Free Folks beyond the wall

they say this is where the modern secret society begins.

[freefolksbtw]

The Script of Patriarchy

It’s Not Men vs. Women — it’s Patriarchy vs. Feminism

By Ishwari Nitalikar @existential-crisis-only

When we speak of patriarchy, it’s often framed as a top-down structure that oppresses women while privileging men. But this view is incomplete. I’ve come to see patriarchy not just as an external system, but as a set of internalized scripts — scripts that contour the male psyche in subtle yet profound ways. This is not just about cultural norms around stoicism or dominance. This is about attachment trauma, emotional dysregulation, ego fragility, and the way patriarchal values hijack both psychological development and evolutionary traits. This essay seeks to uncover the deeper psychological impacts patriarchy has on men — particularly the ones we don’t notice because we’ve been taught to see them as “natural.”

I. Evolutionary Mismatch: From Adaptation to Alienation

Evolutionary psychology tells us that traits and behaviors once adaptive can become maladaptive in mismatched environments. In ancestral contexts, traits associated with masculinity — competition, dominance, in-group defense — may have increased survival odds. But patriarchy freezes these behaviors into rigid ideals, requiring men to perform them in every social setting, regardless of relevance or utility.

This has led to heightened male reactivity to perceived status threats. Men are more likely to interpret ambiguous social cues as challenges, correlating with aggression and defensiveness. Patriarchy magnifies this reactive tendency, turning what might have once been a survival advantage into a barrier to intimacy and self-regulation.

II. Attachment and the “Emotionally Starved” Boy

Attachment theory reveals how patriarchy shapes emotional development early in life. Infant boys are, counterintuitively, more emotionally expressive than girls. Yet they receive less physical affection, less verbal soothing, and are more likely to be left to self-soothe — often under the guise of “toughening them up.”

This can lead to avoidant attachment styles, where vulnerability feels dangerous and expressing emotional need leads to shame. Over time, this fosters alexithymia — difficulty identifying and describing feelings — which is disproportionately observed in men. What looks like emotional detachment is often early relational trauma, misread as personality.

III. The Ego Armor: Male Identity as Compensation

Men are not just discouraged from emotional depth — they are actively rewarded for constructing a performative version of themselves. Masculinity becomes a fragile identity structure: based not on presence or internal coherence, but on performance, productivity, and control.

Psychologically, this is contingent self-esteem: an ego reliant on external validation. Any perceived failure — whether financial, romantic, or social — doesn’t just feel like a loss; it feels like an existential threat. The result is often narcissistic injury, emotional dysregulation, or withdrawal masked as independence.

IV. Dysregulated Nervous Systems and Somatization

In men, psychological distress often shows up somatically — in the body rather than through verbal expression. Because emotions like sadness or fear are socially policed, especially in childhood, the nervous system learns to bypass them. The fight-or-flight system stays activated far longer than it should.

Over time, this creates patterns of chronic stress: hypertension, gastrointestinal problems, fatigue, and sleep disorders. Clinically, many men present with these issues while describing themselves as “fine.” Patriarchy trains the male body to mute signals of vulnerability, even when those signals are critical to well-being.

V. Eroticism and the Psychosexual Double Bind

Patriarchal narratives around male sexuality are both hyper-visible and deeply misleading. Men are expected to be dominant, unfeeling, and constantly aroused — yet not emotionally invested. This reduces sex to performance and control, while disconnecting it from emotional intimacy.

Many men use sex to access emotional closeness — often without realizing it. But because emotional need is stigmatized, especially in men, this desire is rerouted through conquest or compulsive behavior. When eroticism becomes the only socially accepted form of connection, sexual dysfunction, addiction, and loneliness often follow.

VI. The Tragedy of Male Friendship and Relational Deprivation

Developmental psychology shows that boys are capable of deep emotional friendships. But by mid-adolescence, these bonds are often stripped of intimacy due to homophobic or hypermasculine conditioning. Boys are taught to fear emotional closeness with other boys — framing it as “weak” or suspicious.

By adulthood, many men have lost the ability to maintain emotionally honest friendships. Their romantic partners often become their only source of intimacy — placing an unhealthy emotional burden on those relationships. This emotional isolation is a risk factor for depression, addiction, and suicide.

VII. Social Death: Nonconforming Men and the Loss of Belonging

Men who don’t conform to dominant ideals — queer men, disabled men, trans men, neurodivergent men — often experience a form of social erasure. They are either excluded from full participation in patriarchal masculinity, or expected to overperform it to prove legitimacy.

This produces a constant state of psychological tension. Men on the margins are often forced to navigate conflicting pressures: to appear strong, to suppress pain, to disown softness. These conditions can foster internalized shame, chronic anxiety, and a distorted sense of self.

Conclusion: It’s Not Men vs. Women — it’s Patriarchy vs. Feminism

What this exploration makes clear is that patriarchy doesn’t only oppress women — it fundamentally distorts the emotional, relational, and psychological development of men. It builds rigid identities, promotes emotional illiteracy, and punishes vulnerability. But crucially, this is not a zero-sum equation. The damage men experience under patriarchy is not caused by women or by feminism — it is the result of a system that uses control, dominance, and fear to organize human life.

The narrative of “men vs. women” is itself a patriarchal tool, designed to obscure the real conflict: patriarchy vs. feminism. Feminism, contrary to how it’s often misrepresented, is not about the reversal of oppression — it’s about dismantling the conditions that produce oppression in the first place. Feminism demands that women be seen as full people. But it also offers men the radical possibility of being whole people — emotionally fluent, relationally connected, and psychologically integrated.

Liberation, then, is not about one group winning over another. It is about recognizing that both men and women have been confined — differently, but deeply — by the same system. Patriarchy is not the natural state of being. It is a script. And like all scripts, it can be rewritten.

[freefolksbtw]

The Age of Desire: Pornography and the Modern Saga of Liberation

Perhaps none of our ancestors, even combined, have seen as many naked bodies as we do through our screens in just two minutes.

By Arnav Renge @malevolentlymaverick — 

The sheer frequency of visual exposure to nudity and sexuality has become so normalized that we hardly question it anymore. But the repercussions of this shift cannot be dismissed. The changes it has triggered in personal identity, social attitudes, and psychological orientations deserve closer attention. A comparative study between those who regularly consume explicit content and those who abstain could yield fascinating insights into how this trait manifests in personality, behavior, and social interaction.

Pornography has arguably played the most pivotal role in the ongoing wave of sexual liberation; both in terms of individual autonomy and the broader cultural acceptance of sexuality. It has fueled not only a rise in consumers but also a parallel increase in creators, catalyzing the development of a massive industry around sexual content. This marks an irreversible rupture in our civilizational narrative, a radical turn in how societies view, commodify, and express sexuality.

To consider pornography as a boundary-marker of individual and civilizational freedom is not far-fetched. It represents one of the clearest distinctions between the so-called First World and Third World societies; specifically in terms of sexual liberation. The visibility, acceptance, and commodification of sex in media directly correlate with a society’s stance on freedom of expression and bodily autonomy.

