inherently unequal

On Fury Road and the value of non-threatening male heroes

So I’ve been re-watching Fury Road and something struck me;

Tom Hardy’s Max is just really non-threatening. Now, that’s weird on a surface level because in story he’s presented as very dangerous. But here’s the thing about the kind of men we’re used to seeing in action movie; They are threatening in their masculinity.

The capitol A Action hero is a fixture in our cultural awareness. Almost without fail this hero is a man (if you have a woman in the role of action hero, it’s almost always proceeded by her gender. She can’t just be the action hero, she is very clearly cast as a FEMALE action hero.) So our male Action hero  is a badass. He’s dangerous, he’s brooding, he’s tough as nails. Sometimes he’s sarcastic and witty, sometimes he’s a moody stud. Point is, despite cultural changes that we see with our Action heroes as different pop culture trends change the flavoring, these men are all pretty much cut from the same mold. And here’s the thing about your typical Action hero; They have this underlying current of threatening masculinity. To put it bluntly, your typical Action hero is really all about cock. They’re intimidating to both their male peers and the women who are cast opposite them. They are toxic masculinity distilled onto our screens.

Now, in recent years we’ve been seeing more varity in our Action heroes. More emotion. Of course, there have always been exceptions (Luke Skywalker is one of the most note worthy male heroes to break this mold, and I think it’s worth noting that he’s often called whiny. Hell, when I was a little kid I loved him, but as a young teenager I thought he was lame. Now I realize that this might well have been because he wasn’t acting like your typical male hero. Maybe that scared me on some level) Anyway, let’s get back to Hardy’s Max. In story he  starts out as frightening, but he is never threatening in the way of your usual Action hero. He’s feral, dangerous, and unpredictable at the start of our story, but he doesn’t have any of that toxic masculinity.  So, we have a mad Max who is dangerous, and seems mad, as it were.  But there’s none of that hyper male Action hero posturing.

Hardy’s Max is a flawed man whose past has almost driven him past the point of no return. To the other characters in the movies he initially seems to be  feral (they don’t have the benefit of hearing his inner thoughts) Max is a frightening, but he’s not a masculine he-man. In fact, the characters in the movie who fall close to what we’re used to seeing in Action heroes are the warboys and their leader. The culture espoused by Immortan Joe is hyper masculine and toxic. The young men who idolize him seem like extreme versions of what we’re used to with our heroes. They’re brainwashed into a society built on toxic masculinity and objectification, and the heroes of the story are the ones fighting against this idea. Interestingly, Furiosa has a lot of traits of your traditional Action hero, but it’s coupled with compassion and self reflection, not because she’s a woman, but because  she’s  a person. Like Max, she is fighting to regain her humanity through helping a group of young women fight for their freedom from a world of toxic masculinity.

So, again back to Max himself. As the movie goes on he regains his sense of self. A big theme int he movie is the objectification and commodification of human life. We see this with Immortan Joe’s ‘wives” as well as with the brainwashed warboys and the use living humans as ‘bloodbags’ and ‘milkers’ Max starts the movie literally strapped to the hood of a car as a hood ornament/living blood bag.  Max is reluctant to help Furiosa and the ‘wives’ at first, but we see him change in a brief period of time. He  regains his humanity through helping others and coming to terms with his own demons. Hardy’s Max is dangerous, but he’s also vulnerable, undeniably so. We see his fear, we see what haunts him, and we see him struggle to survive, and then struggle to come to terms with his past in order to help others have a future. This sets him apart from Mel Gibson’s Max, and in my opinion makes him the better of the two. By the time Max starts really showing his human side, we see a man who is compassionate and half broken, a man who relearns himself by helping others.

Another notable aspect of Max is his relationship with Furiosa. Usually when your typical Action hero is paired with a STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN in a movie, there’s this ongoing dynamic of ‘but you’re a girlllllll’ There isn’t respect, because the heroes of the story are acting out the deeply felt internalized misogyny of our own society. They can’t interact as equals because in our cultural minds they are inherently unequal. They are defined by their rigid gender rules, and they act this out like they’re children on a playground crying about cooties. And of course, there’s usually the sexual element, with the heroes constantly griping at/disrespecting one another while it’s played off as repressed attraction all along.Fury Road never once does this. Max and Furiosa are two flawed and broken people trying to survive. There isn’t a split second where Max stops to wonder how a GIRL can be so tough. Once they’re established as allies, they immediately move into a working relationship built on mutual respect and trust. Two scenes come to mind. Firstly, the initial canon chase when Max first shows himself as an ally. There’s one notable moment where Furiosa is standing up out of the roof and Max hands her a gun. That doesn’t seem important, but there’s something about that gesture that’s very c cinematically important. It shows us that they’re a team now, and it shows us that they trust each other. The second notable scene is the “Don’t breathe” moment in the night bog. Max has previously seen that Furiosa is a good shot. He knows that she is the one to trust with this task, so he hands her the gun and lets her use him as a rifle stand. It’s a moment with no dialogue that speaks volumes.

