Reactionary Reaction Youtube Videos

Influencers being wrong on purpose for views

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXprh34_R7c

I welcome you all to another post due to a particularly upsetting 'piece of content', or Youtube Video I happened to walk in on due to my recent exhaustion from working on things at my university. A quick explanation: The 20 year old youtuber 'Kryjovnik' posted a 25 minute think piece reacting to 'Am I The Asshole' reddit posts regarding art and artists. About 2 of them were regular, moralist opinions which don't really have much wrong with them apart from being petty in some remarks. The opinion on the third post was a deeply philistine opinology, however. 

In case you are joining me for the first time, an opinology is exactly what it sounds like: an opinion freely given out from a perspective which its producer deems to be the correct one while having a profoundly uncritical, almost socially unconscious, callous foundation, i.e not really thinking about it while still taking the time to express it. This kind of opinion works well for what I'd call "mass entertainment", where many people like having such views regurgitated back to them as a baby bird likes to be fed worms into its mouth by its mother. And it is exactly what most efficiently propagates reactionary pacifist bourgeois propaganda, because no one wants to deal with how shitty the world is right now, and would rather engage in a discussion without using any of their real intellectual faculties, which they so heavily discourage the use of; the reason why I say this latter statement, is because the video this person has made, has this exact character. 

It isn't *actually* for generating discussion, it's to propagate an idea of agreement and 'problem-solving' in a given population, this being her subscriber base (which I must commend her for, it must be hard to reach almost 80 thousand subscribers on Youtube! Great work). 

What is most upsetting about this kind of video is the obvious aim to generate absolute Reaction. The youtuber reacts to anything, be it art, social media posts, recent discourse, etc. and then as an audience, the viewers feel compelled to also react to this content, and to voice their opinions on it, as I am doing here. And whether the reaction is positive or negative it still racks up the views and spreads idiotic or correct opinions among people, among which there can be youtubers who will react to this reaction and keep the slop-feeding tube active for people who have nothing better to do than react to these reactions, like me, who was vulgarly curious about this kind of fascist content genre, when the best action is to ignore it like the falsely relevant content it is.

Let's return to the video. In it, four stories are addressed. The first one is about someone who is 15 years old stealing back a gift to sell it because they didn't like they weren't getting gifts back. The critical view would be to understand it's a kid, and to say our 'most sacrosanct' internet opinion is that they were in the wrong for stealing and selling a gift. However, it is very understandable to be upset you get nothing in return for gifting, but as an adult you learn to just not care and go do something else. The leading lady also made the mistake of saying it's immature of the kid to do that, and immediately recalled that he's a kid. 

"It doesn't seem like you're that passionate about it if you're expecting to get something in return ... " 

It should read: "It doesn't seem like you're that passionate about it being a gift if you're expecting something in return."

"First of all, you're 15, you must have heard of punctuation."

This sentence is particularly disgusting and vulgar. What kind of 20 year old adult says that to a teenager? Adults are supposed to be the mature people who take care of children and support them with advice, not to make unimaginably petty and crude remarks that have nothing to do with the substance of what is being discussed. This was, ironically, a very immature thing to say, and I hope she realized that afterward, because this isn't how you speak to, or about, a child, no matter their banal mistake. 

Only one of the reacting contingent she read out loud made sense, as they said 'Just don't give her anything else since she can't seem to get you anything.' I commend this opinion for actually being helpful to the kid. The rest of them were just rewrites of the same scolding. 

The kid saying he goes to a school for autistic jewish children was funny, though. As Ms Jovnik put very well, what's that got to do with anything?

The second case was so uninteresting it shouldn't have been in the video at all. Nothing more than a misunderstanding. We shall not go into it. 

The third story is the part which I really wanted to critique, as Ms Jovnik's reactionary opinions made me feel so surprised at their lack of sense I needed to get on it immediately. 

Let's begin: "Telling a rich kid (!) his painting sucks"

The story says that the working class (!) author's sister works for a rich family and is constantly in contact with out of touch rich people; the wife is amicable with the author, and the family asks her to come with them on a vacation. During this vacation the author meets the son (Jake) who is 20 years old. Which, if you have been paying attention, is the exact age of Ms. Jovnik. Jake likes to take on new hobbies (that he calls them careers is implied, though I will not say I am sure of this at all) constantly and loves for his family to support his every single work. From the latter half of the story, it is clear that his family has coddled him, and he thus thinks that he kicks ass at everything he tries, which isn't true, as evidenced by the author's reaction to the painting; but we're getting ahead of ourselves. 

Jake shows the author his work a lot, and asks her if she'd like to model for him sometime. She declines every single time. Ms Jovnik actually makes a really good connection as she thinks Jake has a crush on the author. We will take this as the truth. Then, during dinner, he shows off his new painting. 