One of the most intriguing developments in recent years is the emergence of influencers, athletes, and public figures venturing into adult content creation platforms like OnlyFans. This shift speaks volumes about the evolving social and economic dynamics. Acts that would have invited moral condemnation a century ago are now accepted or even celebrated. Their decisions can largely be attributed to the substantial monetary gains such platforms offer. And this brings us back to the crux of the matter: consumer demand. It is this insatiable consumer appetite that has propelled the commercial viability of pornography, making it a central storyline in the contemporary saga of liberation.

The economic freedom that the porn industry offers to women is significant. It remains one of the few industries where power dynamics and pay scales often favor female performers. Women generally have the liberty to choose their partners and negotiate the terms of their work. In mainstream heterosexual pornography, the average female performer earns 50% to 100% more than her male counterpart; making it a rare field where the gender pay gap operates in reverse.

Delving deeper, it becomes imperative to observe the behavioral shifts in pornography consumers. While there may not yet be definitive research on whether regular exposure to porn correlates with introversion or extroversion, one notable trait seems to emerge: egalitarianism. Studies suggest that consumers of porn tend to be more open to gender equality, especially in professional settings. Interestingly, some feminists have supported pornography on these very grounds; arguing that porn consumers are more likely to accept women in positions of power, both inside and outside the home.

As Anna Span once noted, a U.S. Department of Justice study comparing states with varying levels of broadband access found that in the four states with the highest access, rape and attempted rape decreased by 27%, while the four states with the lowest access saw a 53% increase during the same period. Correlation does not imply causation, but the implications are worth considering.

It’s worth noting that some aesthetic philosophers have defended pornography as a form of art. While philosophers do tend to extend the label of art generously, there’s merit to this view. Pornography undeniably explores the hidden, the forbidden, and the taboo. It offers a mirror to our desires and exposes the unspoken dynamics of power, vulnerability, and fantasy

We must always remember: what is deemed unsophisticated by traditional elite or conservative standards; be it pornography, profanity, or vulgar satire; has historically served as a potent medium for protest. During the French Revolution, pornography was not merely titillating; it was revolutionary. It explored themes of sexual freedom, contraception, and mocked the moral hypocrisies of royalty, clergy, and aristocracy. The working class produced content that ridiculed the establishment, using sexuality as a form of rebellion.

A similar pattern can be observed today, as individuals abandon traditional careers to pursue adult content creation as a form of sexual and financial emancipation. It is not simply about arousal; it is about resistance, about reclaiming control over one’s body, one’s choices, and one’s voice in a world that continues to police expression.

Despite our unprecedented access to learning, business, and communication tools, ours is also a generation teetering on the edge of nihilism. We aspire greatly yet often question everything; values, traditions, norms of purity and impurity. We have more content to consume than any previous era, yet perhaps fewer anchoring beliefs. Movements such as the no-bra campaign, the normalization of public discourse around sex, and the surge in voluntary adult content creation are indicative of broader cultural shifts. But amid this transformation, we must ask: what regulatory mechanisms should evolve alongside these trends? What kind of relational paradigms; emotional, psychological, and sexual; are we ushering in?

Pornography remains a crucial lens through which we can examine modern civilization. It is a terrain of paradoxes; of freedom and exploitation, art and commerce, rebellion and conformity. As we move forward, we are ought to study this phenomenon critically but must also engage with it honestly, ethically, and contextually; acknowledging both its liberating potential and its deeper implications for society.

[freefolksbtw]

The Façade of Feminism in Bollywood

Unpacking Pseudo-Feminism in Indian Cinema, By Kanak Kadam

Feminism is a social and political movement that advocates for women’s right and equality, challenging patriarchal norms power structures that perpetuate gender-based discrimination.

Pseudo-feminism on the other hand, refers to the superficial or tokenistic portrayal of feminist ideals, often used as a marketing gimmick to appeal to a wider audience without truly challenging existing power structures.

Indian cinema has long been a reflection of the society we live in, with movies often serving as a catalyst for conversations around social issues. In recent years, Bollywood has attempted to tackle feminism, but not all films have succeeded in portraying it accurately. Some movies have fallen prey to pseudo-feminism, perpetuating stereotypes and reinforcing patriarchal norms under the guise of empowerment.

The problem with pseudo-feminism

Pseudo-feminist films like Ki & Ka and Sultan often miss the mark. Ki & Ka inverts gender roles but relies on body shaming and stereotypes, while Sultan undermines female athletes by emphasizing motherhood as a woman’s ultimate role. These films may claim to champion women’s rights, but they reinforce outdated ideas of gender.

How Bollywood gets it wrong

Bollywood’s portrayal of feminism is watered down by patriarchal sensibilities, tokenistic representations, and a focus on entertainment value over meaningful social commentary. Some common pitfalls include:

· Perpetuating patriarchal norms and traditional gender roles: Films like “Mother India” (1957) and “Kuch Kuch Hota Hai” reinforce traditional gender roles, depicting women as nurturing figures or objects of trade and barter.

· Objectifying women through item songs or exploitative narratives: Item songs and films like “The Dirty Picture” and “Fashion” objectify women, showcasing them as tantalizing techniques for luring male audiences. These narratives often prioritize male gaze over feminist potential.

· Tokenistic representations of strong female leads without substance: Movies like “Mardaani” and “NH10” feature strong female leads, but focus more on action and entertainment value than social commentary or change. These portrayals can come across as superficial attempts at feminism.

· Male-centric narratives that undermine feminist themes: Films like “Chak De! India” and “Ek Ladki Ko Dekha Toh Aisa Laga” features female protagonists, but ultimately revolve around male characters, undermining the scope of feminism in these plots.

· Reducing women to marginal roles: Big budget films like “Brahmastra” and “Pathaan” feature dynamic action sequences and epic-scale heroes, but relegate female characters to marginal positions, often limiting them to romantic subplots or comic relief.

· Glorifying traditional roles: Some films portray women as carriers of tradition, reinforcing the idea that a woman’s value lies in her ability to uphold cultural and social norms.

· Pseudo-feminism: Portraying feminist women as those who drink, smoke or engage in reckless behaviour, implying that these actions are synonymous with independence and empowerment. Films like “Cocktail” and “Do Patti” often depict women who drink and party as ‘liberated’ or ‘modern’, reinforcing a narrow and superficial understanding of feminism.

Movies that get it right

On the other hand, some Bollywood films have successfully portrayed feminism in a nuanced and impactful way. These movies:

· Dil Dhadakne Do: Showcased the importance of women being decision-makers in their own lives, with Sunny Gill (Farhan Akhtar) educating Ayesha’s husband on the true essence of feminism.

· English Vinglish: Highlighted the struggles of homemakers and the importance of self-discovery, as Sridevi’s character, Shashi, finds her own path to empowerment.