All of this goes to Max as a nonthreatening hero. He never objectifies, disrespects, or distrusts his counterpart. He’s never an alpha male. He’s part of a story that he doesn’t need to dominate with his manly male maleness. Hardy’s Max is a dangerous, vulnerable, and quietly compassionate man who gives respect and trust where it’s due. He has no need to parade and prove his masculinity. In fact, the people doing that are the villains, and isn’t that telling?

Here’s a hot take: “Capitalism is a decentralized market economy where free agents participate in equal exchange and pursue their interests, which ultimately benefits society as a whole.”

Let’s dissect that nonsense.

Capitalism is anything but a decentralized system. A small handful of property-owners compete for profit to the detriment of everyone else; it has a systematic tendency to privatize gains and socialize losses. But this is to be expected when a tiny subsection of society owns the grand majority of the productive wealth – they’re going to use that wealth to enrich themselves and withhold the created abundance from people so that profits go up. Econ 101: as supply goes up, price goes down; an “overabundance” of goods is “market saturation”, and you either need to destroy abundance (supermarkets do this all the time) or claim bigger market shares to corral that abundance into your ownership and thus have monopoly (or de facto monopoly). This is why the system tends towards ever greater concentrations of wealth into the hands of the few – six individuals now control as much wealth as half the world’s people.

The “free agents participating in equal exchange” bit becomes pretty clearly wrong once you take into account the above point. When that tiny minority controls the majority of the viable productive wealth, the average person has little choice but to take work beneath more powerful capitalists and rent housing beneath more powerful landlords. That’s not freedom or equality – that’s an owning class profiting off the backs of a dispossessed class, the latter having no real choice in the inherently unequal arrangement.

This also ties into the “pursue their passions” point. Without their material necessities being met, most people cannot meaningfully pursue their passions in such a way that their individuality flourishes. The system sets people up for constant financial struggle and alienation, and status quo apologists have the gall to claim it’s a system that “nurtures the individual”. Automation could weed out most societal jobs and leave individuals free to pursue their passions and live lives of leisure, but capitalism doesn’t let us do that – it needs an owning class to accumulate profit and a dispossessed class to generate that profit.

Bypass all of this convoluted horse shit through a socialist system beyond capitalism and you’re going to actually see freely associating individuals actually coming together to actually meet needs and to actually implement technology that will make life better for each and all.

That hot take is pure ideology, and the rich and powerful benefit from you believing in it.

anonymous asked:

I have an alternate history where, during the AIDS crisis, mandatory quarantines where put in place for all HIV+ people. I know HIV can be passed from mother to child, but can a baby born the virus pass it to their child and so on? It's in a future setting, so medicine has advanced (they might even be more medicaly/sciencey than the non-quarantined because they came up with all of the life saving/extending stuff). How might "genetic HIV" affect their health and everyday lives?

Hey nonny! This is really interesting, and I’d be interested in reading your story when it’s done…. but you have some research to do before you get started.

I hope you’re aware that a lot of the context around HIV is actually homophobia. In fact, HIV wasn’t called HIV at first – it was called Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID) in a time when gay was a dirty word. So understand that what you’re calling “quarantining HIV” would amount to a sequestering of, in large part (though far from exclusively), gay men. (And intravenous drug users.)

….You see where this is going, right? A majority “quarantines” a vulnerable population because they’re a “threat to the society at large”, complete with “scientific justification”. This is also in a time when the disease was soundly ignored and research was underfunded because the victims were gay men.

You’re basically looking at some really strong comparisons to Nazism and concentration camps in America in the 1980s. And unless you’re writing something horrifyingly dystopian – in which case go ahead!! – you need to be prepared for that perception from your readers.

What I am saying is this: spend a lot of time researching the disease and its history. And the social history of gay men in the 70s and 80s through today. And the history of antiretroviral medications. In fact, further down, I’m going to give you a read/watch list. It will be far from complete. But it will be a start.

I have a good news / bad news moment for you as well. The good news is that HIV isn’t genetic. It’s not carried down from mother to child via DNA transmission or even viral load entering the bloodstream of the fetus in utero.

So how do babies get HIV? Well, birth is a messy, bloody, poopy business. Neonates become infected when they’re delivered through a bloody  bloody birth canal and the blood enters their mucus membranes (eyes, mouth, etc). Also, babies drink bodily fluids for the first 6 months of life, which is definitely a transmission vector for the disease.

From a WHO page on mother-to-child transmission:

The transmission of HIV from a HIV-positive mother to her child during pregnancy, labour, delivery or breastfeeding is called mother-to-child transmission. In the absence of any intervention, transmission rates range from 15% to 45%. This rate can be reduced to below 5% with effective interventions during the periods of pregnancy, labour, delivery and breastfeeding. These interventions primarily involve antiretroviral treatment for the mother and a short course of antiretroviral drugs for the baby. They also include measures to prevent HIV acquisition in the pregnant woman and appropriate breastfeeding practices. 