The author writes: 'The painting was atrocious, like he didn't even try. But everyone was lying and coddling him. He then asked me for my thoughts and I said that it sucks ... didn't practice enough to [be halfway decent at it and that you need to work for some things], and it belongs on his parents' fridge at best.'

Now, let's remember that Jake is 20 years old. He is 20 years old and getting told that his work is amazing by his supportive family, and that having your family be supportive of what you like is essential for being motivated to keep working on it. Let us also say that expecting a beginner artist to draw well makes no sense. We connect these two things as "Jake IS a beginner artist at 20 and thus can't be expected to even be halfway decent, making the author's remark a shamelessly destructive criticism. However, the road to improvement is marked by practice and self-critique. If no one dares to criticize your work, you will inevitably stagnate. By coddling Jake's bourgeois behind, you are effectively stunting his growth, which is also evident from his described behavior being like that of a coddled attention-seeking child." The author had no need to tear him down like that, and could've been more tactful; though she has no need to be nice to what is capital personified, which has no real problems and focuses on the accumulation of generational wealth. 

This is demonstrated by the bourgeois couple being completely fine with Jake (20 years old) being slighted this way. They didn't really care much about such an insult, because they see her as Jake's latest working class-sourced entertainment, a classic rich man-working lady story, only the working lady doesn't want anything to do with the spoiled (!) coddled child of a philistine wealthy couple. However, this isn't nearly the truth; I speculated to make a point which benefits my argument to be persuasive and made things up to make it sound this way, as *possible*. This sophistry is characteristic of Ms Jovnik, but anyway, the likely truth is that the rich couple was patient and also knew they weren't doing what was best for Jake by not criticizing him, which is why they were quick to forgive the author. 

But anyway, let us move on to the real meat of the subject, which is Ms Jovnik being a thorough apologist of Jake the Bourgeois Child (20 years old).

She says the following:

"Poor Jake ! What a cruel bitch, why is she so cruel? I cannot imagine how much I would have to hate someone, like *really* hate someone to say something like that to them ... He didn't even do anything, (yes, he didn't do anything with that painting) why do you hate him?" (It is not hate, just indifference and annoyance).

She then proceeds to tell Jake directly:

"If you have a crush on her, then don't... Forget about that little a[ss]hole. You deserve so much better, *please*."

And the story continues:

"My sister was incredibly pissed ... She thinks I'm an asshole [and thinks] I should've given neutral feedback instead of letting my biases against rich kids influence me (!!!) ... also to stop being jealous and petty (!!!)." 

Apart from how ridiculous it is that they're making such a big deal out of it, we see the author's sister is rightfully upset that she was embarrassed by her own family and thus came out the reactionary bourgeois ideal of "you're just biased against rich people and you're just jealous and being petty", even though the socioeconomic class was only the background of the annoyance and real root of the problem was indeed that Jake was being coddled by his parents; the sister, and Ms Jovnik for that matter, immediately pointed to the class antagonism instead of thinking critically, and synthesizing it into the present perspective. Thus we come to the fact that the author didn't insult Jake for being rich, she insulted him for being rich *and* having all the free time he needs and STILL not investing enough time into what is normally a hobby that requires a lot of practice to even be good at, and people lying and saying it's "amazing". 

However, Ms Jovnik insists:

'Why did you have to draw so much attention to your financial statuses at all?'

Should read: 'Why did you emphasize on your socioeconomic class?'

'Is that relevant to this story? I don't think so.' 

Yet another bungling of the subject, when the obvious answer as already shown above fully involved class distinctions! Not to mention the immediate "I don't think so" without any argumentation. 

Paraphrased next statement:

'The family has been extremely kind to you, and you've been nothing but rude and disrespectful for no reason.'

So kind the bourgeois have been, by showing the two working class women what they will NEVER afford in their entire lives, save they get as lucky as to subjugate other people's labour below their heel: the free time and money of an entire socioeconomic class, which is still wasted by Jake to make art he will not want to improve on! This is what the main criticism of him (and by proxy his parents) is by the author, and I will admit it was really vulgar of her to tear him down, and for Ms Jovnik to erroneously represent the topic in such a way, is a truly philistine thing to do. 

She then declaims this laughable twaddle:

'I think you're being classist (You can't hope to oppress the oppressor) and judging people based on their economic status ... in the first few sentences you refer to all rich people as 'out of touch', after mentioning that your sister is the only one in your family has any sort of relationship with said rich people.' 

It is worth mentioning that the author said "frequent contact", and due to the previous statement on the author being biased against rich people, implies the author has met her fair share as well, which means that she has a way of knowing rich people to be out of touch, negating the negation.

