violence-makes-violence

anonymous asked:

What are soft boys?

It’s a term largely used on Tumblr, but it describes a subset of boys/men that exist on and off Tumblr. 

Basically it’s a subgroup of boys/men who believe they differ from “other” men because they don’t conform to or perform masculinity in a typical way, be it because they are more effeminate, or because they are interested in traditionally non-masculine activities, or because their aesthetic preferences are traditionally non-masculine, or because their behavior is traditionally non-masculine. 

These boys call themselves “soft boys” and believe that their like of flower crowns or soft-spoken conversation or stuffed animals or sparkly images or hugs and cuddling or whatever “non-masculine” quality in question distances them from being held accountable for male violence/patriarchal violence. 

What makes their behavior so egregious and dangerous is that they genuinely think that their straying from typical patterns of gender conformity makes them entitled to being misogynistic. Whether it’s coercing women into sex (”I’m a soft male feminist and I just want to be loved by a big strong woman, uwu”), believing that they have the right to scream at, mock, and hurl slurs against a woman (”women can be horrific bitches and I’m not wrong for saying that!”), or thinking that they can get away with violating a woman’s space or body, these men are equally as bad as men who conform to traditional masculinity, and they are just as culpable in enacting misogyny against women. 

The difference between them and traditionally masculine men, besides their gender performance, is how they weaponize their gender against women. Traditionally masculine men assert their dominance over women through stereotypical displays of power and control, whereas these “soft boys” weaponize their gender non-conformity against women, often 1) citing their gender transgressive behaviors as “proof” that they “aren’t the same as other men/aren’t as bad as other men”, 2) citing the fact that they may have been abused or bullied by individual women before and that this thus gives them the right to be misogynistic toward women as a whole, and 3) using identity politics to justify misogyny if they’re marginalized in some way (ex. mlm thinking that it’s okay to police women’s behaviors, harass them, and verbally abuse them because straight women are homophobic, or trans men thinking that it’s okay to be violent because they “need to perform masculinity” and that it’s wrong of any woman to point out their misogyny because they’re trans). 

Both traditionally masculine men and “soft boys” may also genuinely believe that “misandry” exists on a systemic level, and that women are capable of oppressing men just as much as men are capable of oppressing women. Again, however, they manifest these beliefs differently. The “soft boys” may weaponize this into identity politics, often claiming that a woman hating men as a class is actually just racist / homophobic / transphobic / ableist because some men are men of color and/or trans and/or gay/bi and/or disabled/neurodivergent. 

“Soft boys” are similar to “nice boys”, but “nice boys” weaponize personality traits against women whereas “soft boys” weaponize defiance of traditional masculinity against women. 

o

my fav thing abt Preacher is that the three leads are all very clearly canonically neurodivergent but still allowed to be heroes WHILE STILL dealing with trauma and emotional baggage very realistically - like it’s not just a case of “they’re fucked up but tough.” interpretations can vary, but they’re all dealing with some forms of PTSD, childhood neglect and trauma in the case of Tulip and Jesse, and major depression and suicidal tendencies in the case of this version of Cassidy. and it trips them up and they have to work through it. the narrative doesn’t just let them be damaged but strangely invincible without addressing the natural consequences of their issues and sometimes they have to weaponize their inner darkness, but it’s often a double-edged sword and I love that the show recognizes that and more broadly speaking, that violence always has consequences. "Violence makes violence, makes nothing much at all." it’s actually amazing how you can trace literally every thematic plot thread back to the pilot GODDAMN I LOVE THIS SHOW

anonymous asked:

I just finished watching Wreckers and have some questions about it. I kinda liked the film, the performance of the 3 actors was amazing. But I don't really understand the ending. The audio of the movie was so low and sometimes the scenes were so dark. So, why couldn't David and Dawn have a child? Did David do something bad to Nick when they're young? Where did Nick go at the end? Could you explain the film a bit? I really love your blog. Thanks!

hey :-) and thank you so very very much. really. 

well, first of all, i love wreckers with a heat of a thousand suns. i think it’s a psychological masterpiece and there’s a reason rotten tomatoes has given it 91% (x). 

first of all so you don’t have to listen to me go on and on; your questions.