So first off, the chance of any child of an HIV-positive mother getting HIV are less than one in two. Second, again, the virus isn’t “genetic” in its transmission. So if a child of an HIV+ mother was infected, the odds of them transmitting the disease to their child is the same as it was for them. It’s not a guarantee.

Also understand that if medicine is “more advanced” than it is today, and we already have cases of HIV being completely eliminated from people’s bloodstreams with modern medications, your society would likely get to a place where HIV can be, if not eliminated, made far less of a global crisis.

In fact, you mentioned medicine being “more advanced” inside of the “quarantine” than outside of it. But this isn’t likely, because you have to understand that the “quarantined” area is wholly dependent on the outside. They only get what they’re given (or can monkey-wrench from what they have). And separate but equal is inherently unequal. They’re social pariahs, they’re the underheels of society – they won’t be given the tools to advance beyond the society around them. If anything they’ll be the subjects of unwilling experimentation and get gaslighted into horrendous conditions with the vague and distant promise of a cure.

Here’s the thing about HIV (that, admittedly, wasn’t well understood at the beginnings of the disease): Without blood to blood or sexual contact it’s almost impossible to contract. You can’t get it from saliva without (drinking a liter of it). You can’t get it from sweat.

So I’m going to give you some homework to help you understand the background of the story you want to write.

First, films, because they’re easy and fast and will get you up to date as quickly as possible. There’s a list from Verywell (which, admittedly, I don’t love completely) with a list of films portraying HIV in culture.

I would start with #9, a movie called And The Band Played On. (It’s even on YouTube if you don’t mind a little piracy). It’s the story of how HIV came to be understood, told from the scientific side, and dealing with all of the prejudices of the Reagan administration. Philadelphia is also amazing and a must-watch. Angels in America was supposed to be phenomenal (I haven’t had the chance to see it yet).

Also do some searches on HIV and then-president Reagan, and how he dealt with –  or, more accurately, did sweet fuck-all about – HIV. It’s the story of one of the biggest failings in American history (and there have been some whoppers of failures!).

I also reached out to lovely blogger poztatt, who has commented on this blog in multiple instances about the relationship between medicine as a whole and HIV, and here’s what Pozzy had to say:

One : Transmission.  Here in BC vertical transmission has been pretty much eliminated due to good regimens.  We can, if we know about it, prevent it by using pre-existing regimens with mothers so they don’t transmit it.  Clinical guidelines are that mothers have to be on the medication (there are actual legal cases of women being charged for reckless endangerment and/or negligence for not informing doctors of their status.  Also all women in Canada that are pregnant are automatically tested.  It’s less thrilling, human rights wise, than I personally like but that’s Canada.

Second : Well, you’re sort of right about quarantine.  Fun fact : it actually is legally entirely possible to quarantine someone with a public health threat - aka communicable diseases.  Second fun fact in 1987 there was a bill proposed here in BC called Bill C34 that would have sent all people with HIV / AIDS to a leper colony island in the Georgia Straits. 

It got defeated but it had components cannibalized and put into the health care acts that allows quarantining of people with communicable diseases.

Though it’s not been enacted as there are no precidents for it outside Ebola.

So while it’s not presently a thing, it was proposed in multiple jurisdictions across N. America.

Also location is important. Sidenote: In N. America it landed in the gay male community and hit white gay men hard.  They had influence and power, as well as money, so they made noise.  It ALSO hit injection drug users and other sections of the gay community but they had less social cache to fight for care.Outside of N. America it’s predominantly location dependant. Huge swathes of African countries it’s heterosexual.  When writing about it (for the question) it’s important to note the different history depending on WHERE it’s being written about.

Poz also recommends the films When We Rise and How to Survive a Plague, as well as reaching out to your local LGBT centers and seeing if your city has an LGBT archive.

If anyone has additional resources for the Nonny here, leave a comment. I’ll screenshot them in a day or two, or copypaste, and reblog this with additional resources.

Best of luck,

xoxo, Aunt Scripty


Becoming a Patron lets you see the freaking future. Have you considered becoming a clairvoyant?

Free eBook: 10 BS “Medical” Tropes that Need to Die TODAY! 

anonymous asked:

Sasuke's revenge was killing a bunch of innocent people who didn't know anything of the Uchiha massacre, Shikamaru was just killing the two akatsukis who killed Asuma. They benefitted him by keeping him from pursuing his "goals" which were all flawed in some way or another. Unless you see Sasuke's goal's as idealistic, how it's portrayed in the storyline, they are not. And they because precious comrades to him so he wasn't alone.