The end of the story comes as: 

"Am I the asshole for giving harsh feedback?" Undoubtedly, the way in which it was done was unnecessarily hostile to 20 year old Jake, but the criticism itself bears truth at its core as a manifestation of class antagonism. 

Ms Jovnik says the following:

"Yes, you IDIOT. In this story you seem way more spoiled than him (I will get into this later) because you have zero tact (!!!) and zero manners (!!!). He didn't say a thing to you, he didn't throw a tantrum (the wording here is particularly important) which would be a very "spoiled rich kid" [air quotes] thing to do, don't you think?"

"Because all those rich people are awful and bad people who don't deserve to be respected or treated nicely, aren't they? And I get that you're jealous (!!!!), but I don't think it's the money that you're jealous of, because this kid has something way more valuable than any amount of money, a supportive family (!!!!) ... He's so lucky to have that, I wish every kid in the world [did], (Here is where the sophistry begins) And if your parents didn't support you as much and always told you that your childhood drawings sucked, then I'm *really sorry for you* (???), that is *very sad* (here she acts as though what she says is true, without any real evidence), but projecting your anger on other people makes you a bad person (Worth nothing, she is doing this exact thing!)"

She then proceeds to explain how she also has a lot of hobbies she picked up as a kid and continues to practice as an adult (If this sounds familiar, it's because Jake is also a many-hobbies person) and how her family always supported her in what she did, and says that such support is necessary for kids to believe in themselves when it comes to their hobbies, and for them to continue doing what they like. What is particularly curious, is that precisely because she ignored the real essence of the matter, it continues to go over her head that Jake isn't being supported, but *coddled*, which as we know, leads to poor psychological development. Instead of confidence, you get insecurity, as the author pointed out along with Jake's traits of being attention-seeking and profoundly insecure. This view holds. 

Ms Jovnik goes in for the tautology of bringing up the 'financial status' of the author and says that: "Parents are able to support their children no matter their financial status." Well, congratulations, you pointed out the obvious while continuing to willfully ignore the real essence of the matter, and act as though you are correct, when you turn your back to the truth. 

"I'm just sorry your parents weren't like that (Has no evidence for such a claim) but that gives you no right to be a bully, shut the fuck up."

The author doesn't constitute a bully, because for that to be in any way true, the bully has to be in a position of power over the bullied. The only power she really *has* is being the likely crush of Jake, and even then, it's so common for a crush to speak badly of someone who likes them that people can have it happen to them and get over it, because it's a normal human occurrence, *not* an instance of bullying. In fact, I want to remark on this, because Ms Jovnik makes three slips which reveal she thinks of Jake as being childish while willfully ignoring the cause for it.

#1 Calling it a tantrum (see above)

#2 Comforting him as 'deserving better' in the same way in which you comfort a child

#3 Calling the author a bully, as though it's a spat between children

This was a minor detail, but I found it worth noting that not even Ms Jovnik takes him seriously.

Let us return to the previous paragraphs to finish up, see above if you would like to read the specific fragments I refer to. She calls the author spoiled to compare her to the rich coddled kid, for which she has no real evidence, says she has zero tact or manners, which is a lie, because here the author intentionally gives an honest critique of Jake's work, which is something divorced from tact or manners, because you can't really tactfully tell him that it's bad art, nor is it part of 'manners' that you don't tell someone their art is bad, it's an overprotective, coddling act. She also implies that the author is throwing what could be interpreted as a tantrum, while also implying that Jake wasn't throwing one to disguise it as a tautology to help what could be called her 'case'. 

She also laughably tries to defend rich people and implies that thinking rich people don't deserve respect or being treated kindly is bad. A working class woman is hostile to rich people's existence due to their overt oppression of the working class? Quelle horreur! 

She then accuses the author of not having a supportive family and thus being jealous of that, and not the unimaginable fortune and free time of Jake, which he doesn't use to its fullest, as evident by his 'bourgeois virtue' of abstaining from using the full length of his free time for its accumulation! 

It is also worth noting that after she starts with this ridiculous 'supportive family' argument, she speaks of herself as having a supportive family and having a lot hobbies growing up; I think it's ironic that Ms Jovnik and Jake are alike in only these two aspects. Her social class is unknown to me, so I will refrain from assuming it, but I will be unsurprised if she's middle class or outright bourgeois; where I will genuinely be baffled, is if she is a proletarian family class traitor, because anyone who lives under the exploitation of capital and truly suffers its consequences, wouldn't have this opinion unless they'd been manipulated by their entire education. 