1. i think dictynna hood made the film murky, and dark. so that we were supposed to be as in the dark as dawn was. at least we were encouraged to piece it together they way she does; with glimpses and suggestions, and half-caught moments of dialogue. and behaviours that seem desperate and yet also obsfucatory. as if they’re hiding something. i love how we’re never spoon-fed anything in this piece. (oops sorry going on again). 

2. david has a low sperm count; but why he doesn’t tell dawn is actually (to me) unclear. maybe it’s because he’s trying so hard to be something he thinks she wants “you’ve changed, you have, you’ve gone all posh” nick notices… and deep down david is as insecure and as damaged as nick is. those half-smiles and awkward attempts at fraternal intimacy are done SO brilliantly by benedict. 

3. they were both horribly abused as kids “thwack thwack” the retired teachers says in a disturbingly robotic way. i think in that farmhouse some horrors happened; and violence begets violence. david makes nick sleepwalk into the pond. nick pushes his mum down the stairs. which leads me to your last question. this is not a rustic idyll; this is a picturesque town behind the curtains lies countless stories of abuse and dysfunction (as nick tells dawn as they walk through the town). 

4. i think - and i am not the only one :-( - that david kills nick. they’re both so damaged from horrific abuse and they carry it differently. nick constantly flees into the army and then ends up with PTSD. whilst david (to me) is a volcano of psychoses waiting to blow. he’s tried to cover it up in so many different ways but it’s always just below the surface. and in the end, i think it’s edited so that you think - like dawn - that david has done something terrible.

i also have an equally bleak view of the future; david’s violence is never resolved. neither is nick’s disappearance. and i cannot see david happily being cuckolded indefinitely. and without some sort of emotional fracture…

depressing? yes. sophisticated? totally. watching this film reminds me of that moment in ferris bueller’s day off where they’re all staring at george seurat’s pointilliste painting (Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte) and cameron just stares at each point until the painting dissolves into uncertainty. wanky sorry, but to me wreckers is like a pointilliste film. it’s kinda indefinite. 

oh i did go on and one. long answer but - hey - it’s what i do. 

:-)

I’m a trans, black, gay guy
I don’t hate nazis
I don’t hate transphobes
I don’t hate homophobes
I don’t hate cis people
I don’t hate heterosexuals

Hate breeds hate
Violence breeds violence

I make it s point not to hate anyone. Even if you’ve wronged me, I probably just have a strong dislike for you.

I think the reason the Durarara characters are harder to type than characters of other stories is because they are involved in a twisted story.  And so their characters and personalities are all twisted. If that were so it would not be enough to look at cognitive functions. Cognitive functions are about cognition. It’s about how a person processes information. What may be one function to you may be another function to them. 

What was I thinking about….yeah, behavior. It’s not enough to look at human behavior and interpet that they’re thinking this way. Durarara characters show. They don’t tell. They show and in order to accurately assess what function they are using you have to understand their personalities and motivation first. You have to understand their perception of the world. Their perception not the perception of other characters or your own. Because Durarara is a story of how different people with twisted personalities in a story of twisted love interact and connect in order to pursue their morally grey motivations. 

Is Mika using Fe, “As long as Seiji is happy I’m happy’ or Fi "As long as I’m happy with Seiji nothing else matters’? Is she an ENFP or ENFJ? Or if she’s using both which is the source of her motivation? Herself or Seiji? We think it’s Seiji. It seems from what they show its Seiji. But the novels have said that she loves Seiji because she loves herself so she loves Seiji whom she loves. 

The one she loved most was herself, who loved someone else.

As such, she never thought about what was best for the other person.