If Sasuke wasn’t saved he would have killed 5 kages and isolated himself in darkness forever. He wanted to use force to become the leader by killing the other leaders, and all the other shinobi would have no choice but to follow him. In the Naruto world shouldering burdens alone ends in failure, as Itachi told Naruto.

Putting the two messages together because I want to avoid redundancy. More under the cut. 

Keep reading

One thing I’ve learned again and again from a lifetime of being multiracial is that you can’t have multiculturalism without some level of cultural “appropriation.” If you put people together and want them to interact with each other peacefully, they’re gonna want to borrow from one another. The other option is segregation, and frankly, “separate but equal” is still as inherently unequal as it was before that policy ended. Yeah, there’s power differences at play, and that’s unfortunate, but I’ll take “appropriation” over segregation any day of the week.

You shouldn’t have to be multiracial to figure that one out. Maybe it’s more obvious to me since I would literally not exist under forced segregation.

inb4 “you don’t speak for all multiracial people.”

anonymous asked:

Finally someone who thinks Arthur probably was very Mother Gothel-ish towards Alfred! Maybe it's because I don't like Arthur very much, but I always thought that him being devastated and a crying mess when Alfred left was extremely out of character, I personally really agree with you!

Well tbh you’re not alone, there are lots of fans who like Arthur but don’t like “1776 still hurts him forever and ever” yeah. Was he upset? Yes. But devastated and crying more than furious and angry? Imo no…he was one mean shit during that era. Also there’s the famous Stiff Upper Lip to consider here. Weepy Arthur (unless he’s shitfaced drunk) doesn’t cut it for me. I can see him crying and being upset in a manipulative manner as psychological blackmail tho. It’s fair and it’s got merit if some people want to portray their r/ship in a more human dynamic as brothers. But imo the whole crying and upset thing shouldn’t be overdone till the extent that he’s STILL upset over it today.

I definitely prefer the Mother Gothel and Rapunzel kind of dynamic, at least when their ties started getting nasty and all the stuff that was done in response to the 13 colonies not “knowing their place”. I’m just kind of “??????…” if a colony demanding independence from an empire is supposed to be treated as “Alfred hurt Arthur and should feel guilty”. Nah bro, go break his heart. Shatter it into pieces. Walk out the door and don’t look back. He kind of had it coming from the very beginning he started this business. It’s not really “love”. More like possessiveness and obsession and well anyone should gfto of that kind of thing, it’s like that overcontrolling parent who treats you as an extension of themselves instead of somebody with your own autonomy. Like, let’s be honest…the relationship between a colony and an empire is inherently, by nature unequal. The former always exists to benefit the latter, and if we wanna draw an analogy to human r/ships…doesn’t sound healthy. 

anonymous asked:

how do i deal with crippling jealousy? the type triggered by your fp having a fun time without you.

Jealousy can be a very difficult emotion to deal with even for most people, with or without BPD (though the intensity or duration of that intensity is much more extreme for people who have BPD). In DBT, we’re taught to deal with unwanted emotions in a variety of ways, but the “best way” in the eyes of many therapists (and many patients who have mastered the skill I’m about to talk about) is through an Emotion Regulation Skill called Opposite Action. 

1. What is Opposite Action?

Opposite Action, at its core, is pretty much just what it sounds like.  You use the Opposite Action Skill when your emotions do not fit the facts (see Check the Facts post, and well as Method 1 and Method 2 to help determine if your emotion–or its intensity or duration–fits the facts).  You also use Opposite Action when your emotion does fit the facts but it would be ineffective to act on it. 

By acting opposite of what your emotions are urging you to do, you are able to change your emotional reactions and possibly your emotional state in the process.

You usually use Opposite Action after first using Check the Facts, a skill that helps you determine whether your problem emotion is justified or not. If your jealousy isn’t warranted or is ineffective (which is what it sounds like in your ask) then you would use the Opposite Action Skill.  If your jealous is warranted, then you would use the Problem Solving Skill (link coming soon).

Opposite Action is a fairly straightforward skill but most DBT therapists consider it to be the most difficult skill to master because it requires you to do the exact opposite of what your feelings or thoughts are telling you to do, which often feels unnatural, not genuine/dishonest, or uncomfortable.  It’s not always easy, so sometimes it’s best to start small.

2. When does Jealousy “Fit the Facts”?

So, just to let everyone know, the Manual says that Jealousy “fits the facts” of a situation when:

  • Someone is threatening to take away a very important and desired relationship or object away from you.
  • An important and desired relationship is in danger of being damaged or lost
  • (Honestly there are a lot more legitimate feelings for jealousy, but these are the ones DBT focuses on.)

If feelings of jealousy are not justified by the facts or are not effective, you would then use Opposite Action.

