It’s “Aro” or Aromantic Spectrum Awareness week.
And nobody cares. Which is fine because nobody should care. Giving any voice to this nonsense is bolstering a stupid movement that seeks to appropriate from both LGBTQ and Autism awareness activism. So what does it mean to be on the “aromantic spectrum” … at least according to @stonewalluk? Well, to quote the Stonewall twitter account, “Aro is an umbrella term used by people who don’t typically experience a desire to have romantic contact or interaction with an individual.” So you’re unable to experience romantic desire at all? Well, no. It’s a spectrum y’all, EXACTLY like Autism. “Others may feel attraction occasionally, or varying levels at different times.” So aro people don’t feel attraction except during the times that they do, and they can experience romantic feelings at varying levels. As one Twitter user said, “Isn’t that -like- everyone?” Yeah, it pretty much is. But hey, everyone wants a piece of that LGBTQ attention pie. Now cis het people finally have a reason to post a striped flag next to their bios. Oh, but they’re not cis het people anymore! They’re on the aro spectrum, which means they’re queer too! Where were all these queer people back in the days when LGBTQ people were fighting in streets for rights, getting denied medical care because of the AIDS scare, and being forced into conversion therapy? Sorry, I’m being a bit bitter. Maybe I’m being a bad ally to aro people. But speaking as someone who usually does not feel romantic desire except during the times that I do, I too am on the Aro spectrum. So I can criticize too pal! I am heartened, however, that very few people are taking this “Aro Spectrum Awareness Week” nonsense seriously. “Aro” seems to be a symptom of too much internet. At best, it’s harmless attention-seeking nonsense, like a fifteen-year-old coloring her hair purple. At worst, it appropriates from actual groups that need help, like people on the Autism spectrum, and gives a false definition for what it means to have a spectrum disorder. More worrying, there’s evidence that nonsense like “aromantic spectrum awareness” reclassifies trauma symptoms from past sexual assault as a person simply being “aromantic.” When I researched “aro awareness” I found that far too many people who classified themselves as “aromantic” or “asexual” had a history of being sexually assaulted. And let’s be clear. A trauma response is NOT a sexual orientation. Period. It’s a mental health problem that requires medical treatment. Reclassifying trauma as a simple sexual orientation that does not need intervention risks a psychiatric crisis and is linked to higher rates of suicidal thoughts. So let us celebrate “Aro Spectrum Awareness Week” the way it should be celebrated: by ignoring it completely. Be happy and single. Be happy and slightly single with occasional flings. Be flirty, be romantic, be only slightly romantic, be non-romantic, be in love, be only slightly in love, be not in love at all and just have fun. Just be yourself and be honest with your partners. And please stop appropriating from actual marginalized groups.
0 Comments
There’s a cafe downtown that’s perfect for first dates. The food is good, the coffee is excellent, and the seating is uncomfortable. That last part is crucial because it means you’re not stuck with a bad date for hours. After 45 minutes you’re both gonna want to get up and leave. First test of a relationship: Does it pass the tiny metal chair challenge? Last month I unfortunately witnessed a REALLY cringe first date between two young guys at the cafe. Yesterday it happened again. I got to the cafe, opened my laptop, took out my earphones…. and just couldn’t be bothered to pay attention to my antibiotics lecture. I kept getting distracted by the couple sitting in front of me.