For her love, it was only natural to sneak into her beloved’s house and leave small recorders around his room. After all, she loved him so very much. 

Even if Seiji had decided he loved another, she would never resent him for it. She would continue to love him, because it was her love for herself that was most important—far, far, far more important than the feelings of the one she loved, Seiji.

That is Mika’s perception of the world. Her world. Without understanding this I would be inclined to think she uses Fe in her love for Seiji instead of Fi.

So far (though I have only thought of him, Izaya, Mikado, Vorona, Namie and Shinra) Shizuo seems to be the character who openly displays his cognitive functions quite obviously in the story. But you don’t only need knowledge of cognitive functions to type him. You need knowledge of his character. For example people have typed Shizuo as ISTJ and ISTP (including me in the past) because he seems to want to stick to tradition and he follows rules like keeping quiet in the library and being respectful to seniors, which is an ISTJ thing. They type him according to what he seems to be. 

Shizuo uses Ti. It may not be obvious even if you know about Ti. Ti is about internal logic and wanting to break things down to see how the parts form the whole. People who lead with Ti are systematic, objective, and logical. That doesn’t seem in line with Shizuo who always gets angry and emotional about things.

Only it does. Shizuo displays his functions most obviously when Izaya gets him involved. He clearly has intuition from that. What is the defining character motivation of Shizuo? It is to lead a peaceful life. This may seem idealistic but it actually comes from his logic. He wants to live a peaceful life because he hates violence and he hates Izaya because Izaya makes him use the violence he hates. There’s two internal logical ideas from Ti here.

- He hates violence because violence makes him a monster. If he lives a peaceful life he won’t become violent and so he won’t become a monster.

- He hates Izaya because Izaya makes him use the violence he hates. That may possibly mean Izaya hates him because he hates himself because he uses the violence he hates. And if Izaya is making him use something that makes him hate himself even more, Izaya must hate him.

Now in this, Shizuo ignored external logic. Izaya didn’t declare hatred for Shizuo at first. In fact he was rather impressed clapping for him and introducing himself. Logically there could have been a small possibility of getting along especially as Shinra introduced Shizuo to him. It could be because of Shinra that Izaya wanted to see his strength since Shizuo knows Shinra is always gushing about his strength. But Shizuo said at first sight he didn’t like him. His intuition probably alerted him of that. And his introverted thinking of violence making him a monster and making him hate himself processed it.

That’s how Ti works for Shizuo in not so obvious ways and it may be hard to see if you don’t have an understanding of Shizuo’s character.

Or actually, if you don’t have an understanding of Shizuo’s perception as a character. Especially since Ti is a subjective judging function. But there still needs to be understanding of a certain extent of Shizuo’s character to identify Ti in him. For example the most obvious example that Shizuo leads with Ti is his own logic. Everything is Izaya’s fault, if anyone mentions Izaya they must be trying to piss him off, if you throw the first blow you could have killed him you must have been trying to kill him and so you can’t complain if he kills you. 

The good thing is Shizuo is very honest and says exactly what he means "I’m not satisfied. I’m going to Shinjuku to kill Izaya.” “You hit me a blow to the head could kill someone you were trying to kill me so whatever I do to you you’ll have no problem right?” “…I don’t think so. Because I hate violence.” (In response to if he’s been in any fights) But the thing is often it’s not very obvious what he means! If you have no context or understanding of his character you’d assume he really hasn’t been in any fights like the reporter did. But if you do you’ll know that he has been in fights but he doesn’t acknowledge them as fights because he hates violence and to him and his logic they weren’t fights just exhibition of violence.

And it’s because of this that Izaya doesn’t understand him. Because Izaya doesn’t and doesn’t care to understand Shizuo’s logic. He either has his own logic or considers logic as facts. I’m leaning towards the latter. Izaya and Shizuo conflict because their logic clash.