· Queen: Portrayed the journey of self-discovery and independence of a young woman, Rani (Kangana Ranaut), left at the altar by her fiancé.

· Piku: Featured a strong, opinionated woman, Piku (Deepika Padukone), unapologetically speaking her mind and navigating her life choices.

· Lipstick under My Burkha: Explored the desires and struggles of four women, breaking the perception of women as chaste or unaware of their sexuality.

The way forward

While Bollywood has made progress in portraying feminism, it’s essential to recognize and critique pseudo-feminist narratives. By acknowledging these shortcomings, filmmakers can strive to create more nuanced and impactful stories that truly empower women and promote gender equality. Ultimately, Indian cinema has the power to shape societal attitudes and spark meaningful conversations. It’s time for filmmakers to harness this potential and create a more inclusive and equitable world.

[freefolksbtw]

Dreams, Drive & Disruption: How Millennials and Gen Z are Rewriting India's Future

Millennials and Gen Z are not just shaping the future of India, they are the future. From rejecting traditional careers to leading digital revolutions, here's how they're changing everything.

By Juie Bele

India is experiencing a generational shift like never before. At the center of it all? Millennials and Gen Z, young, bold, and unapologetically redefining what it means to live, work, and dream.

India’s Youthquake:

India isn’t just a young country in spirit, it’s young by numbers too. With over 65% of the population under 35, the transformation we’re witnessing is massive, visible, and unstoppable. At the core of this revolution are Millennials and Gen Z, two generations rewriting the rules on work, ambition, money, relationships, and identity. They’re not asking for change, they are the change.

A New Kind of Dream:

The old Indian dream was simple, government job, city flat, family, and early retirement. Safe, predictable, respected. But that’s not the dream anymore. Today’s youth are chasing.

· Passion over pressure

· Freedom over familiarity

· Purpose over prestige

They’re building brands from bedrooms, freelancing with international clients, launching startups before turning 25. They’re making bold, self-defined choices, driven by meaning, not just money

Careers without a Corporate Ladder:

Millennials questioned the system, Gen Z rebuilt it. Gone is the formula of engineer, MBA, corporate manager. In its place? A new generation of:

· Creators on Instagram and YouTube

· Designers freelancing from remote Indian towns

· Coders trained via online bootcamps

· Writers running successful newsletters and blogs

In this world, skills beat degrees. Portfolios matter more than resumes. Platforms like YouTube, Substack, and Behance are the new career springboards. The gatekeepers are gone, the gates are open.

Not Just Jobs, Journeys:

Today’s careers aren’t ladders, they’re winding paths of discovery. Young Indians are choosing,

· Remote work over rigid routines

· Renting over buying, for flexibility

· Freelancing over 9 to 5, for freedom

· Side-hustles over side-tables, for self-expression

They’re not unstable, they’re intentional. And they’re choosing experiences over possessions, meaning over monotony.

Financially Fierce:

This isn’t your parent’s version of money management. Young Indians today are:

· Investing in mutual funds, index stocks, and crypto learning about personal finance on Instagram and YouTube

· Managing multiple income streams, from affiliate marketing to remote gigs

· They’re delaying marriage, avoiding debt, and rejecting outdated financial timelines.

For them, financial freedom is power, and they’re claiming it early.

Socially Conscious, Digitally Native:

Gen Z was raised online, but they use the internet for more than just memes. They’re

· Advocating mental health and ending the stigma around therapy

· Challenging inequality, gender, caste, sexuality, climate, and more calling out injustice, both online and offline

· Activism isn’t a side hobby, it’s woven into their identity.

From Instagram infographics to climate protests, they’re showing us what 21st-century citizenship looks like.

But the Tension is real:

Behind the cool jobs and viral posts, there is still; parental pressure to pick “safe” careers, mental health struggles in a hyper-digital, hustle-heavy world, uncertainty in a job market shaped by AI and automation, Loneliness and burnout, even in this hyperconnected age.

But the response is different. They’re talking openly, seeking help, prioritizing therapy, boundaries, and community. Vulnerability is no longer a weakness, it’s a superpower.

What This Means for India:

It means India’s future isn’t coming, it’s already here:

· The 20-year-old launching an ed-tech startup

· The small-town designer working with a client in Berlin

· The student podcasting about mental health in Hindi

· The young couple choosing to travel instead of settling down. They’re not rejecting tradition for the sake of it, they’re refining it, rebuilding it, and reimagining it. This isn’t rebellion. This is reinvention.

If you’re a young Indian reading this, keep going. Your dreams are valid. Your journey is powerful. Your choices are yours. And if you’re not from this generation, start listening. Because the future is speaking, and it’s speaking in their voice.

[freefolksbtw]

She is Art; How Your Art Reflects Your Personality

That little tagline, “She is Art,” is kind of my way of saying that being an artist isn’t just about making stuff. It’s part of who I am

By Radhika Bute

You see, this doodle isn’t just a bunch of random scribbles. It’s like a little frame of my brain and my heart. All those vibrant colors? That’s just me being my usual bubbly self. I’m definitely one of those people who loves a good laugh and sees the world in bright hues.

And the stuff I’ve doodled around my little caricature? That’s all the things that make me, well, me. You’ve got the logos for illustrator and Photoshop because I’m a bit of a design geek. Then there’s pani puri — you know, that amazing Indian street food? Yeah, I’m totally obsessed.

And because I’m a big kid at heart, I had to add in some of my favorite characters like Luffy from One Piece and the super cool Spider-Gwen. Oh, and to top it all off, there are sunny sunflowers and a cheerful rainbow because, honestly, who doesn’t love those?

I even gave this little piece a title: “Your Art Reflects Your Personality.” It’s kind of my artistic mantra, you know? As an artist, I really believe that whatever we create — the colors we choose, the shapes we draw, the subjects that pop into our heads — it all comes from somewhere deep inside us. It’s like our personality spills out onto the paper or the screen.

Think about it. Someone who’s maybe a bit more serious or thoughtful might use darker colors and more structured forms in their art. Someone really gentle might go for soft pastels and flowing lines. For me, it’s all about that explosion of joy and quirkiness. That’s why I went for those happy, energetic colors. They just feel like me.

That little tagline, “She is Art,” is kind of my way of saying that being an artist isn’t just about making stuff. It’s part of who I am. And I think that’s true for a lot of artists. Our art becomes an extension of ourselves, a way to show the world what’s going on inside our heads and hearts.

So, the next time you see a piece of art that really grabs you, take a closer look. Think about the colors, the style, what the artist has chosen to include. You might be getting a little peek into their world, their passions, and their personality. And in my own colorful, doodled world, “She is Art” is just a little piece of my happy, quirky self that I wanted to share.

[rrouhi]

healing happens in circles, not lines. you will return to old places with new eyes.