3. Opposite Actions for Jealousy

Opposite Actions for Jealousy can include (but are not limited to) the following:

  • Do the opposite of your jealous action urges (usually specific to the situation causing your jealousy)
  • Let go of feeling the need to control others’ actions (such as wanting to control who your FP has fun with)
  • Share the things and people you have in your life.
  • Distract yourself from your jealousy by doing something you enjoy (even with other people) and allow yourself to have fun without your FP as well, hopefully teaching yourself that you both can have fun without needing to be together for that fun to be positive.  Remember, don’t do this to make your FP jealous in response. This involves letting go of pettiness or vengeful feelings.

4. Opposite Action “All the Way”

There’s another “level” of sorts when it comes to Opposite Action (you can look at it like “leveling up”).  The following kinds of Opposite Action are called “All The Way Opposite Action”:

  • Suppress your need to ask your FP (or whoever is the subject of your jealousy) where they were, who they were with, if they like those people better than they like you, etc.  That kind of behaviour can get controlling very quickly, so completely resist the urge to do so.  (Remember, this applies ONLY IF YOUR JEALOUSY DOES NOT FIT THE FACTS!  If you have a valid reason to be jealous, it makes sense to ask these sorts of questions because you’re accurately assessing a threat.)
  • No avoiding.  If you’re with the people who make you feel jealous, rather than withdrawing, you should engage while keeping your eyes open and be Mindfully Observing while Participating in the moment.  Observing will help you hopefully see the interaction Non-Judgmentally rather than viewing things with jealousy-tinted lenses. 
  • Change your posture.  Jealousy can make us feel very tense and sometimes nervous and sometimes aggressive so to the following things to change your posture: a) Unclench your hands and adopt a Willing Hands posture, b) Relax chest and stomach muscles through Progressive Muscle Relaxation, c) Unclench teeth, d) Relax facial muscles and adopt a Half-Smile
  • Change your body chemistry by using TIP, especially the Tempterature part to bring down emotional intensity and the Paced Breathing part, to control your breathing and feel calmer and less threatened.

5. Jealousy Vs. Envy

Now, Jealousy and Envy are often confused, so while it sounds to me like you’re experiencing jealousy, it might be beneficial for other followers to give a short breakdown of what Envy is:

Envy fits the facts when another person or group has what you want or need but don’t have.

The Opposite Actions for Envy is based around on “counting your blessings” and doing things to stop you from feeling resentful or bitter towards people who have what you want or need, as well as Checking the Facts to see if they really have so much more than you. (They might.  There are lots of cases where certain people might have much more than you and that’s part of living in an inherently unequal society.)

6. What to do When Opposite Action Takes Too Many Spoons or Doesn’t Work for You

Back, to Jealousy, if Opposite Action is takes up too many spoons, or you’re just not in the right psychological place to try working against your jealousy, or the examples of Opposite Action for jealousy don’t really help you (which is totally possible, I feel that way about most of the Opposite Action pages of the DBT Manual), then I have one more skill I can suggest:

Radical Acceptance/Reality Acknowledgement

Reality Acknowledgement, as I like to call it, is a Distress Tolerance Skill that you use when you cannot change your feeling/situation/consequences/etc yet fighting against that reality is ineffective and may just cause you more suffering.

This is especially useful when you’re dealing with overwhelming jealousy and the situation you’re jealous about is not one that you can change.  Ultimately, if Opposite Action doesn’t work, you’ll have to learn how to live with your jealousy–which is not an easy thing.  Learning to live with an emotion that you don’t like but you have no ability to make it go away is very tough, but Radical Acceptance/Reality Acknowledgement can help you come to terms with these emotions that might be inspiring feelings of self-depreciation or self-hatred inside you for feeling them at all.

Here are some links of posts I’ve previously written about Reality Acknowledgement:

It also helps to be Mindful when practicing Reality Acknowledgement.  Use your Wise Mind: is it Effective to feel jealous over this? Is this jealousy helping you in any way? You can use Mindfulness Skills to help you to Observe and Describe the situation in a Non-Judgmental way, thereby hopefully removing a lot of the assumptions and/or judgements you might be making about the situation or people who are making you jealous.  Try to focus on the present moment that you’re in, rather than get sucked into “What if” thinking that focuses on the future or on events that you don’t have any first-hand knowledge of.

(Such as “What if my FP is having so much fun without me because my FP is venting about how terrible I am and they’re having fun laughing at me.”  That’s an example of catastrophic thinking–not saying this is something you personally are thinking–and the reason it’s catastrophic thinking is because you have no proof that anything like that is happening at all, but it’s a thought that would absolutely make you feel worse if you were thinking it.)

While being Mindful and accessing your Wise Mind, you can experience the emotion of jealousy like a wave, a wave that comes over you, peaks, and then recedes.  (This is called “Mindfulness of Current Emotions” and is a component of Emotion Regulation.)  Experience the jealousy you feel as an undeniable part of the present moment, but not a permanent one, and not an emotion you need to push away.  Just allow yourself to experience it and let the emotion run its course without clinging to it or pushing it away–because not allowing your emotions to run their natural course often makes them worse.