Conclusion

This video is a well thought out practice of engagement baiting, from the subject matter to even the calculated dialogue! You even have me writing this small blogpost on it, due to how great it was at making me feel upset that the points being made were so intentionally nonsensical that I felt the need to critique it or just "react" to it. My sincere compliments to Ms Jovnik for crafting such a ridiculous video and garnering herself my views and comments. And if she finds this, hello! Your channel will probably find even greater success if you start baiting interactions harder and focusing on intentionally contentious topics. Your art guides are likely useful, though I think they need to get more popular for them to really take off so you don't need to bait interactions anymore. 

On account of this being finished, I thank anyone who reads this to the end. 

Achtung. Achtung.

################################

"Karl Marx, Literary Landlord" - Brian L Frye

 A sincere look at Mr Frye

I welcome you to the blog once more. I recently found a small essay by a 'Brian L. Frye' from the University of Virginia in their Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 25 no.5 from 2022, which was an interesting read, to say the least. I then also found an article from 2005 by Mick Brooks on the same topic on the site 'In Defence of Marxism'. What interested me, however, was their sheer difference in quality.

On the one hand, Mr Frye talks to us about Marx being a 'Literary Landlord' and proceeds to demonstrate to us how Marx wanted to abolish private property of the means of production, while also reserving the right to be credited for the ideas he brought forth, along with the economic reward that came with their sale in books. We must take this moment to remind ourselves that Marx died sick and destitute, and made a living off his writing. 

Now, Mr Frye says that wanting to abolish the private property of the means of production is contradictory to wanting to own your own ideas' economic fruits in a capitalist society. Mr Brooks says that by logic, intellectual property rights enclose ideas to limit their use and thus exploit them despite costing nothing. We see that the main difference between Frye and Brooks, is that one blames Marx for wanting to make money off his works (along with rightly critiquing the firm that 'owns' the copy rights to Marx's works), the other points to capitalist ownership of ideas as the 'fetter on the development of the productive forces'. The thing they have in common, is that the holding of intellectual property rights of work alien to the owner's pen in order to profit from it is a shameless theft like any other capitalist's. What they don't have in common is wanting Marx to abolish private property of the sale of his work, which is the standpoint Mr Frye chooses to adopt.

The opinion of yours truly regarding this, is that Marx's work should be of collective ownership, a common good, as Brooks rightly puts it; however, Mr Frye's spoony and lazy criticism of Marx for wanting to be credited for his contributions (which he by the way never disallowed the credited use of by others as a scientific communist) in the same fashion as a scientist wants to be credited for discovering something new, while being able to sell copies of his works (which in no way contradicts his ideology), is a nonsensical, boorish, opinology. 

He calls authors landlords, when it is the publishers and their bourgeois associates that extract the 'rent' from the work of the authors and the print workers! Meanwhile, Mr Frye blames Marx for wanting to make money off his own work that he wrote. What is true for Brooks, and for Marx for that matter, is that science and art are a common good. Capitalist production never ceases to keep the collective from use by the collective, and in all senses, when Marx sought a publisher for his books along with a margin of profit which he wouldn't be dividing between the printers and editors, or the advertisers, but with the publisher Otto Meissner, who had also published Engels' work (Found in a wikipedia article) he was, in few words, a bourgeois hypocrite ! In the same way in which he put it in his silly essay:

Sick burn. Unfortunately, Marx was long dead and couldn't respond.

What I think, is that criticizing a dead man who lived in abject poverty for wanting credit and to make money off his work, instead of treating it as the tragic irony of his material reality under capitalist production, is a seriously stupid "point" to try -- and fail -- to make.

However, the valid point which he makes, is the exclusion of Jenny Westphalen from a credit in transcription of his works and the wider ideological discussions she participated in, which were omitted by Marx. One could argue they weren't necessary to credit, given the fact we take ideas from others without noticing, and that to credit every influence on you would be outright impossible, but it is a good point to criticize the omission of Ms Westphalen from the formation of Marx's ideas. I am of the opinion that it would be right to include Ms Westphalen when naming Marx and Engels, as well, and remember her contributions to the field in bringing her own ideas to Marx's discourse. In a word, I agree with Frye here, despite his shortcomings.

Another point we must dwell on, are his meaningless additions to the essay, which we must see:

"However, the title page of the first edition of Capital included the phrase, “Das Recht der Uebersetzung wird vorbehalten” or “The right of translation is reserved.” In other words, Marx was claiming the exclusive right to publish translations of Capital, presumably under the copyright laws of other countries."

"While he probably realized that asserting copyright ownership in Germany was pointless, apparently he hoped it might be valuable in other countries, if Capital proved commercially successful."

"And it came to pass. Between 1872 and 1875, Marx asserted his translation right under French copyright law to prepare the authentic French translation of Capital. Notably, his contract with the publisher stipulated that the book be sold at a price “which all can afford.” After all, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." 

What a mensch." 

