. All that said, I don’t know that they DIDN’T play Jewish Characters, but considering how many audience members can’t even fucking acknowledge or figure out that the fucking overt Space Nazis are the bad guys, it prrrrobably isn’t overt enough to ACTUALLY count as Jewish Characters.
    • In that vein, then – Jewish actors playing “neutral” – I’ve been thinking a lot since Wonder Woman about how rare it is for Jewish actresses to get to play characters who are considered beautiful. Just “beautiful,” not “in a quirky way at best,” yk? Certain shitty reviews of TFA mocked Carrie’s looks, but none that have survived to today from back during the OT did, and none mocked Natalie’s looks in the PT. Leia, Padme, Wonder Woman – they just get to be beautiful. Granted, they look really similar to each other and none of them have the Stereotypical Jewish Features that tend to get mocked, but compared to how characters played by, say, Mayim Bialik and Alia Shawkat and Ilana Glazer and D’Arcy Carden even Lea Michele, who are all fucking gorgeous, are treated even within their own media often by their own fictional love interests? Pretty affirming imo.
      • Side note: I still cannot fucking get over how many times Ryan Murphy had characters straight-up call Lea Michele’s characters antisemitic slurs to her face, about her face, and NEVER saw Tumblr or Twitter call-outs about it. “Sw*rthy g*rilla” my ass.
    • BUT, yes, when Jews in American media play “neutral,” it tends to be whitewashing and feeds into the idea that “casual antisemitism” is a thing that exists – casual or not, it’s antisemitism – and also that it isn’t something that Exists Anymore. Or matters in the grand scheme of identity politics. It’s very much that Schrodinger’s Jew, Conditional Whiteness idea in constant action, where your character is white until you can make a joke at their actor’s expense, and that is… damaging and draining. Because the actor is the human being here, not the character, and the jokes at their expense are the jokes at the expense of a human being.
  • In conclusion, I’m very muddled and have been writing this for like 3.5 hours and have no answers to offer, other than that Jake Peralta is wonderful and the way he’s written with deference but still humor and warmth for Andy Samberg and his culture, are great. NINE-NINE!
    • Also you can tear Jewish Star Wars from my cold dead hands ya schmucks.

anonymous asked:

How can a FemRadfem space exist without being TERF blacklisted?

We get TERF blacklisted because our stance incites cognitive dissonance in people with severe personality disorders (mainly NPD), and in sanctimonious people who gather their self-esteem from “supporting” (aka upholding the ego of, or providing narcissistic supply to) these severely disordered people. 

Unfortunately many women are socialized to act this way, as the self-sacrificing ego-booster, especially when they grow up in abusive households. This is particularly true when their female role model is in a codependent relationship with a narcissistic man. 

Young girls learn to believe that they are only valuable women if they are upholding and enforcing a man’s grandiose delusions about himself. These women naturally find themselves drawn to male trans “women” who provide them with multiple opportunities to gain a sense of self-worth via providing the narcissist with ego-boosting narcissistic supply. This is because trans “women” present themselves as vulnerable victims who require validation. Since codependent women only feel valuable when they’re relied upon for narcissistic supply they gladly take on the role of ego protector and feeling validator. It’s sort of a twisted supply & demand setup. In biology this dynamic is a parasitic symbiosis known as competitive amensalism. The man depletes the woman of time, energy, and resources while the woman, though relied upon, never truly feels loved - because the narcissist ultimately doesn’t care about her, only about receiving narcissistic supply. 

These people want to no-platform us, and silence us, because our views threaten their ability to provide and acquire narcissistic supply. When radfems point out trans delusions, they are shattering the grandiose fantasy that NPD men and codependent women have worked so hard to create and uphold. The codependent woman has spent so much time idealizing him, twisting reality to suit his fantasy, telling him that he is a beautiful woman, a real woman, a victim of society’s cruel “transphobia”. She buys into the idea that he needs protection because she needs to be a protector. He buys into the idea that he needs protection because he loves sympathy, attention, devotion, and being idealized

They need a scapegoat - someone to blame for this “cruelty” he faces, this cruelty she must protect him from - so they share a common enemy. TERFs. Codependent women in these relationships love hating TERFs. Expressing their mutual hatred of TERFs is one of the few times that the codependent ever really feels she gets to bond with the otherwise aloof narcissist. Hating TERFs makes her feel aligned with him, and allows her to experience a sense of closeness with him. He, viewing himself as entitled to this “protection”, rewards her sparingly with time, attention, and affection, for her good behaviour. 

How can a FemRadfem space exist without being TERF blacklisted? I don’t know. Narcissists and codependents seem to skulk around everywhere women are mentioned. I suppose we could try to recolonize on our own private island somewhere, but there are narcissists within our own community too lmao. 