[honorarytheyfab]

(cw: sexual assault) the pedophile -as it is understood outside of academic circles- is a mythical creature. the idea that a complete stranger who kidnaps and sexually assaults kids is their biggest threat is absolutely insane; not one case of CSA (child sexual assault) in a hundred looks like that. CSA is committed almost uniformly by adults in a preestablished position of authority (such as family, family friends, clergy, or teachers) and in a way that a victim who doesn't know what sexual assault looks like will be left unsure what happened to them. without knowing concretely how sex and sexuality works, would you be able to tell the difference between molestation and the various other forms of unwanted physical touch and abuse kids are regularly subjected to? would it even seem that different? but parenthood and the submission of youth to adults as institutions are threatened by the reality of CSA. adults need to justify their ownership of children through an imagined outside threat constantly held at bay through their diligence. the truth - that putting yourself in such a position of authority over children directly enables abuse (including sexual abuse) - is thrown aside.

[honorarytheyfab]

"parent's rights" activists would never formulate it this way, but when you argue that children must be utterly subjugated to their parents above all else, you're arguing that parents should have a state-enforced monopoly on sexually assaulting their children. what else would such an ideology practically result in?

[memecucker]

porn addiction is similar to IQ in that it doesnt exist but if you wanna incorporate the ideas into your fetishes go for it

[emeraldmemoir]

No wonder everyone’s addicted to porn yall be telling yourselves the problem doesn’t even exist!

[read-marx-and-lenin]

"No wonder everyone has imbalanced humors, you don't even believe in basic bloodletting!"

Do you believe that the criticisms levied against the concept of "porn addiction" by psychologists are merely an excuse to indulge in pornography?

[freefolksbtw]

Pathologizing Womanhood: How Freud’s Gender Bias Shaped Psychoanalytic Theory

Uncovering the patriarchal roots of Freud’s theory — By Ishwari Nitalikar @existential-crisis-only

Sigmund Freud is widely regarded as the father of psychoanalysis, a thinker whose exploration of the unconscious mind revolutionized modern psychology. However, embedded within his groundbreaking work lies a troubling reality: Freud’s conception of femininity was not merely reflective of the patriarchal attitudes of his time but was central to the very structure of his psychoanalytic theory. Freud’s ideas about psychosexual development, the female psyche, and the role of women in society portrayed women as lacking, irrational, and defined in relation to men. This essay argues that Freud’s gender bias was not incidental but foundational to his psychoanalytic framework, profoundly shaping his theories on development, pathology, and gender roles. By critically examining key Freudian concepts such as penis envy, hysteria, and his responses to female patients and critics, it becomes evident that Freud’s views on women were not only limiting but actively harmful to both the theory and practice of psychoanalysis.

Freud’s Gendered Theory of Development

At the heart of Freud’s psychoanalysis lies the theory of psychosexual development, which includes stages where gender and sexuality are central to the formation of identity. Freud’s ideas about femininity were rooted in the notion of absence — specifically, the absence of the male sex organ. In Freud’s model, when a young girl realizes she lacks a penis, she develops what he termed “penis envy.” This, according to Freud, instills a sense of inferiority and leads to a psychological crisis. Freud (1933) argued that girls ultimately resolve this crisis by transferring affection to their fathers, which he viewed as a compensation for their perceived lack. In his own words, Freud described women as “the dark continent of psychology,” suggesting that the female psyche was mysterious, irrational, and fundamentally different from the male norm (Freud, 1933).

For Freud, the male was the default, and femininity was defined only by what it lacked. This approach cast female development as a deviation from the male path and reinforced a framework in which women’s emotional expressiveness, dependency, and sexual desires were seen as inferior or problematic (Mitchell, 1974). As feminist psychoanalyst Juliet Mitchell (1974) pointed out, Freud’s theories were shaped by the “bourgeois conventions” of his time, which defined women primarily as mothers, wives, or patients, and almost always in relation to men.

Clinical Practice: The Case of Dora

Freud’s treatment of female patients often reflected this male-centered framework, and one of the most revealing examples is the case of “Dora” (real name: Ida Bauer), a young woman who sought Freud’s help in 1900.

Dora was brought to Freud by her father, who was concerned about her emotional distress, which included breathing difficulties, coughing fits, and fainting spells — symptoms then commonly labeled as “hysteria.” Dora also described emotional tension at home, particularly involving a close family friend, Herr K., who had made unwanted sexual advances toward her. Dora rejected these advances, but her family appeared to downplay her concerns, and Freud was brought in to address what her father saw as psychological symptoms rather than a response to real trauma.

In his analysis, Freud interpreted Dora’s symptoms not as reactions to the harassment she experienced but as evidence of repressed sexual desire for Herr K. He argued that Dora unconsciously wanted these advances and was experiencing guilt or inner conflict as a result. Freud focused on dream analysis and sexual symbolism to support his interpretations, despite Dora’s repeated objections. When she ultimately terminated the therapy early, Freud framed it as a failure of treatment — on her part.

What is striking is how Freud dismissed Dora’s version of events in favor of his own theoretical framework. Initially, Freud had proposed that neuroses could be caused by childhood sexual abuse, in what he called the “seduction theory.” However, he later abandoned this idea, suggesting instead that such accounts were fantasies rather than memories of real events. Critics like Jeffrey Masson (1984) have argued that this shift was influenced by Freud’s reluctance to confront the prevalence of abuse among his well-off patients. Rather than risk alienating his professional peers or undermining his theory, Freud reinterpreted trauma as fantasy — effectively silencing his female patients.

Dora’s case exemplifies how Freud’s clinical practice often reflected a bias that prioritized theory over the lived experiences of women. His unwillingness to believe Dora’s account or see her symptoms as legitimate responses to actual events reveals a pattern of minimizing female voices, which became embedded in psychoanalytic thinking.

Rejection of Female Psychoanalysts

Freud’s circle included a few prominent women, but he often disregarded or dismissed those who challenged his views on gender. One of the most notable was Karen Horney, a German psychoanalyst who rejected Freud’s idea of penis envy. Horney (1939) argued that women’s frustration stemmed not from biological lack but from the unequal social power held by men. In response, she introduced the concept of “womb envy,” suggesting that men might experience their own insecurities about women’s reproductive capabilities and social roles.

Freud, however, did not accept Horney’s critique, and his rejection of alternative perspectives revealed an unwillingness to revise his theories in light of gendered social dynamics. This resistance extended even to women within his inner circle. For example, Anna Freud — his daughter and a pioneer in child psychology — largely adhered to her father’s ideas. While she made important contributions to psychoanalysis, particularly in child development, her theoretical allegiance likely reflected the intellectual dominance Freud maintained within the psychoanalytic community (Roudinesco, 2016). The fact that even those closest to him had to work within his male-centered framework speaks to the depth of its influence.

Cultural Legacy of Freud’s Gender Bias

Freud’s gendered assumptions have had a long-lasting effect, not only on psychoanalysis but on broader understandings of women in psychology and culture. His work contributed to the medicalization of female behavior, especially through diagnoses like hysteria. Women who did not conform to social norms — who were overly emotional, sexually assertive, or simply independent — were often labeled as mentally unwell. Freud’s theories helped reinforce the idea that women’s distress was rooted in their failure to achieve traditional feminine roles, rather than in the oppressive conditions many faced (Mitchell, 1974).