"One can hardly blame Marx for capitulating to the realities of publication in a capitalist society."

(Earlier on in his essay:

"It seems everyone’s a landlord, at least when it comes to what they truly love. Marx loved his theory of communism so powerfully, he couldn’t see that what he truly wanted - what he desperately needed - was to own it, just like any other landlord. But ownership is the problem, especially when it comes to nonrival goods like ideas. Marx’s ironic landlordism could only undermine the credibility of the ideas he loved so well. So, if you love an idea, set it free. The hypocrisy you avoid is likely to be your own."

Compare, then, the product of Marx's work, to the appropriation of the means of production and land to charge a rent; The 'savant serieux' strikes again, with his ignorant opinions! 

(Later on)

"In fairness, Marx didn’t really advocate the total abolition of private property. Rather, he argued that communism requires collective ownership of the “means of production,” but doesn’t preclude private ownership of personal property. As he put it, “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.”23 In other words, people can own consumption goods, but not the land and factories necessary to make them." 

He demonstrates that he understands what Marx meant, and then proceeds to attempt to analyze how it holds with Marx's view on copyright and intellectual property. 

"So, can that distinction salvage Marx’s belief in the legitimacy of literary property? Maybe copyright and attribution are forms of personal property consistent with Marxist theory."

Copyright, when placed in the hands of a publishing house, is the capitalist expropriation of the worker's ideas, as his critique of Lawrence & Wishart argues. But then, he says this. 

"Yes, authors are “workers,” when they are producing works of authorship. But when the work is done, the author becomes a copyright owner, and the worker becomes the landlord. As many Marxists have long realized, “intellectual property” is just as capitalistic as any other kind." 

(Should read: Intellectual property by the firm is just as capitalistic as any other kind.)

Translation:
'The worker, when they stop working, and own what they have produced, are bourgeois. The author partaking in the fruits of their labour is bourgeois.'

(Recall this):
"One can hardly blame Marx for capitulating to the realities of publication in a capitalist society."

What he says then, is that workers, appropriating the products of their work, and owning them, is bourgeois, and more akin to landlords owning land than the money-grubbing publishers that "share in the booty" as Marx put it, with their collaborators. He in fact outlines how copyright in capitalist society, as it is used, for example, to suppress Marxist Internet Archive, and as Brooks analyzes in his article, are bourgeois; then, he walks into a rake, and calls the workers' personal property of their work, and their right to attribution, bourgeois! 

The notion shown here by Mr Frye, is what the rest of this essay rests on. Thus, we won't go into it here. 

Some sort of conclusion

As we have seen, Mr Frye was unconcerned by the actual validity of his argumentative essay, and was, rather, just coming up with funny section titles for it as a joke. Examples of his 'zingers':

-Karl Marx, Copyright Cop

-Karl Marx, Plagiarism Policeman

-Karl Marx, Chauvinist (This section was half-assed)

-Karl Marx, Plagiarist (Mind you, in it he proves nothing and shows he doesn't have any understanding of allusions, admitting his own argument was weightless)

References:

Article on Otto Meissner, in German.  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Meissner_(Verleger)#Literatur 

Mr Frye's Essay

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3948861

Mr Brooks' Article

https://marxist.com/intellectual-property-rights221105.htm

Achtung. Achtung. 

#############################

Critique of 'Architecture as a Sexual Technology'

Before we begin

This article is meant completely to be an honest questioning of what the article by Jaime Solares even meant in the first place, and a further investigation of what he might have missed in his own analysis. I am of the sincere hope that I am incorrect in critiquing this piece, as it makes some decent questions.

Link to original article: https://www.archdaily.com/965361/architecture-as-sexual-technology 

Premise

We must begin with a first analysis of the meaning of sexuality as a "sexual technology", according to Jaime Solares' own definition of what Foucault said. It is to be noted that as I have not read Foucault (nor could I find any information of this being said by him), I will attempt to understand the definition from a purely linguistic standpoint. 

The definition of technology according to Britannica is 'the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life or ... to the change and manipulation of the human environment.' I bring up this first definition as Solares describes sexuality as a technology that is sexual, which must bring us to the first point of what that entails. Sexuality, according to the Cambridge dictionary, has many meanings that all converge on a fact of sexual feeling, of a capacity to feel and express sexual feeling. We come to this first definition: 'someone's ability to experience or show sexual feelings' and then 'the fact or action of showing [those feelings]'. What we see is that Solares is saying the following: 1. That sexuality is derived from a place of scientific knowledge applied to the practical field of sex itself. 2. That this scientific knowledge is liable to changes in what we'll refer to as technique or the skillful application of knowledge, and thus in the change of the mode of production. 3. That the mode of production, as it directly influences social relations and is influenced by them in its own applications, as is the union of opposites; influences sex as a part of social relations. 

