well, I'll tell you what, I'll do my best not to pick fights about A Little Life, but it did make me laugh out loud to see Hanya Yanagihara taken to task for advocating for suicide by someone with "yankees kill yourselves" in their bio
not to be a little thorn in the side of the true anti-imperialist comrades of tumblr but do you think "yankees" in contexts like these includes Tejano people and Native people and Black people of African ancestry? 🤔
Depends. Only if they act as imperialist pests because no demographic can exempt you from that by virtue of identity. But trying to pin it as racism (in part against people of my own demographic outside of geopolitical boundries but who benefit from being imperial core citizens) is funny and dishonest.
It would do you well to remember nobody here was claiming the author advocates for anything, what was being discussed were an authors point of view of the treatment the "clinically depressed" and the point or lack thereof in such. Believing something and that being reflected in your work is hardly advocating for it. And saying "yankees kys" or "death to america" online in a website that consists mostly of neoliberal yanks will unfortunately do nobody any harm, little miss language police. Hardly prone to cause more harm than a bestseller book or the discussion it prompts, which is still not enough reason not to write it, read it or discuss, and so there are less reasons not to express hostility against the imperialist status quo in jest in case it might affect the mental stability of a random gringo (who might be racialized).
I didn't think your original reblog was in bad faith until this and therefore was worth disagreeing with but yankees will be yankees for sure
I’m going to say something that might sound crazy. Suicide and suicide attempts are sort of a societal alarm bell that says “something is very wrong with the environment this individual was in.” A living being choosing to take themselves out of existence is the most extreme act of distress there is. The state stepping in to silence this alarm bell by funneling suicidal people into a state sanctioned euthanasia program, normalizing this act through a socially accepted bureaucratic system, is not a good thing. It goes hand in hand with the state’s interest in maintaining the status quo at the expense of the population and the psychiatric industry’s interest in individualizing societal problems to extract profit and aid the existing system. It’s saying “there are no complaints here, just people with sick brains, carry on.”
There's something deeply disturbing to me about any individual thinking (not about themselves but about another person, or people in general) "death is the best and only solution" (unless terminally ill and in excruciating pain). But seeing it elevated to policy is absolutely terrifying.
That's why I was so disturbed by the booktok-darling novel A Little Life, whose entire premice is to offer a demonstration that yes, sometimes, suicide is the answer. To be clear, this isn't a conspiracy theory but the author's stated goal, which she has reiterated in multiple interviews. It is perfectly competently and even compellingly written, which only makes it more dangerous.
I don't know how we've reached a place where people think it makes sense to turn around, look at the people coming after you and go "Actually, it doesn't get better. You should just die."
Life is messy and complicated and at times excruciating. It's also absolutely worth sticking around for. Because it can be vibrant and comforting and exciting and exquisite. It's hard to keep sight of that in the hard times, but that's the point: hope is precious and hard to come by and hold onto. Don't let go of it if you can help it. Don't listen to peddlers of despair. And don't become one.
1) I am extremely disturbed by much of the Dekker story. I am not addressing Iris Dekker, her chronic illness, or my personal beliefs about biopolitical capital and a medical-industrial complex that would rather approve euthanasia than finance research into complex pain disorders.
2) Hanya Yanagihara has said that she was interested, artistically, in “creat[ing] a character who never gets better” and in exploring the limits of normative talk therapy for a character who has suffered as Jude has; she says that suicide is “devastating and often perplexing,” and that its meaning is relative and culturally determined; she does not advocate for suicide but recognizes the obvious truth that some people are suicidal and unable, in their contexts and with the tools at their disposal, to stop being suicidal.
this is a necessary thing to recognize so that we can change what is not working.
misrepresenting Yanagihara and her work without actually quoting her or providing evidence for your claims about her, while repeatedly using quite damaging language that directly mimics suicidal ideation, is not responsible suicide prevention work.