Mikado is another tricky one (hey he is the best kind of trickster lol) he definitely has Fi. He quite obviously leads with Fi. But does he use Se or Si? Ne or Ni? When it gets confusing like this it’s helpful to go back to the foundation of his character. Mikado is an idealist. He’s driven by his ideals. He also wants to go back to the past. He is navigating the physical environment and changing it (Se) in order to bring things back to the way they were (Si) for his own ideal (Fi). His source is Fi and Si and his intuition helps him along. 

I claim no mbti or cognitive functions expertise, I’m just starting to learn and understand along the way. But I’m confident in my understanding of the characters. I think the reason why there are conflicting interpretations is either lack of mbti knowledge or lack of character understanding. It is not that you don’t understand cognitive functions. I’m sure there are a lot of people who understand cognitive functions much better than me, enough to confidently type characters. It is that you don’t understand the characters and the way they process information. You need both for typing and an integrated understanding of the character, the person.

Cognitive functions are not a filter. They are a lens. They are not a filter in which you use to remove what is unwanted in perception of the character. They are a lens through which you see the character and grow to understand them better. 

If there were two important things to remember in typing a character it would be source and perception. Source of the behavior and individual perception.

Keep reading

My notes from my presentation at the Trans Experience in Philosophy Conference

Goals:
● To rethink transgender politics by placing it within the context of colonization. ‘Queer’ decolonization studies focuses on the colonial erasure of pre­colonial gendering and sexuality, with some arguing a non­existent pre­colonial gendering and sexuality within some contexts of colonization. In taking these critiques seriously we must ask the question of what transgender and feminist politics within colonized spaces means with an understanding of these politics as developing from a eurocentric framework.

● To do this we must place Judith Butler and Monique Wittig in conversation with the tradition of Black and Indigenous Feminisms to better understand the role race plays in the construction of gender. A common Black Feminist critique of the Radical Feminist movement in addition to other Feminisms, is the unspoken assumption of the white sexually dimorphic body as universal female experience. Wittig spoke of the biological model for sex as part of the legacy of patriarchy naturalizing the social divisions between men and women when used by both gender science and feminism. The Combahee River Collective made a similar claim against radical feminism, coming from a racial lens, to describe biological essentialism as racialized and why they rejected it from the perspective of often not being considered to be ‘real women.’ We know from Judith Butler that there is no pre­discursive body, that to describe a body before discourse is to discursively construct it, and because of this biological sex is always already gender; the move towards essentializing sex is to discursively construct a category as pre­existing discourse. Gender is always already heterosexual, the symbolic categories of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ existing to naturalize divisions that exist to propagate itself through reproductive futurism that produces the gendered subject. But these gendered subjects, the assumption of universal whiteness by excluding the narrative of race from its conception, was always already racialized. Gender is a white nationalist politics that associates the purity of the nation with the reproduction of the white race and its subjects. This is a departure from the framework that there is a universal female experience based in the naturalism of sex. Instead, Maria Lugones’s framework of the Coloniality of Gender, or gender as part of the European colonization of the Americas and Africa is where we’ll base an analysis of gender from. The Coloniality of Gender describes the arising Enlightenment project of scientific naturalism replacing the theological basis for race. In this process, scientific naturalism seeks to explain previous theological justifications for race within biological terms ­ naturalizing social divisions within the pre­discursive. Maria Lugones argues that gender is part of this process within Enlightenment thought.The biologizing of gender cannot be separated from the biologizing of race. The Coloniality of Gender describes the supposed universal dimorphic sexed body as white. By placing attention to the context where Black and Indigenous Feminists were describing their gendered experiences as raracialized - that their womanhood is not a universal assumption but a contested space we can rethink gender politics as a racial politics. Coexisting with the assumption of the white sexed body as the universal female experience is the assumption of Blackness and Indigeneity as outside the symbolic integrity of gendered categories. The Coloniality of Gender is seen in the colonial encounter ­- the meeting space of the colonizer’s eurocentrism with the colonized subject. Maria Lugones describes this colonial encounter as not carrying forward the notion of a universal sexually dimorphic body. The colonial encounter instead produces racial subjects within what Lugones terms the ‘light’ and ‘dark’ side of gender. The dark side of gender is seen in the colonial literature describing Black and Indigenous persons as non­normatively sexed, as intersexed, disfigured, mutilated, excessive, as not dimorphic but rather masculine and feminine in ways unintelligible in the face of the model of sexual dimorphism as white. Hortense Spillers further problematizes the notion of a universal white sexed body by arguing that the violence of the Middle Passage and enslavement is an ungendering violence, and making visible that violence into the flesh. Her distinction between body and flesh is essential to an understanding of gender as racialized. Black Flesh being ungendered further proves the white sexed body is not universal. Black persons existing outside of the Enlightenment Humanist discourses shows us that the body belongs to the human while Black Flesh also belongs to the nonhuman. The flesh can never be part of the light side of gender, as dimorphic or heterosexual.This historical narrative of gender as racialized confirms much of what Black and Indigenous Feminism have already described starting with “Ain’t I A Woman?” Gender politics being based within accepting the narrative of the Coloniality of Gender answers this question for us: No. Sex is the naturalization of white supremacist racial politics, not existing within the body before discourse, and sex relying on the separation between the liberated subject position of the body versus the ungendering of the captured flesh.