They were so much more interesting than studying the differences between macrolides and beta-lactase inhibitors. The couple were definitely on a first date. Their conversation was following a “getting to know me” pattern while at the same time being very flirtatious. The guy was cute, maybe late twenties. The woman he was talking to also appeared to be in her twenties though she was seated with her back to me. She got up once to get her coffee and I was a little surprised, once I saw her face, to see she was at least 50 years old. She looked GREAT for 50, don’t get me wrong. Great figure, lovely long hair, stylish jacket and a sort of posture that made me wonder if she had been a ballet dancer. The guy she was on a date with was clearly into her so yeah, get it girl! Ballet dancer came back with her coffee and she resumed her conversation with twenty-something guy. They were talking about their kids. Her kids were in college. His kids were still small and living with their mom. The date was going so well. It was such a difference from muffin guy and phone guy. And then- then!- the stupid twenty-something guy had to start talking about his ex. Guys, never do this on a date. Never trash your ex. It’s not gonna reassure your date that you’ll never choose your ex over her. It will just make her nervous that one day you’ll be just as angry with her as you are with your ex. I could see the vibe shift. Ballet dancer sort of withdrew a bit (“uh-huh, uh-huh…. okay…”) while twenty-something guy went on about his ex. And it was awful. Twenty-something guy talked about how his ex had been mad with him back when they were married because he had made his ex pick up his mom from the airport while his ex was two days overdue with their second child. And also watching their four-year-old daughter. Yeah, he made his heavily pregnant and exhausted ex pick up his mom from the airport. And he was trying to portray her as the villain for being angry about this. And oh boy did it get worse! After his total bitch of an ex got his mom settled at a hotel, she returned home and five hours later went into labor. “She woke me up,” Twenty-something guy said, “ She was like ‘You have to drive me to the hospital,’ and it was like 3 am! And I hate being woken up. HATE IT! Like, do NOT wake me up at that hour. I just can’t take it.” I saw ballet dancer stiffen in her chair. My heart went out to her, having to listen to this toxic garbage. Listen, if an attractive guy is single there is usually a reason. Period. The cooling of the atmosphere of that date was so dramatic that I think even twenty-something guy noticed. “Um, I mean, I did take her to the hospital. I did. I was just pissed,” he said. “Oh, okay,” Ballet dancer replied politely. But he had lost her. I could feel it. There was some more stuff about how awful it was for him to stick around at the hospital while his ex gave birth to their son. He hates hospitals and needles make him faint and his ex was ungrateful etc. etc. Oh lord, this date was awful. My antibiotics lecture was looking better and better in comparison. I scraped my chair back a bit and went to the restroom. The sound of my chair may have broken the awful spiral of that date because by the time I returned to my table both ballet dancer and twenty-something guy were gathering their things. “…. and I should be there by 12,” Ballet dancer was saying, “But thanks for the coffee!” “Yeah….” Twenty-something guy responded. He looked a little crestfallen. “I should go too. These chairs are kind of doing a number on me.” Round of applause for metal seats! TW: Descriptions of domestic abuse, anti-LGBTQ slurs, and the sense of female helplessness in the face of male aggression. I’ve listened to the first two episodes of “The Witch Trials of J. K. Rowling.” I would have binged the whole thing but only two episodes are currently available. “The Witch Trials of J. K. Rowling” is a podcast that was created and narrated by Megan Phelps-Roper. Phelps-Roper is a former member of the horrifying Westboro Baptist Church (the infamous “God Hates Fags” institution). Megan Phelps-Roper’s own story about how she was able to break away from Westboro despite being raised in that hate church is fascinating. The first two episodes of Phelps-Roper’s podcast have been made public. The episodes are bracketed by people talking about how much they hate JK Rowling because of Rowling’s statements about trans rights. The episodes themselves, however, are mostly a quick background and retrospective on JK Rowling. The first episode talks about JK Rowling’s life. The second episode is a blast of 90s nostalgia where Phelps-Roper describes the world when Harry Potter first rose to prominence. The Columbine massacre, the Clinton impeachment, the teen goth lifestyle, and loads of other fin du XXe siecle events are featured prominently in the second episode. For those of you saying “C’mon! Cut to the chase! Talk about the trans stuff!” well… you’ll have to wait. The first episode opens with Phelps-Roper talking to a bunch of Harry Potter fans. She asks them what they love about Potter. The answers are sweet. One man talks about his difficult past (“I had not such a great childhood”) and discusses how he felt “akin” to Harry Potter’s own troubled beginnings. When these Harry Potter fans are asked about JK Rowling herself, they are hesitant. Rowling is too controversial. “Um…” *uncomfortable silence* is the usual response. The fans just want to talk about Harry Potter. Which is great, in my opinion. We are then treated to an interview with JK Rowling. Rowling talks about how she had been in an abusive marriage during her twenties. Her then-husband Jorge Arantes frequently beat her. Rowling described how she had been writing the first Harry Potter book at the time and Arantes also threatened to burn her manuscript if she ever left him. Rowling described sneaking pages out of her manuscript — a few at a time so Arantes wouldn’t notice any missing- and photocopying the pages so that she could have an extra copy. This part is very difficult to listen to, especially if you have ever been in an abusive relationship. Arantes has been on record admitting that he abused Rowling and he has no regrets about the violence. The most heartbreaking part of the podcast so far, in my opinion, was Rowling’s description of how frightened she was of her ex husband even AFTER she became rich and famous. Rowling described how Arantes followed her to Edinburgh and broke into the house she bought with money she received from publishing the first Harry Potter book. She and her daughter had to flee. That resonated with me so deeply. Even when you escape abuse, you never really ESCAPE abuse. You’re still peeking around corners. You’re still looking over your shoulder. You’re still setting social media accounts to private and scrutinizing friends, wondering if they’re still in contact with your ex. You never truly escape. Seeing abusive men violate a space that you once considered safe is triggering.