Her works are interesting, well written and compelling; however it does become obvious after a while that the authors justified disbelief in psychiatry is informed by her own belief that a worthy life is inherently impossible for some after they've been traumatized, not really by the fields shortcomings in acknowledging, investigating and treating symptoms as being responses to the environment. She quite literally advocates in a hopeful manner for the possibility of a professional sanction of euthanasia for psychiatric patients in this interview. (Along with some chauvinistic beliefs about women's interiority and societal privileges that lack self awareness for someone so capable.)
None of this means her works should not be read or discussed, in contrary her points of view should inspire discussion BECAUSE some of us find it dishonest and disagreeable or her novel becomes pointless unless used as propaganda of said views. Her work was never intended to be "suicidal prevention" work either so I'm not sure why you would bring that up.
The author of "A Little Life" on a stubborn lack of redemption
USA college conversation of two 22 year old students: Tyler cheated on me with Mackenzie from premed, this is going to ruin my chances of getting a good grade in my math exam to go to law school
Normal conversation between a 45 yo, a 20 yo and 18 yo college students in latam: Jesse they refused to raise the budget we need to go bomb the parliament tomorrow
Upper-middle-class Americans conceptualize and largely experience college as "13th-16th grade for 18-22 year old children," as well as a kind of secular rumspringa where 20 year olds have a bit of social license to dabble in things like sex, drugs, progressive politics, and queerness, as long as they put it aside when they "grow up." And because upper-middle-class Americans have a stranglehold on media, this is represented as the platonic ideal of what college is.
Regular working-class American college students are age-diverse (most are over 25), usually have jobs, often have children and/or spouses and/or other family responsibilities, and are there to pursue a specialized career.
Be careful saying this, though, because criticizing the upper-middle-class framework of college will get 900 people on this website calling you an anti-intellectual who hates the very concept of learning.
Neither demographic is organized or committed enough to do a direct action, though, that much is true. That's more a nationwide cultural flaw than anything college-specific.
American colleges becoming more accessible was at one point a big disruptive factor in our politics. SDS and the anti-war movement, the Weather Underground -- whole slews of groups organized around protest and militant direct action came out of that period, so whether we're measuring by efficacy or simple willingness to break the law, there was a time when the demographic of working class college students had some the chutzpah you're talking about. How we got from there to here is a long story that I don't know all of, but the need to react to dissidents coming out of colleges shaped the modern FAFSA system, the prison system, labor markets -- major structural changes occurred in the 70s, 80s and 90s that were all at least partly informed by a perceived need to gatekeep college education so it would continue to be a class marker instead of the tool for organizing that it very quickly became when it was briefly more egalitarian.
americans are so fucking stupid they will reply to a south american talking about university with this. like latin american regimes under western imperialist interventionism haven't violently repressed a thousand student movements through massacres. but um don't even lightheartedly critizise impcore media because you're being classist and you don't understand how bad the us gov is to amerikkkans :(
…..not even six hours later i got an offer of a well paying full time long-term job with free room and board in queens in nyc, allowing me independence and a way to escape an abusive situation and an unhealthy environment
likes charge reblogs cast, folks, this is the good luck post
the last time I reblogged this post right before I got a great job, in a permanent work-from-home position, with benefits, retirement, and a salary literally 3x what I was making before, doing something I really like.
of course the twitter neo-misogynists say that their favorite unstable and entitled trans woman character in euphoria is justified in hitting a woman because we'll "she" identifies as a trans sapphic woman and the woman being slapped was rude
something about love makes you look at things differently. the really important part of this is that any love will work. if you love blue you will see it everywhere. if you love soft things you will note the cat and the thread count and the moss. you will find your best friend in ugly greeting cards and haunted dolls and terrible fanfics and since they remind you of her they will be beautiful.
so you will love the world differently for having loved someone else. you will love a certain cereal or pokemon because of your brother. you will hear your favorite band's song playing in a random store and the love of it will make the whole world a little more golden. you will read a poem so many times the words become their own creatures. you will find you cannot listen to certain music without thinking of your favorite show.
this velveteen rabbit transformation occurs. the love does not stop, it echoes.
I can’t express how much I love their relationship.
Usopp, abandoned by his father and losing his mother to illness, never allowed himself to sink into apathy. He searched so desperately for reasons to live that he invented them. Delusion became a part of him.