7. When all Else Fails:

a) Communicate.  Communicate with your FP that you feel jealous and why.  All healthy relationships are founded on solid and honest communication.  Just be honest, not with any intention of coercing them to change their behaviour or stop doing what’s making you jealous, but be honest with the hope of having a conversation where both of you can clarify how you feel and result in reassurance or even a compromise.  It’s always important to be open with special people in our lives about our emotional states–this helps mitigate splitting and withdrawal/isolation and fear of abandonment.

b) The other thing you can do after opening up about feeling jealous and after working to accept that your FP’s actions are their own choices that you can’t control, you can look into Distress Tolerance Skills.  Jealousy can be an awful emotion to feel.  It can also use up a lot of spoons, which you may not have had a lot of in the first place.  To replenish spoons as well as mitigate the effects the worst of your jealousy, Distress Tolerance Skills are the best skills for this.  Some DBT Distress Tolerance Skills that might be relevant are:

  • STOP: Stop, Take a step back, Observe, Proceed Mindfully
  • TIP: Temperature, Intense Exercise, Paced Breathing/Paired Muscle Relaxation/Progressive Muscle Relaxation (used to change your level of distress quickly)
  • Distract using Wise Mind ACCEPTS: Distract yourself with Activities, Contributing, Comparisons, Emotions, Pushing away, Thoughts, Sensations
  • Self-Soothe: Use the senses (vision, hearing, taste, smell, touch) to soothe your physical self in order to make your emotions less painful. (Big List of Self-Soothe Ideas here)
  • IMPROVE the Moment: Improve the moment with Imagery, Meaning, Prayer, Relaxation, One thing in the moment, Vacations, Encouragement
  • Radical Acceptance/Reality Acknowledgement: Acknowledge what is, let go of fighting or denying reality.  Use TURNING THE MIND to commit to acknowledgement over and over again.

Further Reading: You might be interested in looking at our resources that address the “fear of abandonment” symptom that might be an underlying factor of your jealousy, which there are many links in the FAQ on that subject.  You can also read all our previous posts pertaining to jealousy here.  You might find that reassurance from your FP might help ease your jealousy (or perhaps your potentially underlying fear of abandonment) so here is a post about how to ask for reassurance.

TL;DR:  Jealousy, like all emotions, may or may not fit the facts of a situation.  If jealousy doesn’t fit the facts of a situation or it would be ineffective to act on the urges associated with the feelings of jealousy.  When jealousy does not fit the facts or is ineffective, use the DBT Skill Opposite Action.  Opposite Action is a skill you use for a situation like this, where you act in the opposite way than your emotion wants you to.  Doing this can change your body chemistry and thus your emotional state.

If Opposite Action doesn’t work, try Reality Acknowledgement, be Mindful, and use Distress Tolerance Skills to diminish the intensity of your jealousy.  And, fundamental to any relationship, have an open conversation about your feelings without any intent to control the outcome.



May 17th 1954: Brown v. Board of Education

On this day in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its unanimous decision in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The decision declared racial segregation in schools unconstitutional, striking down the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ segregation which had been enshrined in the 1896 decision Plessy v. Ferguson. The Brown case had been bought by African-American parents, including Oliver L. Brown, against Topeka’s educational segregation. It was argued before the Court by the chief legal counsel of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Thurgood Marshall, who went on to become the first African-American Supreme Court justice in 1967. The Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, declared that segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The landmark decision is often considered the start of the Civil Rights Movement, which fought for racial integration and full equality for African-Americans. The movement transformed American society, leading to the end of legal segregation and landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965). However, the mission of the movement, so eloquently expressed by Dr. King, to achieve full equality, is far from over.

“We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal
- Warren’s opinion for the Court


Before the actual answer to this ask, I do need to reiterate that this is not a GoT / ASoIaF blog and it will never become one, because that’s not what I want– but since GoT is midseason, posts related to it are the most time-sensitive and that is why I am making so many of them lately! Thus I apologize for either 1. currently throwing a lot of GoT stuff in your face despite your lack of interest, or 2. a future dearth of GoT stuff despite the past few weeks here making it almost seem like that’s my primary fandom.