I was a little surprised at how upset I became listening to that first episode of “The Witch Trials of JK Rowling.” It brought me back to a lot frightened places in my mind when I was in an abusive marriage. The second episode of “The Witch Trials of JK Rowling” is somewhat less traumatic. The 90s nostalgia is welcome after all the heaviness of the first episode. We hear from David Hogue, a Christian lawyer who argued that children in Arkansas public schools should not be allowed to read Harry Potter books. Hogue lost his case. When Phelps-Roper interviews Hogue for the podcast, Hogue confesses that he had not read Harry Potter when he had argued that the books were dangerous for children. He had only read excerpts. Hogue read Harry Potter a few years later. He tells Phelps-Roper that he has completely changed his mind and is glad he lost the case. “Some cases need to be lost.” Will trans activists feel the same way about Rowling in a few years? That she was right about preserving female-only spaces, tightening up gender ID laws, and not erasing women from core parts of women’s healthcare like pregnancy? I hope so. Already I am seeing movement among cis women friends who considered themselves staunch trans allies only a few years ago. The disregard for female fear of male aggression that too many AMAB trans activists demonstrate is alienating women. When women object, their rhetoric is considered “unsafe” and “harmful” and in need of censorship by even mainstream outlets like CNN. Burn the witch! David Hogue has shown that minds can be changed over time. Witches, however, cannot be unburned. If you grew up in the 90s, you probably had an American Girl Doll. The American Girl Dolls are overpriced dolls with LOADS of shiny accessories. All the dolls come with their own stories detailing their time during American history. When I was 12 (BACK IN THE DAY!) there were only three American Girl Dolls: Kirsten (who lived in the 1850s), Samantha (who lived in the early 1900s) and Molly (who lived during WWII). Nobody liked Molly because she had the plainest clothes and accessories. Her family pinched pennies to support the war effort. Each doll came with six stories: “Meet Kirsten (or Samantha or Molly),” “Kirsten Learns a Lesson,” “Kirsten’s Surprise,” “Happy Birthday Kirsten!” “Kirsten Saves the Day,” “Changes for Kirsten.” Each girl had the same books with the same titles and the same illustrations. Each girl had the same long luscious brushable hair and the same price tags that could easily make Mom spend half her month’s paycheck buying clothes for a fucking doll. I really can’t explain why American Girl Dolls were so hypnotizing for me. I didn’t want to play with them. I just wanted to dress them. And style them. And pose them on my dresser while I read those insipid yet strangely comforting American Girl books. They were safe books with safe titles and safe stories. All the girls would learn a lesson and save the day and have changes happen. No surprises. Anyway now us Millennials are getting a bee in our bonnets because the American Girl Doll company has come out with a couple of American Girl Dolls who live in the 90s. When I heard the news, I was a little surprised that the American Girl Doll company was still in business. I mean, kids don’t really play with toys anymore, do they? They’re all on computers these days. Toys-R-Us went out of business for this reason. How can an obscenely overpriced doll-and-book company still be roaring along during this digital age?
It has to be Millennial nostalgia keeping the American Girl Doll company flush. That’s the only explanation. And here’s the American Girl Doll trolling us Millennials by making a ’90s American Girl Doll. And they will be sold next to the Revolutionary War American Girl Doll presumably. I mean, I get it. A quick perusal of past American Girl Dolls shows that the American Girl company may be running out of decades of American history. There’s already an ’80s American Girl doll, a ’70s American Girl doll and a ’60s American Girl doll. And ’90s nostalgia is huge right now. The thing is that the ’90s were also kind of dull. It was an uneventful era. It was fun, don’t get me wrong! The post-Cold War peace was an awesome time where America was on top and nobody really worried about anything. Will Nicki and Isabel, the 90s girls, have books discussing the challenges of not being able to log onto the internet if your mom had to make a phone call? Or how the nation was coping with a president getting a blow job in the Oval Office? (Ooff… try to explain THAT one to your pre-adolescent readership!) Honestly I would be more interested in an American Girl doll growing up during the 9/11 era or the COVID era (hm, a bit too soon for that). At least those were times of genuine national turmoil! Oh well, that will probably happen in 2040 or so when the American Nonbinary Person Doll company releases the 2000s dolls. I’ll be grumping about that too when that happens. But I’ll probably buy them anyway. Biden does not demand our attention. He does not want our “views.” He does not care about “ratios” on Twitter. He does not break into hives if his name has not trended on social media. Biden grew up in 20th century America. He cut his teeth in an era that pre-dated the attention economy. It is soothing to have a president who does not need eyeball and heart emojis to motivate him. I’m just gonna say it. You can tell that Biden knows how to do his job slowly. He has an attention span that has been unravaged by smartphone-induced jitters. Biden’s campaign promise was that he would make the news boring again if he were elected. That hasn’t exactly been true internationally (hello Ukraine war!) but when it comes to Biden the news has been refreshingly dull. After an era of Trump tweets and DeSantis craziness and snappy “like”- hungry tweets from AOC it’s been nice to have a president who doesn’t constantly scream for our attention. “Pity the Bored Political Journalist” David Harsanyi snarked last April. “Gone are the tweets that sent newsrooms scrambling.” Wrote Max Tani in Politico, “So long to the five alarm Friday news dumps that had editors frantically rearranging weekend plans. Bye-bye to the massive TV budgets for White House specials and the firehose of publishing deals for books about the administration.” Boo hoo. The news may have loved Trump but we the average Americans are so glad we do not live under that constant stress anymore. Biden is an old man. He has played this game for a long time. He has seen food prices go up and down. He has seen gas prices rise and fall. He has seen his wife and baby daughter die. He has seen one son succumb to a brain tumor while the other son fell into addiction. He has seen people love him, then hate him, then become indifferent to him and then vote for him again. As long as you punch your card in and out at the end of the day and work through the mistakes while taking credit for the successes, you’ll be okay.
