u/PablomentFanquedelic

If so, what would that happy medium be?

Well, to start, I assume it would vary based on the individual child's tendencies and needs. But I ask because there's a lot of talk these days about how boys are undersocialized in terms of personal upkeep and emotional intelligence; but on the other hand I don't want to go to the extreme that girls are more likely to get, where they're taught to feel insecure about their appearance (with the implication that their appearance is their main source of worth and thus extensive primping and dieting are socially obligatory) and to be "polite" to the point of people-pleasing and conformism.

Mind you, I'm not saying that either part of this position actually is correct.

I am saying that if one was to accept the premise that men's higher rates of violent crime (especially stuff like forcible rape, medically severe domestic violence, family annihilation, mass shootings, etc.) are in their nature, would this justify society imposing stricter controls on men's behavior than on women's?

Some of the aforementioned tradcons would say that law enforcement and the justice system punishing men more harshly than women is indeed acceptable if men also have greater autonomy and access to familial and social leadership positions, because these supposedly balance each other out so neither men nor women ultimately have it better. Some of the aforementioned radfems would argue that men should face tighter restrictions on their behavior and be excluded from positions of power, though they're few and far between compared to the tradcons, and relatively toothless.

at leasht if they've shpent enough time in thish pathetic gender-war r/shubreddit.

>Met a lady in Berlin. We go from there to Venish and fuck at the hotel. I wake up in the middle of the night to take a pish and when I come back she'sh shaying "mein Führer" in her shleep.
"Omg what happened afterward? Did you leave?"
[slap] Thatsh for blashphemy! Anyway, I'd like to shay I clutched my booksh and vamooshed out of there right away, but I wash going through thingsh at the time that made me pretty ambivalent about my fate. I'm fairly shertain I wash looking for a violent confrontation, but nothing happened. I told her that goosh-shtepping moronsh like der Führer should try reading booksh inshtead of burning them, and she shrugged. We drank a few Aushtrian beersh, fucked a couple more timesh, and I mailed a package home to my shon. I guesh my prinshiplesh didn't shtand up againsht a nishe pair of titsh. Not really shurprishing, to be honesht.

(For conteksht, shee below)

https://preview.redd.it/9bnikxqhssfh1.png?width=1267&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5e0511fbaa4790734e0151f61e1ac2610297d7a

By "Cool Girl" I specifically mean the archetype of a women who fits into male-dominated circles by just playing along with the casual misogyny. Implicitly or explicitly, the contrasting female archetype is the uptight "feminist killjoy"; this contrast shows up even in social environments where "feminism" is generally understood as a good thing, in which case the Cool Girl is often framed as also a feminist, just ostensibly more progressive and openminded than "sex-negative" feminists (this framing comes up a lot around beauty culture, sex work, and kink, for example).

Anyway, as a trans woman, one recurring issue I've seen in TERF discourse is an assumption that modern trans-inclusive feminists are a bunch of Cool Girls, and thus that any criticism of anti-trans radfeminism is just another example of "fun feminists" shouting down the more strident and culture-critical feminists as oversensitive, puritanical reactionaries.

So in terms of deradicalization, I'm wondering what the best way is to address this without sounding like "don't be such an old-fashioned prude!" One argument that might work in this context is pointing out just how deeply linked TERFism and antifeminist conservatism have always been, but even then the responses I've seen to this criticism tend to be "just because we agree with the conservative right on certain issues doesn't mean we agree on everything!" and "at least conservative men are sexist in an honest and chivalrous way!" So I'm not too hopeful about this strategy.

Thoughts?

So like: South Africa, Namibia back when it was called South West Africa, Zimbabwe back when it was called (Southern) Rhodesia, Zambia back when it was called Northern Rhodesia, British Kenya, French Algeria, maybe Portuguese Angola and/or Mozambique, etc.