Given these 3 propositions, we must examine what Solares says next, 'This way, the relationship between architecture and the body (!) is shaped not only by the built object, with its various spatial mechanisms for the production of bodies (?), but also by thinking, in the form of academic discourse (The discourse in question relates to physical needs of the person occupying an architectural work). And vice versa (The production of bodies determining its own relationship with architecture), since gender and sexuality also impact architectural theory(!). One way or another, these relationships are very rich and capable of expanding our knowledge about architecture and the creation of generic sexed bodies (??).'

What I am obliged to point out in this paragraph is the lack of a clear explanation of the topic at hand, which reveals itself in the author's choice of writing out a concept and not bothering to explain his meaning as though it is apparently clear. Regardless, the 'production of bodies', immediately calls to mind the reproduction of human bodies through sexual activity, which the author is quick and right to point out as related to architecture given our own physical manifestation being a human body which has needs which architecture has historically been developed to respond to; but how sexuality as the expression of sexual feeling comes into play in the *shaping* of architecture is yet to be answered by our very heroic connoisseur. Let's look at the matter a little more closely.

'With the recognition of these sexual indicators in architecture (which ones?), the relationship between body and space witnessed a significant breakthrough in the 1970s (How?). Feminism has been the guiding principle of this approach, especially by seeking a feminine/feminist know-how (a gender-focused architectural technique which you refuse to talk about?), clearly pointing out the contradictions (?) in the concept (??) of sexual difference (?!?).'

What we must first point out is the recidivism of the author in not even bothering to explain his own thesis apart from the very pleasant and intellectually stimulating first concept of 'sexuality as a sexual technology', which he very egregiously refuses to relate fully to this paragraph while again glossing over what he was supposed to explain while deciding to declare sexual differences as a mere ideal concept and not a concept that finds itself reflected in the material existence of the human body as separated by a difference in sexual functioning which nevertheless finds common elements in various expressions which are located on a biological spectrum (see: Intersex people, sex change surgery, and so on). What is particularly strange, is this evident truth of sexual difference and field of similarities not exhibiting any internal contradictions except in their own differences which (all the while!) become a common field for noticing the different physical needs of each sex (which can vary, and do not 'erase' the fact of difference!). In this way, to say there is a contradictory nature to the concept of the sexes having different needs is a frankly ridiculous statement. Let us continue.

'The same thing happens ('what same?') when we try to determine which architecture would be "gayer"(?): Phillip Johnson's (an openly homosexual) or Le Corbusier's (an openly heterosexual), for example (Show, don't tell?). In both cases, we see a line of thought that, despite its groundbreaking nature, still reproduces instrumental and determinist essentialism, which associates sexual identities with sexed spaces (...?).' 

To fully understand what Solares is saying, we must first examine the architectural styles employed by both of the architects through images.

Phillip Johnson

1. Glass House

As we can very crystal clearly see, this is a glass house. The architect was openly homosexual and at one point a fascist, but that is beyond our scope. 

We can see some similarities to Le Corbusier's exact lines and simple geometric shapes, though this has a distinct break-away from common modernism due to the 'totality' of the glass panes. The interior being completely visible from the outside certainly connects to an idea of being visible, perhaps overly so, in a 'showy' way. We can deduce that this showiness could or could not be attributed to literally anything in the character of Phillip Johnson. I would argue that this "daring" piece attempts to call back to his being openly homosexual. "I want to be seen." 

2. AT&T Building

Here we can again see this desire for simple shapes, though he "daringly" places that negative circle at the top to make it look slightly like a crown, I'd suppose. The high glass panes also raise up the image, to give it a more 'magnific' look. 

Now, let's look at the other guy.

Le Corbusier

1. Villa Savoye

Here we see what we will see in every Le Corbusier building, sadly.

2. Villa Roche

It is when he decides to play around with colors that his work becomes marginally better, but remains a total bore. I wish I could say I liked his style enough to say good things about it.

3. Pavillon Le Corbusier

The cubic parts are okay. 

Returning to Mr Solares' proposition, we ask ourselves: is there a way to distinguish which one is 'gayer'? We have demonstrated that, by engaging with the aesthetic and purpose of the building, we can in fact determine that there is a possibility that sexuality and more prominently social relations, can influence the design of a glass house to be a reflection of the user and designer's own ideas. Such as "being seen" and "being part of the world" possibly relating to the invisibility of gay people in general in current and former day society, which is why he insisted on being 'daringly visible'. In terms of his idea that the architectural style of modernism associates sexual identities with sexed spaces, the usage of the style in given buildings is what dictates this association, not its mode of appearance.  

Moving on, we see this paragraph emerge from his mind.