● The implications this has for a transgender and feminist politics is immense. Returning to Butler, we know that in Gender Trouble she described that feminism produces the very subject it claims to be representing ­- the female subject. If we recognize the female, sex as always already gender then it becomes necessary as part of a decolonization effort to reject the female as the basis of feminism. If biological sex and thus the female arises from a context of colonization and slavery, then we can come to the conclusion that gender essentialism that places transgender people as outside can only exist because of colonization. Transmisogyny and the antiblack violence against Black Trans Women and colonial violence against transgender indigenous women is a direct consequence of the
biologizing of sex and race. The essentialist politics of Radical Feminism, based within the female subject as a revolutionary subject, is therefore a racial nationalism. Cissexism and transmisogyny are therefore racialized in its formation. There cannot be a female subject without the white sexed body. The main purpose of feminism as the liberation of women, which has often been exclusionary in both racial and trans contexts, cannot be a truly liberatory gender politics.

tyricnlannistcr  asked:

‘ And violence… makes violence. It makes nothing much at all. ‘

✦    PREACHER   SENTENCE    PROMPTS   !

❝ Violence makes FUN, imp, and that’s an incredibly important
   fact of life! So many people seem to have forgotten how to have
   FUN
these days that it almost saddens me!

                                 –I seem to be the only joyful spirit around! ❞

Let me just say this, to clear some things up: I don’t like violence. Violence doesn’t make me happy. I don’t think violence is fun. I grew up in a violent place, and I know how beautiful and wonderful peace is. I truly do. Like I said last night, two of my idols are Martin Luther King, Jr., and John Lewis; I understand the importance of non-violent action. I’m a man who believes in the power of reason.

But when civil disobedience does not work, when the rule of law fails people who are constantly pummeled by it, when reason escapes us, and when regular direct action or economic boycotts won’t make a difference, there is an unfortunate necessity to change tactics. I’m tired of seeing people killed by police because of the color of the skin, or due to police tactics that you wouldn’t find soldiers using in war zones. And when that happens, and somebody is killed, and the same thing happens – nothing – to the killer cop, I find it difficult to be reasonable.

Everything about this situation is tragic. Revolutions are tragic. But tyranny is absolutely unacceptable to me. And while I don’t like violence, I have been conditioned to fight back when necessary, and believe that other people should defend themselves and their rights when necessary, as well. Injustice is wrong. It cannot stand, ever, especially in this country. Human rights are not something that we should have to earn; human rights are inherent, for everybody, from birth. I don’t want violence, but I will fight for our rights and our people, if necessary. I’m not proud that this is what needs to be done, but I want justice.