Ok I just saw a post saying that “Alone at Sea is a story about an abuser trying to re-enter her victim’s life” and, honestly, it is really annoying.

The person who took advantage of somebody’s genuine belief that they were on the same side only to drag her away and imprison her is the abuser.

The person who screamed, “I’m done being everyone’s prisoner! Now you’re my prisoner, and I’m never letting you go!” is the abuser.

The person who, when somebody else came to help, outright refused that help, finally using emotional manipulation (“Just let me do this for you!”) and lies “I’m not Lapis anymore. We’re Malachite now”) is the abuser. And, yes, I said lies. Super Watermelon Island revealed that she was indeed still Lapis, and Jasper was still Jasper. Sure, they might have been fused together as Malachite but unlike other fusions, like Sugilite, Malachite did not have her own personality, though that was clear what Lapis intended Steven to think when she said that.

The person who canonically admitted, “I liked taking everything out on you!” is the abuser. The person who used somebody else as her own, personal scapegoat is the abuser. Lapis abused Jasper. She was not the victim.

Everyone, listen!

Valjar signing in.

It has been two years, since our queen has started her voyage into the underworld. Appearing and dissapearing. As the Queen of pain, Queen Jasper was forced to be the scapegoat of everyone!! 

Now, everyone, let us stick together as her fandom more than ever and never give up, for her return is soon!! There has been lots of discord and strife in our fandom! And PLEASE, let the Malachite discourse die!! Jasper is clearly the victim in it, since assholery is NOT equally heavy to TORTURE!!! Yes, that was literal torture, everyone and it´s OVER!! 

Let us anticipate better days for our queen instead and prepare ourselves  for her return!!

I love you all!! Stick together, make peace not discord and stay awesome and have an awesome Jasper-first-appearance-day, everyone!!


Valjar, signing out.

As a final post on this “discourse” sideblog, I want to talk about something not specific to the ace discourse, but rather something that cuts across all groups, all people online or off. Whatever you are arguing or whatever side you are on, we as humans are prone to confirmation bias and the online world is no better place than to create echo-chambers.

I have always felt that teaching myself skepticism was one of the best things I could have done for myself. It was during that time I was also active in the atheist community, online and off. The skeptic and atheist community often overlapped and it was from these groups that I became a feminist.

New atheist groups often wonder why they are largely made up of white men, and if you challenge them on their sexism/racism etc… it becomes obvious why, which is what happened to me. I was the darling women on a majority male forum agreeing with them that religion is the source of all evil, therefore exempting atheist men from things like sexism and all other bigotries. It wasn’t until an argument about rape culture came up that I saw just how deeply misogynist some of these men were.

So my venture into skeptic and atheist groups not only taught me the scientific process and logical fallacies but it also steered me towards social justice. I am no longer friends with any of those people in real life or online. Once I became a feminist and was able to identify their sexism, I wasn’t their darling atheist spokeswoman anymore. It was another valuable lesson in the way people form their groups and their echo-chambers within. How people will ignore some really bad things just to stay included and how they will turn when someone strays. Some people may be thinking of trump supporters now, but everyone is susceptible to this type of behavior.

Fast forward a few years later, but still a few years ago and I had to deal with a callout on an anonymous forum I moderated bc they monitored my tumblr and I made the sin of reblog from and being in mutuals with the wrong people, (who were just ppl they didn’t like including people I’ve since met IRL.) I was dubbed a transphobe not for anything I explicitly said or did that was transphobic, it was guilt by association. Had to leave the forum, as this was also invitation to make up other horrible things I never did bc they could and now ppl were ready to believe.

This is around the time TERF started catching on, and while I certainly agree with calling out transphobia in feminism (I would never insist a trans woman is male, I think thats a violent act against trans women! And I despise it being done in the name of feminism) but at the same time it turned into a witch hunt for anyone who talked about sex-based oppression that even ended up attacking other trans woman for not towing a certain Tumblr rhetoric on these issues!

I’m no LGBT elder by any means, but I have been online since I was about 12 and I’m 32 now. I remember a time when the internet was far more horrible on SJ matters but also far more anonymous. People never dropped their real name; now one of the biggest social media sites requires it. And before that even happened I still saw a lot of petty bullshit happening online that wound up really hurting people IRL. So now with it easier to find out who people are and where they live, I can only imagine how online drama has ruined lives. We know it has driven people to suicide, and so as fun as it is to get self righteously angry at people for whatever your cause is, there’s still a person at the other end and no one’s perfect.