Kaya's parents had died long ago from an illness on Syrup Island, leaving her in the care of a stranger disguised as a butler. A butler who gave her neither attention nor warmth — only slowly poisoned her body and soul. Reality was an even stronger poison.
Usopp’s lies, from which he skillfully wove imaginary stories, saved him from depression and saved her from death. He visited her and she waited for him.
In the end, she let him sail away on a ship that reminded of what mattered most — family, their treasure, dear Merry. She let him go with new friends who became his crew. That day, he gave her his first kiss and promised to return when the Liar Usopp became the truly brave warrior of the sea that she already saw in him.
Every day, looking out at the sea’s horizon from the village shore, she squints against the sun and thinks of him, while he, writing in his logbook, thinks of her—elbows tucked beneath herself, wishing she could listen.
something something the only real beneficiaries of the patriarchal gender system are the ruling class something something men being pushed to be stoic when they have historically made up the majority of the labour force and will therefore be the main subjects of exploitation and alienation is no accident something something marxist-feminism
This is a very flawed analysis. The "main subjects of exploitation" are the proletariat, and that includes the women exploited for reproductive labor, the women exploited to be a commodity in the sex trade, the women exploited for manual labor and yet excluded from being recognized as part of the workforce. Also bourgeois values like stoicism are not univeral gender roles, views regarding men's emotionality varies greatly even while the exploitation and violence against women encouraged within the members of the same social classes does not.
Made these practical lists for overthinkers who spiral into analysis paralysis (aka me). Sometimes you don’t need more reflection, you just need something to do.
People don't realize how tightly censored porn is. I mentioned that you can't drink alcohol in porn to a girl yesterday and she seemed shocked.
Everyone knows that you can't mention family members without adding in the word "step" (and on some platforms even step won't save you), but like yesterday I got told that I can't even say "stuffed animal" in my scene description. I had to change it to plushie to distance myself from the specter of beastiality. Club Penguin type shit.
If you ban the use of alcohol in porn, then you know that porn encourages rape. If you have to add "step" to any family member, then you know that porn encourages incest. If you change the word to "plushie", then you know that porn encourages underage rape.
Just because you aren't saying it outright doesn't mean that pornography does not encourage these things. Just because you aren't saying it outright doesn't mean that you're not condoning it. It's simply another way to placate people into accepting pornography as though it doesn't actively ignore women's and girls' discomfort and fears about the world around them.
i caught a peep of the War on Anal™️ on twitter. this is what i have to say. idk how formatting works on here anymore but this is long lol.
the “sex positivity” and “sexual liberation” and “sexual freedom” ideology has always championed unrestricted sexual access to and rape of women and children. it has always maintained a strong pro-rape current, a movement that reduces women to public property, a view that venerates male orgasms over female personhood, and a celebration of sexual violence against women and children. it is an attack on feminists who have agitated for any kind of sexual ethics that sought to limit male sexual entitlement, from age of consent laws, to marital rape laws, and so on.
industrial patriarchy had to adapt to women attaining the legal, social, and political ability to deny men sexual access to them, and “sexual liberation” is that patriarchal adaptation—the abuse, violence, and degradation of women is fine if the women themselves desire it and we are discouraged from interrogating this desire and who benefits from it.
we must not think of sexual liberation or “sex positivity” as an enemy to patriarchal religion—they are simply rivals. the sexual liberationist truly hates the so-called “puritan” not for any genuine moral reason, but because the “puritan” has the potential to say no to men. nevermind the fact that the puritan movement was not anti-sex and the sex positive advocates are misusing the term. the term’s utility to the sex positive movement is that it can be used as a slur to demean women who want a type of sexual ethics that disentangles violence from sex. the patriarchal theologist hates the fact that women can say no to men. they both see women’s boundaries as a threat. they see a sexual ethics that opposes violence against women as a threat. the dressing may be different, but the skeleton is the same. they are two opposing male supremacist ideologies vying for dominance. feminists reject both.