Moreover, Freud’s model of a psychologically “mature” adult was built around patriarchal ideals: rational, heterosexual, and male-defined. For decades, psychological theory and clinical practice measured women against this standard, often treating deviation from it as dysfunction. Feminist thinkers such as Horney (1939) and later scholars have spent decades challenging this framework, working to redefine mental health in ways that acknowledge the role of social power, gender norms, and lived experience.

Conclusion

Sigmund Freud’s contributions to psychology remain undeniably significant, but they were also shaped by a worldview that favored male perspectives and diminished the experiences of women. His theory of psychoanalysis framed femininity as derivative and deficient, his treatment of female patients reflected a lack of genuine empathy, and his dismissal of women thinkers slowed the development of a more inclusive understanding of the human mind. These were not incidental shortcomings — they were embedded in the foundations of his theory.

Modern psychology must continue to grapple with Freud’s legacy, recognizing both his intellectual innovations and the ways his gender bias distorted theory and practice. Rather than discarding Freud entirely, it is essential to read him critically, with an eye toward the historical context and the real consequences his ideas have had — particularly for women. Freud’s work reminds us of the power of theory to shape not just thought but the treatment of people, and the responsibility that comes with it.

[malevolentlymaverick]

The Erosion of Literature: Media’s Role in Consumerism, Creativity, and Imagination

By Ishwari Nitalikar @existential-crisis-only

Introduction

Literature has always been a cornerstone of human culture, serving as a medium to explore creativity, foster critical thinking, and understand the complexities of the human experience. From timeless classics to modern masterpieces, literature reflects the cultural, societal, and emotional undercurrents of its time. However, in the modern era, media has emerged as a double-edged sword for literature. While it has democratized access to books and storytelling, it has also distorted the essence of literature, prioritizing trends over depth, consumerism over substance, and immediacy over intellectual engagement.

This essay argues that media-driven literature undermines creativity, prioritizes consumerism, and fosters shallow engagement with storytelling, posing risks to cultural, intellectual, and societal values. By analyzing historical roles of literature, media distortions, consumerist trends, and societal impacts, this discussion aims to shed light on the erosion of literature in the modern era and propose solutions for a more balanced future.

1. Literature’s Historical and Cultural Role

Literature has long served as a mirror to society, reflecting cultural norms, challenging ideologies, and fostering an understanding of the human condition. It is a medium that transcends time, offering insights into the complexities of life and human emotions, shaping societies and cultures in profound ways.

Literature as a Reflection of Culture

From ancient epics like “The Iliad” and “The Mahabharata” to modern classics like “1984” and “To Kill a Mockingbird”, literature has always captured the essence of the societies in which it was created. These works not only document historical events and societal structures but also explore moral, philosophical, and existential dilemmas. For example, Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” highlights racial injustice and moral courage, offering readers a lens through which to examine prejudice and humanity.

Shaping Societies and Challenging Norms

Literature has often acted as a catalyst for societal change by challenging prevailing norms and ideologies. George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” warn against totalitarianism and the loss of individuality, forcing readers to question political and social systems. Similarly, feminist literature like Virginia Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own” has inspired generations of women to advocate for gender equality and intellectual freedom.

Timeless Impact

The enduring relevance of literary classics lies in their ability to address universal themes such as love, power, freedom, and identity. Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” explores societal expectations and individual desires, while Gabriel García Márquez’s “One Hundred Years of Solitude” delves into the cyclical nature of history and the human longing for connection. These works continue to resonate with readers across cultures and generations, proving the timeless value of literature.

2. How Media Distorts the Essence of Literature

While media has democratized access to literature, it has also distorted its essence, prioritizing entertainment over exploration and visual appeal over narrative depth.

Simplification in Media Adaptations

When literary works are adapted for film, television, or streaming platforms, their complex themes and character development are often sacrificed to fit the constraints of a visual medium. For example, Orwell’s “1984” has been reduced to an aesthetic dystopian narrative in many adaptations, overshadowing its deeper political commentary. Similarly, “The Hunger Games” movies emphasize action and romance, sidelining the series’ critique of societal inequality and media manipulation.

Focus on Appearances

In the media age, visual appeal often overshadows content. Book covers, trailers, and promotional materials are designed to capture attention, sometimes at the expense of the story’s substance. The marketing for Colleen Hoover’s It Ends With Us, for instance, highlights its romantic elements while downplaying its exploration of abuse and trauma. This focus on appearances can mislead readers and reduce complex narratives to easily digestible tropes.

Shift in Storytelling

Media-driven storytelling prioritizes entertainment and instant gratification over intellectual and emotional engagement. Characters and plots are often simplified to ensure mass appeal, leading to a loss of nuance and depth. For example, many young adult novels adapted for media platforms emphasize love triangles and action sequences, sidelining the introspective and philosophical elements that define great literature.

3. Consumerism and Limited Editions

The commercialization of literature has transformed books from sources of knowledge and introspection into collectible commodities, driven by consumerism and social media trends.

Books as Collectibles

Limited editions, exclusive covers, and themed merchandise have turned books into status symbols rather than tools for intellectual engagement. The “It Ends With Us” franchise, for example, has spawned countless limited editions and special coloring book sets, encouraging fans to spend on collectibles rather than engaging deeply with the story itself.

Social Media and Aesthetic Consumption

Platforms like Instagram and TikTok have popularized the “Bookstagram” culture, where books are curated for their visual appeal rather than their content. Influencers often promote books with aesthetically pleasing covers, creating a culture of aestheticized consumption. This trend shifts the focus from reading and understanding literature to owning and displaying it as part of a lifestyle.

Overemphasis on Buying

The emphasis on purchasing books rather than reading them fosters a consumer-driven approach to literature. Popular series like Sarah J. Maas’s “A Court of Thorns and Roses” are often marketed with exclusive editions and pre-order bonuses, encouraging fans to buy multiple copies for collection purposes. This commercial approach reduces literature to a commodity, overshadowing its cultural and intellectual significance.

4. The Rise of “Pop Literature”

The popularity of pop literature reflects a shift in literary trends, with market-driven success often outweighing literary quality.

Case Study: Colleen Hoover

Colleen Hoover’s novels, such as “It Ends With Us”, have gained immense popularity due to their emotionally charged storylines. However, critics argue that her reliance on trauma for shock value and her predictable plots undermine the literary merit of her work. The storylines often prioritize melodrama over authentic exploration of characters or themes, appealing to readers seeking emotional escapism rather than intellectual engagement.

Case Study: Anna Huang

Anna Huang’s “Twisted” series exemplifies the rise of toxic relationships and erotica-driven plots in contemporary romance. Her characters lack complexity, and the narratives often glorify unhealthy dynamics, catering to sensationalist trends rather than fostering meaningful connections or growth. The success of such works highlights the growing demand for quick, emotionally charged reads over literature that challenges or enriches its audience.