'In the field of architectural theory, this tension develops in several ways. When Diana Agrest explores the presence of nature in her works, always associated with the feminine, she questions a project of civilization that is based on male domination (You miss the forest for the trees). While rethinking the values of ornament and decoration, also considered essentially feminine (?!), Jennifer Bloomer disrupts the paradigm of form/function and changes the negative meaning (???) of these elements in the history of architecture. And when Ann Bergren and Elizabeth Grosz, as well as Paola Berenstein, argue that the khôra* is a carnal and feminine place (???), they are establishing the world on new foundations (!!!?). For these reasons (which ones?), it might be more interesting to stop automatically making an association between curvy and feminine (Does architecture do that?) and rather begin to unravel the historical motivations that led to these anthropomorphic associations. (Take us there)

*The khôra is the relationship between humans and their environment

I needn't comment much on this, but nature being associated with femininity presumably due to the concept mother nature and its 'birthing' quality is a good association coming from Gaia in Greek mythology being literal Mother Nature, though to explore this aspect is to say nothing new. As for the part on ornamentation and decoration, the view of them as feminine is reactionary and inaccurate; and ornamentation never had much of a negative meaning apart from the class angle (see: Baroque/Rococo). In the case of the khora being a 'carnal' and 'feminine' place, it is a shamelessly nonsensical and fetishistic (in the archaic sense) conclusion to draw from the concept of space, while repeating the discourse of "Mother Nature", only abstracting it from the natural, earthly aspect, and claiming to have invented black string. Mr Solares' claim that people associate curvy and feminine is grounded in the common view of common men, which is a social aspect we won't go into here; it is rather interesting to associate this with architectural form, though I don't trust him to explain his analysis. 

'As for the program, it is imperative to fight for feminist demands such as increasing the number of day-care centers and installing baby changing stations in all restrooms, which also need to be reviewed according to the needs of transgender people (good catch). These debates about typology and functional programs engage our field in the question of identity in a positive way. This happens when differentiation actually works towards the humanization of those who are different, and not towards the discriminatory reproduction of this difference.'

In this paragraph, which connects back to one we already analyzed, he proceeds to refer to the differences in needs of the sexes which he claimed was conceptually contradictory, and demonstrates that they in fact exist, and then says that the differentiation, when viewed in the way we have already described, as that of equity in difference, contributes to the question of identity positively. If anything, Solares seems to like contradicting himself to make his points really *pop*!

'With that said, does feminist architecture make sense? Yes and no. Yes, because the feminist agenda fights hard against the androcentric system in architecture, seeking to overcome the sexism that thrives in our practice (by adapting to the different needs of the sexes and make woman-made architecture be given the notability it should be given). And no (?) because, as Richard Williams states, feminist architecture is not simply the physical expression of a political and theoretical agenda (It is the manifestation of a function that is to be satisfied according to said 'agenda'). This contradiction (It co-exists without problems, mind you) reminds us of architect Susana Torre's answer to the persistent questions about feminine characteristics in women's projects. According to her, it would be better to reflect on how the project absorbs the problems raised by feminism, and not if there is a feminist way to design (To adapt design to solving the problems of both sexes). This is consistent with the ideas of Dorte Kuhlmann, who states that feminist architecture must "articulate in detail how the sexed body merges with the spatial environment to form a continuous but differentiating flesh of the world. (a tautological thought overcome by merely having a gender critical view)"

'This amalgamation of the strings of reality is essentially an ontological reflection (The collective body of architecture reflects our existence, another tautology). In this sense, body and building are entities that no longer repel each other (Like they ever did?). A building is no longer an immune system of surveillance and reification of deviant individuals, but a device that builds itself through the relationship (Design dictates this, another tautology). Like Donna Haraway's cyborg, a hybrid of machine and organism, or like the camp homosexual, Marcia Ian's female bodybuilder, or Jota Mombaça's monster-body, the body is itself a building (This line of thought has been expressed for years). This "space of biopolitical construction which is the body," in the words of Paul Preciado, can be a center of resistance to the universalism that has erased the body’s corporeal features, subsuming the contingencies of the masculine, white, cisgender, heterosexual body prototype.'

Solares again comes to us with tautological statements passed off as a socially revolutionary method, as something that indeed has just been seen, and not something that women experience in society daily.