wilhelm reich, the godfather of this ideology, experimented on and sexually abused children, pat califia supported incest, child sexual abuse, and sexually abused a woman, gayle rubin extensively supported child sexual abuse and child pornography, the latter two were responsible for the spread of BDSM and its foundational links to queer theory, sadism was named after marquis de sade, a notorious rapist who tortured his victims. i could go on forever lol. these are some of the main architects of sexual liberation. look into any of these thinkers or most male psychologists who sought to naturalize women’s sexual subordination and you will uncover biological determinism—specifically related to the notions that “sex is a need,” that men’s sexual entitlements are natural, and women’s sexual inferiority and their desire to be dominated is natural. the notion that consent means a sex act cannot be critiqued, that consent purifies a sex act, no matter how violent, lies at the foundation of a patriarchal sex culture.
this critique isn’t limited to any one sex act, either. the social context that drives and encourages women to engage in anal, blowjobs, and choking is certainly not neutral under this rotten culture and should be critiqued from a feminist perspective. but you’ll find that feminists eviscerated the “normal” heterosexual act of intercourse (PIV) and how women are treated in it with much harsher terms than any other sex act lol. don’t allow the pro-rape advocates to call you a “puritan” because you’ve taken exception to the most normative sex act. the feminist critique takes everything to task, especially intercourse.
a lot of women and girls are taking their blinders off but are not reading the extensive feminist literature on this subject. dworkin’s “intercourse” is a good starting point for a feminist critique, but you’ll also have to read stuff that will piss you off and disgust you, like some of the thinkers i listed above lol. it’s a horrible stain on human history in my humble opinion. we can only achieve a truly ethical sex culture when this tumor of an ideology is excised, in conjunction with its main political rival, patriarchal religion.
idk how formatting works on this site any more lol under the read more i have citations for my polemic if you wanna look!
here are a couple of excerpts from a sexual freedom advocate, rene guyon, in 1939. this is from his book, “sexual freedom.” see anything familiar?
women who impose sexual boundaries, limitations and sexual ethics are rejecting their “natural” position as sex objects to be used by men—we call this biological determinism. a rejection of men’s sexual desires is viewed as “anti-sex.” the concept of sex itself is conflated with male entitlement, so if you object to male entitlement, sexual liberationists will likely call you “anti-sex.” they have been doing this for over a century. don’t let them. keep your feet on their necks lol.
again, women who deny men’s “natural right” to sexually access women are viewed as aberrations that require corrective recalibration. they simply don’t understand their “natural role” as objects. women who don’t embody their “natural role” as objects of male desire are rejecting womanhood (!!!), and rejecting womanhood is an attack on nature, and we must not attack nature, because it benefits men, of course. society has been panicking about women who abstain from heterosexual sex for decades, because our ability to say no is a serious threat to male supremacy.
as a result, celibate women, women who simply do not seek male partnership regardless of their sexual identity, and lesbians are viewed as insufficiently female or un-woman (shoutout to monique wittig) and thus a threat to nature. this is why both the left and right freaked out when enough women were mumbling about a potential sex strike a few years ago lol. this is why you’ll find that both sides will chastise women for low birth rates. speaking of low birth rates, let us turn to page 267…
do i even need to break this one down lol bro’s saying that women who get too many rights, women who go into male-dominated fields, and women want equality are losing sexual appeal to men. women who limit men’s sexual access to them are neglecting their “natural role” as mothers, and the birth rate is falling as a result! this was published in 1939! nothing is new. also, a bit of early “divine feminine” coping—the idea that women who arouse men are the ones with the real power, right, right? sound familiar?
here, this entire passage is a quote from gaston rageot, a male writer. do i even need to break this down lol.
feminism is a rejection of human nature. both sexual liberationists and patriarchal religion take umbrage with our ability to limit or restrict men’s “natural” entitlements, because men’s ability to sexually subjugate women is integral to their social status as men, and receiving their subjugation is what makes you a proper woman. kill it all with fire lol. critical support to the hysterical gen z puriteens.
the thing is that misogyny is actually gender affirming for men and fundamentally always will as long as men and women are considered to be real categories
jbbartram-illu
prguitarman
pixelskylines
theartofmadeline
izzy806
dailybridgerton
turnnoffyourmind