And because this post got rather unwieldy in the wake of last night’s episode, let me attempt to save you some time and give you a TL;DR I TAKE THE PHRASE “NARRATIVE ECONOMY” TOO LITERALLY so that you can scroll right on past it. This post is just a lot of narratology talk. It’s much less about how things make us feel and much more about why things might be shaped the way they are. I am aware that this is understandably boring for a lot of people, because the popular dream is to write a novel, not to become an English major THOUGH THANK YOU FOR THAT, IT’S HARD ENOUGH TO GET INTO GRAD SCHOOL AS IT IS

There are spoilers behind the cut, as well as an argument about why I didn’t want to put the spoilers behind the cut, and 2400+ words of me saying the exact same thing a lot of people have said much better already

Keep reading

No regrets

Himaruya was saying that Alfred’s personality changed quite a bit from how he was as a child, because it was the only way he managed to deal with the other nations as equals. So, I like to think that as young as he was during the Revolutionary War, there was also a lot of raw ambition- not just ideals- driving him. The reason I don’t really prefer to see Alfred (or Arthur) as sad about it is because I see their relationship at that point as devolving into quite a bitter power struggle- that by that point, as much they might have once seen themselves as brothers, they were colony and empire first and foremost- a dynamic bound to be inherently antagonistic and unequal.

In the 1860’s it was the Republican Party in Washington - the home of former abolitionists – that sought to grant legal rights and social equality to blacks in the South. The Democrats of the day had broad support among white Southerners and conservatives in the North.

The Republicans, then dubbed radical Republicans, managed to enact a series of constitutional amendments and reconstruction acts granting legal equality to former slaves, giving them access to federal courts if their rights were violated. But Lawrence Goldstone says that in a series of cowardly rulings, the Supreme Court undermined those laws, and laid the basis for years of lynchings and Jim Crow rules in the South.

All you have to do is look at the rise of Jim Crow and the ability of Southern state governments to segregate, to discriminate, to imprison without trial, to beat to death, to lynch — without anyone ever being brought to justice. It was only possible because the Court had very slowly chipped away at [the Civil Rights Act of 1875 and the Fourteenth Amendment.]
—  Lawrence Goldstone, explaining how the Supreme Court’s rulings between 1875 and 1903 suppressed the civil rights movement in the latter half of the 19th century and impacted the treatment of African-Americans in Southern states for decades,

anonymous asked:

Is PiV sex bad for women?

Ah the infamous PIV analysis, where do I even begin.. Is PiV sex bad for women? I’d argue not necessarily. Is it bad for women now? Yes, I cannot in good faith argue anything else. PiV now carries risk of unwanted pregnancy and childbirth (abortion restrictions), disease (men with sti and expectations around condoms) and low chance of pleasure for women (pornsick men) to name a few.

Now where it gets interesting is in 1) role reversal and 2) has it always been and will it always be this way.

For #1 I refer to one of my favorite pieces I’ve ever read because damn, just read it:

yes, thats right…there are severe consequences to women, but not to men, of engaging in PIV.  and i am not about to blame women for continuing to do it, and i am not going to ask (at least not today) why women are having PIV with men.  what i would like to know, however, is why MEN are continuing to do it, when they know how dangerous it is, for women.  this is not a rhetorical question.

again, since most readers here are women, this can be approached as a thought exercise.  imagine, if you will, that there were no consequences to *you* of having PIV.  but that all the consequences i mentioned above, actually applied to *men* and not to you.  imagine that fucking your husband, or bf, or anyone with a dick really, could literally kill them, or make them very ill.  imagine that they were taking on all the risk, and you werent risking a thing.

would you still do it?  would you ride your mate into the sunset, bucking wildly on his dick and screaming when you were about to come?   (pornified version).  would you tenderly “make love” to him, knowing how potentially fucking screwed he could be, in the weeks and months to come, by virtue of the act you were about to perform on his person i mean with him, lovingly?  (its an “act of love” version).

and in this topsy-turvy world i have created here, where there are consequences of PIV to men but not to women…would you ever pressure him into it?  or expect it?  or demand it?  or “take” it?  (the rape version).  what if he wanted it, and claimed to enjoy it? what if he really, truly did enjoy it?  would that change anything, for you?  would his “consent” be problematic, in your mind, at all?  or would it be a free pass to place him in harms way?

now…what if you knew for a fact that there was very little chance that he was even going to enjoy it?  would that matter to you, at all?   what if it were common knowledge that most men didnt really like PIV anyway, or at least it wasnt their preferred sexual act, and that their bodies werent really built to orgasm this way?  what if the numerous risks of PIV to men were somewhat (or largely) causative of their inability to enjoy it, or to enjoy it fully?

would you still do it?  if so, why, and under what circumstances?  if not, why not?

and finally…what if mens social status was that of, literally, dirt.  of filth. what if mens corpus, mens bodies, were regarded as disgusting, and filthy too (even though, ironically, you were the one likely to infect *him* with something, and not the other way around).  what if the language women used regarding having PIV with men was synonymous with harming them, and socially men and boys were the thing everyone else wiped their feet on?  what if it had always been this way, and was this way currently, around the world?

if this were the state of things…what would PIV “mean” to you?  what would you imagine that it “meant” to men?  in other words…why do it at all, and is it at all possible that mens and womens “reasons” would differ?

i am just asking.