Impact of Their Popularity

The success of authors like Hoover and Huang reflects a broader trend in the publishing industry, where marketability takes precedence over innovation. Writers are encouraged to follow viral formulas, while publishers prioritize sales over literary quality. This approach not only limits the diversity of stories but also discourages readers from seeking out more challenging and thought-provoking works.

5. The Misrepresentation of Strong Female Leads in Media-Driven Literature

The portrayal of strong female protagonists in modern media-driven literature often veers into superficiality, stripping away the depth and complexity that make characters relatable and inspiring.

Overhyped Strength and Quirkiness

In the push to create relatable female characters, many modern heroines are reduced to surface-level traits that cater to popular stereotypes. For example, characters like Feyre from Sarah J. Maas’s A Court of Thorns and Roses are described as “strong” without the narrative depth or growth to substantiate this label. These characters often succeed effortlessly, with minimal struggle or realistic challenges, undermining the relatability and authenticity of their journeys.

Quirks, such as clumsiness or sarcasm, are frequently used to give the illusion of personality. However, these traits often mask a lack of meaningful flaws or emotional depth, making the characters feel one-dimensional. This contrasts starkly with older literary heroines like Jane Eyre, whose strength was earned through enduring hardship, introspection, and moral fortitude.

Importance of Flaws and Backstory

Flaws and well-developed backstories are essential for crafting compelling characters. Katniss Everdeen, for instance, is a strong heroine not because she is physically capable but because her experiences in poverty, her role as a caretaker for her family, and her moral dilemmas shape her resilience. Similarly, Hermione Granger’s intelligence and resourcefulness are rooted in her insecurities about fitting in, making her achievements feel earned.

Modern literature, however, often skips the process of character development, opting for backstories that are generic or excessively traumatic without proper exploration. This creates a disconnect between the characters’ struggles and their strength, leaving readers with protagonists who feel unearned and inauthentic.

Impact on Younger Readers

The oversaturation of superficial female protagonists risks distorting the perceptions of younger readers. When strength is portrayed as innate or reliant on external validation rather than developed through struggle and self-awareness, readers are deprived of role models who can teach resilience, empathy, and growth. In contrast, characters with depth and authentic flaws serve as mirrors for readers, offering insights into their own challenges and potential for growth.

6. Impact on Creativity and Imagination

Media-driven literature often prioritizes formulaic stories and predictable tropes, stifling creativity and diminishing the imaginative horizons of both readers and writers.

Dependency on Trends

Social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram promote a trend-driven reading culture. Books that gain popularity on these platforms often follow similar formulas, creating a cycle of repetitive storytelling. For example, the rise of “enemies-to-lovers” or “billionaire romance” tropes in contemporary fiction has led to an oversaturation of stories with identical premises and character dynamics.

Decline of Imaginative Horizons

Young readers exposed primarily to formulaic stories may struggle to develop their own creative thinking. Classic works like J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” or Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” expanded readers’ imaginative boundaries by presenting richly detailed worlds and exploring profound philosophical questions. In contrast, many modern media-driven books prioritize instant gratification, offering straightforward narratives that require little intellectual or emotional engagement.

Writers’ Constraints

The publishing industry’s focus on profitability discourages authors from taking creative risks. Writers are often pressured to conform to market demands, producing works that cater to popular trends rather than exploring innovative ideas. For instance, the overwhelming success of “Fifty Shades of Grey” spurred a wave of similar erotic romances, limiting the diversity of stories available to readers.

7. Educational Implications

The infiltration of media-driven literature into educational curriculums has significant consequences for students’ intellectual development.

Loss of Intellectual Rigor

When viral books like “A Court of Thorns and Roses” or Colleen Hoover’s works are introduced into classrooms, they often replace classics like “The Great Gatsby” or “1984”. While contemporary books may engage students with relatable themes, their lack of complexity and depth can hinder critical thinking and analytical skills.

Shift in Pedagogical Focus

Teachers, under pressure to make literature more “accessible” and engaging, may opt for trendy titles that prioritize entertainment over intellectual engagement. This shift not only deprives students of exposure to challenging texts but also reinforces a culture of instant gratification.

Long-term Consequences

Without exposure to thought-provoking literature, students may struggle to develop essential skills such as empathy, critical analysis, and cultural literacy. These skills are crucial for navigating complex societal issues and understanding diverse perspectives, making their decline a significant concern for educators and policymakers.

8. The Role of Publishers and the Market

The publishing industry plays a pivotal role in shaping the literary landscape, and its increasing focus on marketability over quality has contributed to the erosion of literature’s cultural and intellectual value.

Pressure for Profit Over Quality

Modern publishers often prioritize books that align with popular trends or have the potential for multimedia adaptations. This profit-driven approach has led to the proliferation of formulaic genre fiction, such as dystopian YA novels or billionaire romances. While these books may be commercially successful, they often lack the depth and innovation that define great literature.

Gatekeeping in Publishing

The industry’s reliance on social media metrics and viral trends has created significant barriers for emerging authors with unconventional ideas or experimental narratives. Writers who deviate from established formulas or explore niche themes often struggle to secure publishing deals, limiting the diversity of voices and perspectives in contemporary literature.

Impact on Literary Diversity

The dominance of market-driven publishing has marginalized genres like literary fiction, poetry, and experimental writing. These forms of literature, which often challenge norms and provoke introspection, are increasingly sidelined in favor of more commercially viable works, contributing to the homogenization of the literary landscape.

9. The Decline of Literary Fiction

The rise of media-driven books has led to a decline in the prominence of literary fiction, which traditionally prioritizes character development, thematic depth, and stylistic innovation.

Shift to Genre Fiction

Media-driven literature often favors genre fiction, such as romance, fantasy, or dystopia, over literary fiction. While genre fiction can be impactful, its overrepresentation in the market risks overshadowing works that offer deeper explorations of the human condition.

Reduced Depth in Modern Literary Fiction

Even contemporary literary fiction is not immune to the pressures of marketability. Many recent works have been criticized for prioritizing accessibility and entertainment over intellectual rigor and artistic experimentation.

Consequences for Cultural Legacy

The decline of literary fiction poses a threat to literature’s long-term cultural relevance. Works like Toni Morrison’s Beloved or Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude have left an indelible mark on global culture. Without similar contributions from contemporary literary fiction, the cultural legacy of literature may be diminished.

Conclusion

The influence of media on literature has transformed the way stories are written, marketed, and consumed. While media has undoubtedly increased the accessibility and visibility of books, it has also led to a troubling erosion of literary quality and depth. The prioritization of consumerism, aesthetic appeal, and instant gratification has overshadowed literature’s traditional role as a tool for exploring human experiences, fostering critical thinking, and challenging societal norms.