I am truly disturbed at how incredibly cliquey SJ groups are online, how callout posts aren’t for extreme racist sexist bigots, but for some drama I can’t even parse in their so called “proof”. And then you have activists on this site who block anyone who disagrees with them so their criticisms can’t show up in the notes. Some even go so far as dox people now for daring to disagree! K(And let’s be clear, I shed no tears for literal nazis being doxxed and losing their job, that’s just not what I’m seeing)

It’s easy, its human nature to fall into social pressures and conform to whatever the Big Names in your group are saying without question and to defend an absurd position based on emotional attachment than logical assessment. And we know it’s also easy to fall into a mob mentality and scapegoat people for all our problems. It’s also super fucking easy to plead mental illness and pretend you should be allowed to say anything you want without criticism, something that I hate so much as one who suffers from many mental issues including anxiety. (That’s why I created rules for myself when arguing online so I didn’t end up giving myself panic attacks over an internet edge lord)

I say this knowing I have participated in this behavior myself as well as having been a victim of it. But a lot in my life has changed and I am an older and sicker… and still likely to make similar mistakes. Point is I have learned and I have trained myself to not to fall into these traps and it does help. Experience is one hell of a teacher but it doesn’t have to be the only one.

No one can know if they are 100% right on any given issue, we all have our convictions for a reason. The difference is are you willing to listen to dissent? Are you willing to challenge your opinion and put it to the test? Or do you make block lists and shun anyone who entertains any different opinion? (a classic tactic amongst anti-vax groups when a parent sees the science) My convinction of many of my beliefs comes from the fact I have argued them over and over again, discharging beliefs that did not pass the test, while strengthening my arguments for and belief in those that do.

Make no mistake, when it does come to the so called “discourse” both sides can be guilty of this shit. I claim no purity.
And I am in no way implying that we tolerate hate groups and violent hate speech, like those of nazis bc unfortunately nazis are actually relevant again, but I am saying some of you need a reality check on what that exactly entails, because a lesbian speaking her truth is not it.

And for god sakes don’t put teens on block lists, you know it invites harassment, you fucking know it.

There are many striking similarities between Padmé Amidala and Satine Kryze, and I believe that is what the writers were attempting to portray.

These are both strong women who rose to power during a very harsh time for their planets and civilizations. They saw there was a need for peace and liberty and climbed to the top to help those in need. On top of that, both women were young when they came to power and faced difficulties in establishing authority and government yet for the most part they prevailed. And above all, both are huge advocates of peace, no matter how you look at it.

While all those similarities between Padmé and Satine are positive, I’d like to really look at the one negative one (well it is many but is centrally one)  that stuck out to me. And that is how their efforts of peace caused genocide or almost caused near genocide of specific cultures. And in both cases this near genocide was aimed at a certain group of people - Mandalorians.

So here, I am going to get into both Padmé and Satine’s belief that genocide of Mandalorians and Mandalorian diaspora (the clones) is seen as peace.

The fandom has already talked enough about Satine and what she did to the traditional Mandalorians, but I will briefly explain it here. Satine took an age old tradition/culture that had helped a planet and a system thrived and completely eradicated it. Prior to Satine’s rule, Mandalore was not only known for its warrior like traditions but for its diversity in both human ethnic variation and alien species. However after Satine came into power, the diverse population of Mandalore was either eradicated or banished leaving only white, blonde haired-blue eyed citizens. Those were seen as the “pure” or “real” Mandalorians in Satine’s eyes. Eventually, Satine’s own rule ended up crashing down and not even her own people liked her.

In short, Satine was responsible for both a cultural and ethnic genocide of the diverse, traditional Mandalorian population in the name of peace, and this genocide was praised by the galaxy. She was seen as a hero for it.

Many people may not know, but Padmé was a bill away from committing ethnic genocide of a Mandalorian population just as Satine did–and like Satine, Padme would have been praised for it.

In this case, Padmé’s victims were the clones. Earlier in my post I mentioned that the clones were Mandalorian diaspora–they are Mandalorian, just not from Mandalore. They were initially Padmé’s targets and scapegoats for the war and the Republic’s poor spending. In The Clone Wars, Padmé was one of the main, if not the main people who was calling for the end of cloning because she believed that the clone’s were responsible for prolonging the war and wasting the money of the Republic. In Padmé ’s mind, wiping out the clones would achieve peace.

Let’s really look at how problematic Padmé s proposal was.

Padmé is blaming the clones for a war they did not create and a war they are forced to fight in. She is blaming them for a financial burden that they did not cause instead of holding the Senators and jedi accountable for it. She is blaming them to the point where she is calling for an end to their production..

You “end the production” of tools, of objects that are inanimate. You do not end the production of actual living beings, who have a conscience, as if they are simple weapons. Furthermore, Padmé is smart enough to know that ending the clone production alone would not fit her ideal of “peace”. In order to stop a war, which she blames the clones for, she’d have to eradicate the living clones. She already sees these groups of marginalized men below her, has no problem blaming them for the war, and has decided that to achieve “peace”, they must be eradicated.

(rest under the cut – this got long)

Keep reading