Indeed, she is just asking. What does PiV mean to men? A worthwhile question. The entire series is worth a read:

For #2) has it always been this way? I don’t know, I think it must have not been so normalized personally. Before the advent of agriculture and inheritance, patriarchy and capitalism, would women be subject to PiV at all other than for childbirth?

What about in the future? If PiV is always and inherently unequal for risk, can it ever be good for women? Again, I don’t know. Maybe there will eventually be better technology and societies that actually account for this inherent inequality, but until then it’s hard to picture isn’t it?

So, what does all this mean for the het partnered woman? I think as with all things, it’s ultimately up to each woman, but I’d advise being very critical and very aware around PiV. I strongly believe that this is one of those things that with distance it becomes much easier to see through and truly learn your own feelings around it.

I’m aware some of you will block or unfollow me over my opinion, but I don’t care. Anyway, I want to make it quick. How is it okay that Naruto disregards Sasuke’s wishes—simply because Sasuke seemingly brings himself into a life-threatening situation? It is still selfish because although Naruto has something positive in mind, it goes against Sasuke’s wishes. 

More importantly, Naruto has absolutely no authority in determining what Sasuke should do or shouldn’t do. Like, this really bugs me so much. Why do people think it’s completely fine for one person to be in complete control of their partner? I was in such a dysfunctional relationship, and seeing others justifying Naruto’s controlling behaviour is a pet peeve of mine. 

Ultimately, Naruto has /no/ say in Sasuke’s life. Thinking otherwise is actually wrong because that would make Sasuke only an extension of Naruto and strip the notion of Sasuke being an individual, who is fully capable of thinking for himself and making his own decisions, away. It puts Naruto in a unfair position of moral superiority over Sasuke, making their relationship inherently unequal. Sasuke doesn’t have to completely submit to Naruto’s philosophy. 

Claiming he is crazy or mentally ill is an excuse to justify said idea. Sasuke is not a puppet and deserves happiness. This is, like, the entire point of Naruto changing his resolve from “I want to bring Sasuke back to the village” to “I’ll shoulder Sasuke’s hatred and die with him.”
Dark matter: 1. Violence against queer and trans communities of color is steadily increasing.

I love when the world makes things explicit: today when cisgender gays and lesbians and their allies will be celebrating gay marriage, a bunch of us will be on the streets for the Trans Day of Action march in NYC with Audre Lorde Project and the abolish the prison industrial complex party in the Bay Area with TGI Justice Project (TGIJP) protesting criminalization and murder of trans people. So many think pieces and neoliberal ‪#‎activists‬ will proclaim the end of the “gay movement,” but
Let’s get a few things straight:

1. Violence against queer and trans communities of color is steadily increasing. The majority of this violence is comes from the very state that allegedly supports our “equality” at the hands of the police, prisons, mental health institutions, and ICE. “Victories” like this Supreme Court ruling are often used to pinkwash the US government and make it seem “LGBT friendly” even though it’s one of the biggest arbiters of anti-queer and anti-trans violence at home and abroad.

2. Every time there is a symbolic ruling like this there is a significant backlash. This backlash looks like acts of physical and sexual violence against largely low-income gender non-conforming people of color who cannot afford privacy and safety. Policy change does not translate into changing hearts and minds. Community organizing does. Stop discussing progress without understanding punishment.

3. What you call a “rainbow,” we call the racial wealth divide. It’s much easier to affirm “gay love,” then it is to call for reparations for colonialism, slavery, and exploitation of labor. As gay marriage gets legalized the majority of LGBT donors are pulling back their funds to support queer and trans work. This leaves those of us doing racial and economic justice work even more broke and less able to get people out of prisons and into stable housing and jobs. But who needs money for bread when you can eat wedding cake?

4.Marriage equality" is an oxymoron. The institution of marriage is an inherently unequal institution. Marriage is a racist and patriarchal system established to allocate basic rights to couples over other forms of relationships. The institution of marriage has and continues to exacerbate the (racial) wealth divide in this country.

5. We aren’t fighting for more rights, we are fighting for abolition. This is a very different political strategy. We don’t want more freedoms, we want to be free from violence. We aren’t fighting for equality and love, we were fighting for economic justice and liberation. We aren’t fighting for representation, we are fighting for revolution.

Back to the streets.

A parent/child relationship has inherent unequal power.  If the parent is not in constant allyship to their child, the relationship can quickly become abusive.  An attribute of abusive relationships is that the abuser may want to control every aspect of the abused person’s life.  The abuser may act even more negatively towards the abused person if they find out something is changing beyond their control, like if an abusive parent finds out their child is trans.  The abuser does not inherently become more powerful because the child is trans.  

The abuser does gain more unequal power when they discover that they have another way of institutional power over the abused person, like if a non-trans woman abusive parent discovers that their child is a trans woman.  Also because of the discovery of this unequal power, previously non-abusive parents may become abusive, because they (possibly subconsciously) learn that they have more power over their child, and may not want to be in constant allyship anymore.