The rise of media-driven trends has produced a culture where books are treated as commodities, authors are pressured to adhere to profitable formulas, and readers are exposed to shallow narratives lacking emotional or intellectual complexity. Works by authors like Colleen Hoover and Anna Huang exemplify this shift, where viral success is often achieved at the expense of meaningful storytelling.

This cultural shift poses significant risks to future generations, diminishing their creativity, critical thinking, and understanding of nuanced narratives. However, all is not lost. By consciously promoting diverse, innovative storytelling and fostering a culture of literary critique and engagement, we can counteract the negative impacts of media-driven consumerism.

Ultimately, literature must reclaim its role as a medium for intellectual and emotional exploration, transcending the confines of consumer-driven media to preserve its cultural and societal legacy. Through collective effort, it is possible to ensure that literature remains a transformative force in the modern world, inspiring generations to think, imagine, and grow.

[malevolentlymaverick]

The Totalitarian Statehood: A Psychological Analysis

By Arnav Renge @malevolentlymaverick

You think about a totalitarian state, you think about the Nazis and their goose-stepping, every single person in the military becoming an identical unit, right? A uniform, they're all uniform, and they’re all, in some sense, imitating the dictator in an absolutely perfect way. And so, the dictator wants to impose strict uniformity on the entire population. That’s order.

And one of the thing that’s really interesting is that; disgust sensitivity is associated with orderliness, and that’s associated with conscientiousness. One of the things about Hitler was that he was very disgust-sensitive, and hence lot of his hatred for non-Aryans. Imagine this, inside the Aryan box it was all uniform; outside, it was all parasites and predators that was a manifestation of disgust, not of fear. It's a whole different thing.

If you read Hitler’s Table Talk, which is a collection of his spontaneous dinner speeches from 1939 to 1942, you see that his metaphor for the Aryan race was a body. A pure body, unassaulted by parasites or predators, and that he was trying to erect a border around it to keep all of that away. So it's an immunological, disgust-like metaphor.

There’s some work that was published in PLOS one about 12 years ago, showing that if you went around and sampled political attitudes in different countries, or even within the same country, what you found was that the higher the prevalence of infectious diseases, the higher the probability of totalitarian political attitudes at the local level.

You can imagine, what happens if there’s infectious disease? You want to put borders around everything. You don’t want free movement between ideas or people because that’s partly how the disease spreads. You're going to have much more strict sexual rules for example, because that’s a great way for diseases to be transmitted.

Before Hitler went on his rampage against the non-Aryans, he cleaned up all the factories. He went in there and fumigated them. It was part of the law. He went on a public health campaign to get rid of tuberculosis. And he got rid of the bugs in the factories as well. He used Zyklon B, that's an insecticide, and that’s the gas he eventually used in the gas chambers. So first it was the bugs and the rats. And then it was people. Then it was euthanasia that was the next move. Forced euthanasia. And the rationale for that was compassion. It’s merciful to put these people, who are burdensome to themselves, their families, and the state who are living second-rate lives, it's merciful to euthanize them.

That was a huge campaign in Germany. It was after that that the more racial purifications began. And so that’s the disgust thing. That's unbelievably important.

Lots of times, people think that conservatives are more anxiety-sensitive than liberals, and that’s why they’re closed in terms of their ideas. But that doesn’t look right. First of all, conservatives are less neurotic than liberals, although the effect isn’t that big. They actually score higher in measures of well-being. The most unhappy people are liberal men by the way. But you know, people are often accused, if they're conservative, of being fearful, and that’s why they suppress other people’s viewpoints. But that doesn’t look right. It is low openness and high orderliness. And that looks like it’s associated with disgust. And that looks like it’s associated with something called the extended immune system, which is the proclivity of people to keep themselves away from potential sources of contamination.

It’s really terrifying, because one of the things people often said about Germany was that it was a very civilized country, and yet it descended into barbarity. But conscientiousness is a very good predictor of long-term success. So you could say, well, conscientious societies are more civilized. But they’re also more orderly, and that makes them more disgust-sensitive. And so what it might have easily been in Germany was that it was an excess of civilization rather than its lack that produced exactly these consequences. And that’s a far more frightening proposition. And one that’s, much more likely to be true.

Hitler bathed four times a day. And he was also an admirer of willpower. That is the thing about conscientious people, they’re very willpower-oriented.

So if you’re unfortunate enough to be sick chronically in the house of someone who’s conscientious, especially if it’s a mental illness you’re more likely to relapse, because the conscientious person is going to be judgmental. They’re going to say to you, if you’re schizophrenic: “Well, if you just organize yourself, and get up in the morning, and try a little harder, you could overcome this.” Which is, of course, true, except you can’t, because you’re schizophrenic.

So the pressure put on you by the anger and the contempt is going to increase the probability that you’ll relapse. Orderly people are very judgmental. And orderliness is highly associated with things like anorexia. The anorexic is basically someone who’s so disgust-sensitive that they become unable to tolerate their own body. And they see it as a source of corruption and imperfection which, of course, is exactly right. It is. And it’s a very difficult thing to maintain order around.

There’s always been some antagonism, for example, between the Catholic Church and rationalism. Everyone knows that. It’s a very longstanding antagonism that sort of runs its way through at least the last thousand years or so of Western civilization. The people who regarded Catholics as antithetical to science take the Catholics to task for that, describing it as prejudicial, superstitious. And fair enough.

But there’s something else going on there that’s more important. And that’s the observation and this is at a deep level again the observation that rationality has one big problem. It can easily become arrogant and believe in its own theories.

So if you’re smart and there are going to be some of you people who are like that too, some of you, your primary trait that distinguished you from other people over the course of your whole life was that you were more intelligent than most. And you may have staked your identity on that, and overvalued intelligence and rationality. And the problem with that is you make a theory of the world, and then you tend to assume that it’s 100% correct. That’s the tendency; to fall in love with your own theories.

And that’s what a totalitarian does. The totalitarian says: “Here’s the damn theory, and it’s exactly right. And you’re going to act it out exactly. And if you don’t… well, we’ve got some special treats in mind for you.”

One of the most terrible things about totalitarianism, and this was even more true of the Soviet Union under Stalin, was that the true believers who were many of them, were in a terrible position. Because according to their own doctrine, they were already involved in the process that was going to bring utopia to mankind. The problems had already been solved. But many of them were still suffering terribly as individuals.

But if you're a totalitarian believer in utopia, your own suffering becomes heretical, right? Because your suffering is an indication that the damn theory isn’t correct. And so then you’re in a terrible position, because you either admit that the theory isn’t correct, and fall apart because of that, and maybe face terrible punishment as well, or you have to separate yourself from your own suffering and lie about it, fundamentally.

And of course, that’s exactly what happened in places like the Soviet Union, where everyone lied about everything, all of the time. To themselves, to their family members, to their friends. The entire system was completely permeated by lies.

And that’s brought about. Sometimes that hell doesn’t rise from chaos. It rises from too much order.