Biden in his own dull competent way is inspirational. It’s easy to underestimate Biden with all of his stumblings and weird jokes and out-of-touch Grandpa speeches. Bernie Sanders underestimated Biden. Trump underestimated Biden. Hell, Vladimir Putin BADLY underestimated Biden. Don’t underestimate Biden. He’s an old man and that in and of itself is a warning to those who go against him. You don’t grow old in Washington by not knowing how the game works. Biden knows what the American people want. What we want is to be left alone and to not have to pay attention to him. And Biden has given that to us. Biden does not demand our attention. And that’s great. I recently wrote an article about how anti-feminism has failed young Christian conservative women. At the time I had wanted to discuss Jinger Duggar and her recent memoir Becoming Free Indeed where she condemned the specific IBLP conservative Christian ways that had hurt so many women. Now I want to discuss a far less well-known pair of Christian celebrities: Elizabeth and Anna Sofia Botkin. Elizabeth Botkin and Anna Sofia Botkin are sisters in the fundamentalist Christian Botkin family. The Botkin family are affiliated with Vision Forum, a prominent Christian organization founded by Doug Phillips. Phillips, through Vision Forum, preached a controversial pro-patriarchy philosophy of life that was founded on the principle that women weren’t really capable of making decisions for themselves. Vision Forum fell apart in 2014 after a woman who worked as a nanny for Doug Phillips’ family alleged that Phillips sexually abused her. The Botkin sisters, Anna and Elizabeth, have spent their lives discussing how evil feminism is. The Botkin sisters have made videos aimed at young girls talking about how a woman’s only duty in life was to be a housewife and mother. The Botkin sisters also wrote So Much More: The Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God. In their book the Botkin sisters wrote “Why do I have an innate need for male affection, love, and protection? Because that’s how God created women to be. We will not be able to understand our own needs and desires and strengths and how we ought to relate to our fathers until we understand the original relationship God created between men and women.” (Yikes) “We would not exist but for men. Man was our source. Man was formed from dust, but woman had her origin and being from man and for man, and it is because we were created from the rib of a man that we have an innate inbuilt desire to be restored to that side of man…. God created men to be more than just optional lifestyle accessories. He created women to be dependent on them in a good way.” “Complete independence from a man would go against the very order of God’s creation.” “Every woman’s life is built around men and men’s role and leadership in some way.” “This is true for the parasitical women who live like leeches off men and whose lives revolve around attracting men and for the die-hard feminists who dedicate their lives to proving that they don’t need men and for the Godly virtuous women who understand that submitting to God means joyfully submitting to the authority He has placed over them.” And double yikes. This conflation of men, husbands and fathers with God is just so dangerous. Can you imagine being a woman with this type of upbringing trying to leave an abusive marriage? “How dare you leave your husband! That would be like leaving God!” Can you imagine being a woman with this type of upbringing being single and in her thirties? She would probably interpret her unmarried status as being rejected by God. Because, you know, “woman had her origin and being from man.” And Man = God. Fundie Fridays described the Botkin sisters best in her excellent video : “Bethy and Kristen (two similar Christian celebrity sisters also known as “Girl Defined” who preach anti-Feminism) eventually got the Prince Charmings that were promised to them by purity culture thought leaders. In contrast Anna and Elizabeth are in their mid-thirties, still single, and living at home with their family” And yeah, that happens sometimes. And it’s nobody’s fault. Well, it’s nobody’s fault except anti-feminist preachers like Bill Gothard and Doug Phillips who preached to young Christian women that if they followed all the rules they would get the happy endings. As Jinger Duggar said, “All I had to do was deposit the exact lifestyle Gothard advocated, and I would withdraw health, money, a wonderful husband, and a bushel of kids.” That is the false promise of anti-feminism. Feminism tells women that the “wonderful husband and a bushel of kids” is fine but sometimes life doesn’t turn out that way. Getting married and having kids is not like getting a job or an apartment. It’s not dependent on hard work. Marriage is a lucky roll of the dice, not a reward based on merit. Marriage is a lottery. And when you lose the lottery, you are at a higher risk of being financially unstable. This is why feminists advocate for low-cost childcare so single moms can work. This is why feminists ask for reduced stigma on unmarried women or women who marry and have children later in life. Anti-feminists say “Pshaw! Don’t worry girls! Just trust in the plan and do exactly as the patriarch asks! Don’t listen to those feminists! Trust in the plan.” Anti-feminism is like QAnon for young girls. Fifteen years after writing So Much More, Anna and Elizabeth Botkin started a podcast. You can hear the sadness in their voices as they talk about how “a lot of us have grown up hearing phrases like ‘marriage and motherhood are a woman’s highest calling.’ We’ve read books or seen books on Biblical womanhood that were, you know, presenting motherhood and wifehood as what Biblical womanhood means and what it’s all about.” “It can be very difficult when you hit 35 and you realize that you don’t fit into your own worldview.” Ouch. Yes. I can only imagine. Thank God I was brought up a feminist so I didn’t have to hate myself when life happened. Watching Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin wrestle with their “failure” because they are in their thirties, single, no kids, beautiful, financially stable and quite influential in the fundamentalist Christian community is a bit of a trip.
Anna Sofia says that they both have “grown” since they first counseled Christian girls that all girls are nothing but dirt unless married and with child. Thank goodness for that though I can’t see how either sister could NOT have “grown” considering their own personal circumstances. These women may not be feminists yet, but simply being allowed to no longer blame themselves for the uncontrollable aspects of life like being unmarried has got to be a relief. There is so much more to life than hating yourself for losing the lottery. I know what people think when they see a couple where the man is significantly older than the woman.
They think “Ugh, that guy is a shallow creep! Can’t handle a woman his own age!” “Probably left a loving wife and kids for this hussy!” “You give a guy 20 years of your life and he leaves you for a girl the same age as his daughter!” The stigma is real folks. Now don’t get me wrong, if you’re a 45 -year-old guy with a 19-year-old girlfriend I’m gonna judge you. I’m gonna judge the hell out of you. Women who are only two or three years out of childhood should only date people in their own age group. Period. That being said, if you’re a 45-year-old guy with a girlfriend in her mid-to-late twenties, that’s fine. 28-year-olds are adults. They have jobs. Many women at this age are already well on their way to full careers. Many have their own apartments. Many are applying for a house mortgage. That being said, as a 40-something woman I want to bust some myths about 40-something men pairing off with 20-something women. The idea that 40-something guys are leaving women their own age in the dust to chase after younger women is untrue. In my experience most 40-something men looking for serious relationships usually prefer women their own age. It makes sense. Most single middle-aged guys are divorced with high school-aged kids. These men aren’t looking to start new families. They don’t relish the idea of changing diapers in their fifties. They don’t like seeing a blank stare during a date when they ask “Man, remember 9/11?” Here’s the thing though…. forty-something women don’t really want to date. The latest Pew Research says that 71% of single women over 40, (yes, 71%) are simply not looking to date right now. In contrast, 68% of single men over 40 ARE looking to date. Ooof. The disconnect is real folks. And honestly that makes sense. Unmarried women tend to have longer lives and are generally more healthy, according to recent surveys. If you’re forty and the kids are in high school and you can work longer hours and have enough cash to travel a bit … why would you want a husband? Who needs that burden? Unmarried men, on the other hand, tend to be much more stressed, have shorter lifespans and have lower rates of survivability from diseases like cancer than married men. The urge to escape the single life is real for middle-aged guys. They’re literally fighting for their lives. So why not have middle-aged guys date twenty-something women? After all, guys in their twenties are going through a bit of a crisis right now. They are less likely to be in college, less likely to be employed, and more likely to be suffering from mental health problems than men born before 1990. No twenty-something woman really wants to date a twenty-something guy in 2023. So can you blame twenty-something women for looking at older men as potentially better partners? And can you blame forty-something men for partnering with twenty-something women when literally over 70% of single women in their forties just don’t want to date? Just let consenting adults be happy. And leave the rest of us cat ladies in peace. Everybody knows Emilia Clarke. She’s the young actress who played Daenerys Targaryen in the HBO TV adaptation of George R R Martin’s Game of Thrones. Daenerys Targaryan, in the Game of Thrones books, was 12 years old when she was sold to a warlord and impregnated by him. To be fair to HBO, they aged up Daenerys in their show from 12 to an older-but-still-underage 16. The storyline was disturbing, however. The “jailbait” aspect of Daenerys was played to the rafters when the first