Note also:

• I am trying to avoid saviorism (most of these characters I'm thinking of aren't the main active protags in anything set in Africa) and simplistic morality. I'm trying to explore how white settlers in Africa have benefited from these exploitative systems but also how they may hold a diverse range of opinions on the matter, ranging from dedicated opposition to milquetoast moral handwringing to active White Man's Burden crusading to openly callous greed to horrific sadism (and, on that note, that Black people had a similar range of responses toward colonialism and apartheid, with some actively collaborating as enforcers and informants for the white-dominated security apparatus). Thus, the white settler characters I've thought up so far would range from deuteragonists (especially of the Lancer and/or Dr. Watson varieties) and helpful side characters (especially of the Unfazed Everyperson variety), to ruthless villains (though note that most of the brutality I want to show such villains inflicting on the page would be against non-Black characters, especially if they became hired guns after apartheid ended; otherwise it'd feel too exploitative). Some of these characters of differing moral alignments are related to each other, which should lend itself well to interesting scenes of family interactions.

• These characters were born at different times. Some were born in Africa, or arrived as kids, in the early to mid-20th c. and grew up under European and settler rule; the more heroic individuals among these people presumably either always had at least a bit more sympathy for their Black neighbors than usual for white people in colonial Africa, or else had an Are We The Baddies? realization at some point in their formative years. Others would've been born later, right before or during the official end of colonial rule and/or apartheid, and are shaped by growing up with the restructuring process as background radiation (and by the opinions of the influential mentors and peers in their lives, whatever those opinions are and whether the character in question is agreeing with or consciously rejecting them).

So like: South Africa, Namibia back when it was called South West Africa, Zimbabwe back when it was called (Southern) Rhodesia, Zambia back when it was called Northern Rhodesia, British Kenya, French Algeria, maybe Portuguese Angola and/or Mozambique, etc.

Some of these are period pieces set in colonial Africa (I don't think the white people in these are going to be the main protagonists, though; more like side characters and villains, maybe Lancers and/or Dr. Watsons at most). Some take place in the present, whether in Africa or after they relocated.

I figure his regime used some sort of rhetorical justification, like how Josef Stalin called Jews "rootless cosmopolitans" to justify persecuting them. I'm just curious what particular sort of rhetoric Saddam used in this case.

The TV is constantly blaring in the background with, like, Steven Universe or something. It's a racially diverse, queer- and fat-positive show by a Jewish creator. The TV would piss off Dahl in particular on top of everything else.

Rowling would be trying to get Fleming and Dahl to respect her as One Of The Lads. Fleming would see her as, like, on the same level as some of the more educated Bond girls, but still fundamentally think of her as A Girl (and a not too bad looking one, especially if we go with the Return of the Jedi Special Edition rule that the afterlife de-ages you) and treat her accordingly. Fleming and Dahl were both womanizers themselves, not to mention spy buddies during World War II, so they'd probably end up fighting over Rowling.

They'd also get into an argument about

1. Israel (Dahl is anti Israel and uses that as an excuse to bash Jews, Rowling is pro Israel and also hates Jews)

2. who can come up with the most offensive character name

But if I had a time machine, among other things I would absolutely go back to the early 1960s and make an epic 18th Dynasty period film starring Lena Horne as Hatshepsut and Omar Sharif as Senenmut.

J. K. Rowling would have stiff competition in the form of Rudyard Kipling

But on the other hand my impression is that Kipling, even as an active colonizer in a bloodsoaked empire, bore a lot less obsessive personal malice toward Asian and African colonial subjects than Rowling bears toward trans people (and has the added benefit of having been dead for 90 orientalist, orientalist years)

If you asked Kipling his opinions on trans people in particular, I get the feeling he'd find the whole concept delightfully quaint and write some twee poem exoticizing Eastern "ladyboys" and "eunuchs" or hailing the heroic exploits of "women who dressed up as men"

For example, if

• Alice creates an IG account on her phone

• Alice logs onto the account on her laptop

• Betty blocks that account and all accounts created by the same person

• Alice creates a new IG account on her laptop

will Betty's block cover that new account?

For example, if

1. Alice creates an IG account on her phone

2. Alice logs onto the account on her laptop

3. Betty blocks that account and all accounts created by the same person

4. Alice creates a new IG account on her laptop

will Betty's block cover that new account?