[malevolentlymaverick]

one of the observation by Hannah Ardeth while being a stateless citizen of new york and as mentioned in her study of stateless is; there is supposed to be a state to guarantee the rights you possess, ground to stand on, appeal to a court for your rights, and therefore being stateless implies you have no rights. tho this understanding can be backed by the status of illegal immigrants in a particular territory, questions can be raised to validate the communist prerequisites for a stateless society. the unified political community fills the void, but the constant turmoil in a communist regime makes the question stand.

[malevolentlymaverick]

Bralessness as Sexual Symbolism; the Anti-Bra Rebellion

By Arnav Renge @malevolentlymaverick

One of the prominent component at the forefront of feminist culture has been bralessness; movements like Free the Nipple have gained a lot of traction in recent years, with a movie of the same name being released in 2015. The campaign opposed legal prohibitions and cultural taboos attached to exposing female breasts in places where it is legal for men to be topless. It was sparked in part due to double standards and the teen censorship of women's bodies on social media. Its advocates believe that women's nipples should be legally and culturally acceptable.

It's interesting the way the movement has maintained its prominence and profoundness for over a century. Though the causes for the campaigns in each phase have been different; beginning with the 1873 campaign which questioned the use of corsets, endorsing liberation, health, and dress reform, which eventually set the stage for the 20th-century feminist braless movement of the 1960s and beyond.

In 1968, at the feminist Miss America protest, protesters symbolically threw a number of feminine products into a Freedom Trash Can. These included bras, which were among the items the protesters called instruments of female torture and accouterments of what they perceived to be enforced femininity. Reporter Lindsy Van Gelder drew an analogy between the feminist protesters and Vietnam War protesters who burned their draft cards.

Now, a draft card is a document issued by the government to individuals, typically men, indicating their registration for potential military service. Burning of these documents became a symbol of protest performed by thousands of young men in the United States and Australia in the 1960s and early 1970s as part of the anti-war movement. The first burners were the American men participating in the opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War. Therefore, such acts of symbolism are correlated with the campaign of feminist movements of burning bras; where the subjects are demolishing an item which is acknowledged to be a measure of oppression by the populace.

But the response of the state to such dissent is neither kind. Men were punished for burning their draft cards. And similarly, women were fined and arrested for appearing braless in public settings, with Free the Nipple content being labelled pornographic and not educational or political. In 2009, Somalia's hard-line Islamic group Al-Shabaab forced women to shake their breasts at gunpoint to see if they were wearing bras, which they called "un-Islamic." Perhaps this is a trend we cannot ignore: American women face discrimination and public abuse; Middle Eastern women face death.

There is this infamous book named The Female Eunuch, written by Germaine Greer in 1970, which became closely associated with the anti-bra movement. Greer argues how modern women have been psychologically castrated and turned into eunuchs by a repressive and patriarchal society, controlling their sexuality, bodies, and minds through religion, media, the nuclear family, and education, contributing to symbolic castration.

She calls for a total rethinking of womanhood, sex, and power. Emphasizing the need to reclaim the woman's body; natural hair, menstruation, ageing, masturbation, to free women from shame and artificial norms. Talking about body positivity, she mentions how restrictive and uncomfortable a bra could be. “Bras are a ludicrous invention,” she wrote, “but if you make bralessness a rule, you're just subjecting yourself to yet another repression.”

In 2005, talking over the de-objectification of women due to being braless; which eliminates the hard, pointy look that phallic culture posits as the norm, author Iris Young argued how, without a bra, women’s breasts are not consistently shaped objects but change as the woman moves, reflecting the natural body. She argued that training bras are used to indoctrinate girls into thinking about their breasts as sexual objects and accentuate their sexuality. She wrote in 2007, “Breasts are subject to capitalistic, patriarchal, media-dominated culture that objectifies breasts before such a distancing glance that freezes and masters.”

Actress Emma Watson was braless in a Vanity Fair photoshoot in March 2017. She was criticized by some who thought she was a hypocrite for supporting feminism and showing some skin. To which she responded, “Feminism is about giving women a choice; feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with. It's about freedom, it's about liberation, and it’s about equality. I really don't know what my tits have to do with it.”

Expression of sexuality has emerged as a symbolic act of reclamation and resistance against patriarchal control. SlutWalk was a transnational campaign calling for an end to rape culture, victim-blaming, and slut-shaming of sexual assault victims. Rallies began in Toronto, Ontario, Canada on April 3rd, after a Toronto police officer suggested that women should avoid dressing like sluts as a precaution against sexual assault. Such incidents are common, where the state blames the subjects when they fall prey to the barbarity of the system.

The main critique for the symbolization of sexual reaction to profess empowerment has been- that campaigns, which promote sexual symbolism, create an image that women do not seek freedom from sexism, but rather assert themselves as sexual beings. Where women merely try to be trendy and attract men in order to play the power dynamics, rather than to take responsibility and act out in the real world, which seems to be filthy, rough, and therefore male-dominated.

Susan Brownmiller in her book Femininity (1984) took the position that women without bras shock and anger men because men "implicitly think that they own breasts and that only they should remove bras." Bralessness has come to embody a powerful form of sexual symbolism. It rejects enforced modesty and instead embraces the natural, unfiltered female body as a statement of both comfort and resistance. In a society where women’s breasts are hypersexualized yet heavily policed, going braless becomes a symbolic reclamation of sexual agency, a refusal to let patriarchy dictate which parts of the body are acceptable, and when. It transforms the everyday act of dressing, or undressing, into a quite rebellion, one that asserts that sexuality is not shameful, but sovereign, and that empowerment can reside in something as simple and yet radical, as letting the body exist without apology.

[freefolksbtw]

one of the intresting notions i discovered is, psychological speaking, entities- individual or state, which become highly civilised tend to be more conscientious and hence disgust sensitive. this explains the exodus of jews in the country like germany which was ones considered to be well civilised.

what apparently happened is they did not become less civilised, but rather excessively civilised; which led to them being disgust sensitive and hence entering into the notion of purity and impurity.

also explains the hierarchical pyramid present in India, where notion of purity and impurity pertains, so much of civilization, and so much of conscientiousness, across such large landscape made us evolve our own multiple notions of purity and impurity due to high disgust sensitivity.

hence not all ruins of civilizations are due to lack of civilised nature, but rather excess of it.

[freefolksbtw]

capitalism sells you dreams of luxury, freedom, a high-standard life, but that hope blinds you to the fact that everything it offers comes with a price tag, even your hopes and dreams. that indeed, is true meaning of capitalism.

for example, we want our governments to provide free or low-cost education, healthcare, and access to resources, we don't want to pay for it ourselves.

but someone has to pay for it, right? for schools, hospitals, and platforms to function, money has to come from somewhere. we just don’t want it to come from us, so we expect the government to pay.

and if the government pays, it partially owns the system. if it owns the system, what exactly are we striving for? that there is socialism.

but but but at the same time, i want capitalism, i want a silicon valley life, i don’t want to pay, but I want world-class facilities.

oh hi, I’m a half-baked unemployed bastard.