season of Game of Thrones was released in 2011. Actors and producers talked about Emilia Clarke, the actress who played Daenerys, as if she were a fresh naive young thing just out of school. In reality Clarke was a fully adult 24 when she started acting in Game of Thrones. Despite Clarke being well into her twenties marketing for some reason kept talking about her as if she were a teenager. Clarke was constantly referred to as “recently graduated” from drama school. The first episode of Game of Thrones emphasized the youth and helplessness (and nudity) of Daenerys. The audience was treated to long lingering shots of Clarke’s breasts as the actor who played her older brother pawed at her. There were several rape scenes between Daenerys and the adult war lord to whom her brother sells her. Clarke revealed a few days ago that she had been pressured to film very sexualized scenes. “I have had fights on the set before, where I am like, No, the sheet stays up, and they are like, you don’t wanna disappoint your Game Of Thrones fans. And I am like, f*ck you.” Game of Thrones aged the same way that our views of women aged through the MeToo era. The whole “Well, it’s complicated” aspect of straight-up rape that permeated the first season of Game of Thrones (released in 2011) evolved into a storyline where Daenerys became a dynamic (if, ahem, a bit insane) leader by the end of 2019. Emilia Clarke herself went through bad times during her filming of the Game of Thrones series. She suffered from two brain aneurysms that caused “quite a bit” of her brain to become nonfunctional. Despite her disability Clarke has soldiered on and apparently has focussed on the positive in her life. A couple of weeks ago Clarke posted a selfie of her smiling while holding a gift from her mother. And, like any woman in her thirties, Clarke’s broad grin revealed natural lines around her eyes and the corners of her mouth. Why oh why can’t hot women just smile like anime heroines: No wrinkles, no disabilities, no trauma, no exhaustion, no reminders to their viewers that hot women are human just like the rest of the planet? When Emilia Clarke posted her smiling selfie, the comments were cruel. Clarke had “not aged well.” Clarke had “hit a wall.” Clarke was showing why “u wear sunscreen.” A gamer named Jon Miller reposted Clarke’s picture with the words “”Lmao wow Daenerys Targaryen didn’t just hit the wall she flew into it full speed on a dragon 🐉,”
Why are we so angry when beautiful women age? Why do we hate it when hot babes do things like get brain aneurysms, become disabled, gain weight, reveal wrinkles or even just mention that they are now well over 30? Are we frightened of our own mortality when the fresh faces we so fetishized show that they have grown older? Or are we angry when the women we have cast as “jailbait” in our minds display their faces on their own terms: Natural, age-appropriate, and with a huge smile? Don’t forget the smile. Happiness is always more important than beauty. And too many women die young in this world for us to NOT celebrate a woman growing older. Wrinkles are a trophy, not a “wall.” Nobody wants to talk about dementia. And honestly, that’s understandable.
Seeing vibrant and loving people become shells of their former selves is traumatizing. It’s not just traumatizing for the sick person it’s traumatizing for family and friends. Watching a loved one have dementia is almost like watching someone die slowly in front of you. A few weeks ago Bruce Willis’ family announced that Willis was suffering from frontotemporal dementia. Frontotemporal dementia, or FTD, is a progressive form of dementia that manifests through extreme emotional shifts, trouble talking and personality changes. Later stages of FTD is like late stages of Alzheimer’s dementia. The personality and memory of an FTD patient are all gone and often a person is in need of 24 hour care. Nobody wants to think about that. Yesterday Demi Moore, the ex-wife of Bruce Willis, shared a video of Willis celebrating his birthday. Willis looked clean and happy. He was cracking jokes as he blew out the candles on his cake. There were a few moments where Willis seemed confused but overall it was a happy video. Most importantly the video showed that Willis had a large support network. He was surrounded by loving family. His personality was still very much intact. The fact that Willis’ ex-wife, Demi Moore, chose to show this happy video was significant. Moore and Willis had divorced in 2000. Clearly they were still on very good terms. And that’s what someone needs when he is diagnosed with a long-term illness. He needs family that will put aside past differences in order to care for people. I have spoken before about how dangerous it is when people decide to permanently cut out “toxic” family members or friends. Celebrities like Jeffrey Marsh make TikToks telling teenagers that they need to cut off family members if there is ever a disagreement. We have gone from saying “Your emotions are valid” to “ONLY your emotions are valid. Everyone else can either validate you without question or get cut off forever.” You survive with others. You die alone. If you lose the capacity to set aside past differences when a family faces a crisis… you will be alone for the rest of your days. And that is not a pleasant place to be. Demi Moore’s video was important. Moore showing Willis celebrating his birthday helped to destigmatize dementia. It helped to show a healthy way to celebrate someone with dementia. It is easy to start pre-grieving the loss of a loved one when you hear that a family member has dementia. You can fall into a trap of thinking someone with a dementia diagnosis is already dead. That’s not true! Bruce Willis is still here! And Bruce Willis will still be here to blow out candles and joke with family members for a long time. Statistically we will all in the course of our lives have to deal with a loved one getting a dementia diagnosis. It will be traumatizing, but videos like the one Demi Moore released are important. Demi Moore’s video tells us that our loved ones are still here. I’ve already reviewed the first two episodes of Megan Phelps-Roper’s “The Witch Trials of JK Rowling.” I am now going to review the next two episodes of Phelps-Roper’s podcast and hoooo boy. Phelps-Roper is determined to piss EVERYONE off. And that includes TERFs. Yes folks, Phelps-Roper has put together a podcast where she actually tries to give each side an equal voice. So naturally everyone is going to hate it. The first two episodes of “The Witch Trials of JK Rowling” were mostly very sympathetic towards Rowling. The third episode “A New Pyre” continues that trend but the fourth episode “TERF Wars” actually gives trans people a voice. It’s clear that Phelps-Roper disagrees with Rowling when it comes to allowing trans women to use bathrooms. Phelps-Roper puts Rowling on mute for awhile in the fourth episode “TERF Wars.” Instead of Rowling, Phelps-Roper interviews Nathalie Wynn. Nathalie Wynn is a trans woman, known more commonly as ContraPoints, who talks to Phelps-Roper about the indignity of trans people not being able to use public restrooms. We hear that trans people are going out less and less because of public restroom anxiety. Less outside socialization, of course, leads to higher rates of depression, anxiety and suicidality. As a huge TERF, I had not even considered this. I didn’t know that trans people were simply going out less because of public restroom anxiety. I wouldn’t have known this if I hadn’t listened to “The Witch Trials of JK Rowling.” So, you know, before you start criticizing Phelps-Roper for being transphobic…. keep in mind that she is also opening the eyes of a few TERFs as well. In other words, Phelps-Roper is pissing off EVERYONE. Interestingly though, while Phelps-Roper makes Rowling look like an asshole in the episode “TERF Wars” it was Nathalie Wynn (AKA ContraPoints) who decided to throw a huge fucking tantrum after Wynn was interviewed by Phelps-Roper. And keep in mind that Wynn, like Rowling, has a huge social media platform, a massive Youtube channel and a great deal of pull among Gen Z commenters. Wynn is hardly powerless. Nathalie Wynn’s interview was really interesting in “TERF Wars” so it’s unfortunate that Wynn later decided to whine that she was subjected to “a pretty miserable three-hour interrogation” on the podcast. The word Wynn uses, “interrogation,” is silly. Really? Phelps-Roper interrogated Wynn? Phelps-Roper didn’t let Wynn leave the room? Take a glass of water? Break for the restroom or lunch? Is a polite interview where Wynn’s views are examined (and her responses fairly presented) an interrogation? That’s like calling a barista accidentally misgendering you “genocide.” Let’s be real folks. In episode three “A New Pyre,” JK Rowling addresses the criticisms of how she is a rich and powerful person attacking a vulnerable minority (trans folk) by advocating for women-only spaces. “‘You are wealthy. You can afford security. You haven’t been silenced.’ All true,” Rowling says, “But I think that misses the point. The attempt to intimidate and silence me is meant to serve as a warning to other women. And I say that because I have seen it used that way… I literally had someone say this to me the other day: ‘I was told “Look! Look what happened to JK Rowling. Watch yourself.”’” Rowling makes a strong case here. I still remember the smile of Emma Weyant, the young swimmer who came in second to Lia Thomas at the NCAA. I am positive that the pressure put on Weyant to praise Lia Thomas was SEVERE. Weyant has kept diplomatically silent. She has not praised Thomas because she knows Thomas’ gold medal win was an injustice. And Weyant has not objected to Thomas’ gold medal win because Weyant does not want to lose her job or possible future sports opportunities. Weyant’s silence is her answer to Thomas’ gold medal win. For women less powerful than JK Rowling, silence is the only way for them to object to the more misogynistic aspects of the trans activist movement. I believe JK Rowling was thinking of women like Emma Weyant and the victims of Karen White when Rowling said she refuses to “serve as warning to other women” by being silent. Rowling’s argument, however, starts to become flimsy towards the end of “A New Pyre.” Rowling talks about Milo Yiannopoulos being protested on college campuses. Rowling disapproved of the anti-Yiannopoulos protests. “I thought it was a terrible strategic error,” she says, “You are giving this man way more power than he deserves by behaving in this way.” Rowling says that instead of protesting Yiannopoulos, feminists should have instead “Get on that platform and eviscerate his ideas. Get on that platform and expose him for the charlatan that he is.” Excuse me? Doesn’t Rowling know that the first rule of 21st century debate is “Do not feed the trolls?” Milo Yiannopoulos never once pretended that he actually believed in his own ideas. Yiannopoulos was a troll, full stop. He didn’t care about counterarguments, he just wanted rage and “liberal tears.” The idea that Rowling is putting Yiannopoulos on the same level of conservative commentators who at least pretend that their arguments are based on logic, like Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg, is bonkers. Rowling is smarter than that. I won’t say exactly that Rowling was gaslighting about Yiannopoulos in “A New Pyre,” but I will admit that I caught a few whiffs of paraffin. Phelps-Roper ends “A New Pyre” and starts “TERF Wars” with a very frightening voice clip from apparently a trans activist protester: “FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU YOU UGLY PIECE OF SHIT! YOU LOOK LIKE YOU GOT YOUR TEETH KNOCKED OUT YOU FUCKING FASCIST! NOBODY KNOWS WHO YOU ARE AND NOBODY CARES! YOU WILL DIE ALONE! YOU WILL DIE ALONE AND YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!” The voice is masculine and it is enraged. The out-of-control shrieking of that masculine voice will raise the hairs of any domestic violence survivor. When you are a domestic violence survivor, you automatically brace for the punch when you hear that masculine rage. I found it upsetting that Phelps-Roper kept using that clip of the enraged male voice protesting feminists, but I understood why Phelps-Roper believed that clip was important. Phelps-Roper wants to draw a parallel between the more misogynistic protests against TERFs and domestic violence. The next episode “TERF Wars” deals with domestic violence. Phelps-Roper gives a trigger warning but I still found myself growing so upset listening to it that I had to stop the episode. I waited until I was hiking and receiving a nice boost of endorphins flowing through my brain before I restarted “TERF Wars.” Good thing too because the beginning of “TERF Wars” is brutal. The descriptions of how back in the 20th century nobody seemed to give a damn about women who were beaten by their husbands were horrendous. The first shelter for women escaping domestic violence did not appear in the UK until 1971. Safe spaces save lives, and women have fought hard for them. Phelps-Roper also manages to score an interview with Dr. Erica Anderson, a trans woman and psychologist who has worked with trans youth. Anderson is hardly a biased source when it comes to TERF talking points so it’s interesting that Anderson appears to agree with a lot of findings that most trans activists have called “transphobic.” “I’ve been concerned for some time that there are providers who are not following the standards of care which historically have invoked the need for an individualized congruence of bio-psycho-social evaluation prior to the initiation of medicines,” Dr. Anderson tells Phelps-Roper, “(T)here are some young people who are going to providers and obtaining puberty blockers and hormones but not having a full mental health evaluation. I think that’s sloppy and bad practice.” Dr. Anderson implies that there is too much fast-tracking of young kids into gender transition. If gender dysphoria is a symptom of, say, past sexual trauma and not a true trans identity then children are being given the wrong medical treatment and in some cases permanently altering their bodies.
And when people suffering from past trauma receive the wrong mental health intervention, that increases the possibility of future psychosis and suicidality. It’s not just trans activists who are responsible for the mental health crisis in trans teens because teens have been irresponsibly fast-tracked through gender transition without a full evaluation. Phelps-Roper does also point the finger at TERFs. Phelps-Roper does not soft-pedal the threats trans people face from rightwingers. “Online, just as there are some trans advocates who send violent and harassing threats towards the people they call ‘TERFs,’ there are also many others- often coming from the right and the altright- who send violent and harassing threats towards trans activists and their allies,” Phelps-Ropers says, “Some based on accusations that any attempt to teach kids about trans identities is actually a smokescreen for a desire to sexually exploit young children. In this climate many activists feel that feminists calling for open dialogue and good-faith debate are really just opening them up to greater harm.” Oooofff. Yes, that’s right folks. Phelps-Roper isn’t letting the TERFs off either. She’s making both sides here are getting a good dose of medicine. “The Witch Trials of JK Rowling” is very, very well-balanced with no easy answers. Which is why it’s gonna piss off EVERYBODY. |
|