'The theoretical richness found when associating space, gender, and sexuality (Space and sexual difference in equity is a core part of the problems Design needs to solve, no?) also lies in two major themes: queer and trans (What now?). Aaron Betsky's concept of queerness talks about a sense of emptiness of the body resulting from the necropolitical processes of a heteronormative society (Translation: Queerness is a feeling of social alienation). But it also concerns the sublimation of the body as a fixed point and praises the qualities of adaptation, transversality, and relationality of this body that is constantly reshaping itself (So it's fixed but constantly reshaping itself?). Like gay nightclubs, BDSM, or any space for forbidden sexualities, queer spaces and queerness are events, determined more by practice than by design (The obvious is designed as the fundamental). This counter-construction creates unrecognizable ambivalent spaces, and therefore perfect for the production and reproduction of orgasms (What a coup de grace). This void, mind you, is very different from the functionalist void of modern architecture (Point for him to critique functionalism, though it's low-hanging fruit).'

I need only remark on his statement that the 'counter-construction' of a non-space by the practice of 'forbidden sexualities' creates a void (he means space) for reproducing orgasms is another pure tautology, though disguised by political discourse. What I mean by this is that the adaptation of space to human needs by changes in its use value is a fundamental characteristic of human habitation and historical progress. A mansion can turn into an orphanage merely by a change in the people who use them, an orphanage can turn into a communal house, and the communal house into a gay meeting place just because the people who existed within it changed. What he is saying is, again, a tautology as has been common in this article.

'Modern spaces were based on a binary logic of penetrator-penetrated (rephrasing something doesn't equal a new discovery) and were seen as a continent of human action, a kind of womb to be occupied by the active and dominating body of the public man (Refer to previous note). Queerness, on the contrary, is not a passive void but an active void, always inferred, suggestive, a kind of palimpsest of human flesh impregnated in the walls. It is the opposite, like a scorched-earth policy, guerrilla strategy, marginal survival.'

What Solares again refers to without thinking it is the changes in use by human habitation. He says nothing new, and nothing of note, apart from the 'reproduction of orgasms' line, which I have to say, was clever.

'But queer is still viewed as a cisnormative model in theoretical discourses (The reason why this is the case is that the naming of an identity as queer implies it being different and alien to regular social relations). It doesn't embrace the more radical critique of the nature of the body as produced by the trans theory (Tell us about it?). As Lucas Crawford reminds us, "If the queer theory has expanded the perception of architectural designs that are reshaped to address a gay subculture, then trans theory suggests a model that goes beyond cisgender-centered design." (In reality, designing for people's needs to be satisfied can be done without this theory) While reflecting on the materiality of trans bodies and their architecture, the author proposes a series of procedures that explore these connections, what he calls transing. He speaks, for example, of cross-programming (?), a kind of subversion of the programs designed by the architect toward unexpected occupations (???). Therefore, he emphasizes the fact that the design is just one among the various elements that constitute a space (Yes, by 'othering' a certain program to another occupation you reinforce the idea that it is equitable to everything else), and that architecture is an ongoing project that never ends. (Is architectural theory focused on stating the obvious?)'

'The aesthetic operation of transing, or transitioning (He means changes in use value again), overturns once and for all any ahistorical pretension of the normative dissimulations of power and reveals that the notions of public and private are ideological (They are quite in fact a product of economic relations and historical development). While queerness is characterized as an absence (He means a difference), trans is pure materiality, in constant transformation (The whole point of a transition is that it ends, trans bodies aren't in constant transformation, they are subject to a transformation once). Identity becomes an event rather than a rigid presence (He tautologically refers to changes in use value, again). The trans theory has endless contingencies, requiring a structure capable of producing more bodies than those tossed into the world (It quite actually dialectically overcomes bodies to create new ones while leaving the quantitiy of them intact). It totally rejects the last instances of essentialism because, as trans activist Amanda Palha says, "transfeminist political actions, (...) are legitimized with one condition: questioning the naturalness of sex. (Sex comes to us at birth, we change it through negation)"

"In other words, the body is a social construct, not an object of nature (???). And, when surrounded by unknown forces, it cannot be expected to fully recognize itself, but rather to constantly re-create itself, like space in architecture. Modern transparency no longer exists."

This quote seems to try to overcome the body as a product of nature, and also to try again to associate sexuality to changes in use value, which are neutral to sexuality, while being unable to negate the fact that is a product of natural processes, which we change through technique that imbues us with alternate natural processes, curiously never negating the fact we come from nature.

'The prevalence of this spatial revolution is the foundation for a reflection on Henri Lefebvre's differential spaces. If space is the product of social reality, created through and within the body and its movements, inscribing practices of sexuality and identity on these bodies will produce the most diverse spaces (He again refers to the changes in use value). Moreover, reclaiming the sense of love and affection of the individual towards his or her place challenges the modern functionalism that has repeatedly disincarnated the body through an optical logic. (Should've critiqued functionalism from the start) Recovering the other senses means reconnecting the body in its entirety, thereby being able to produce another architecture. When Foucault says that the body "has no place, but every possible place emerges and radiates from it," he inverts the primacy that space forms the body (Mind you, if space formed us and not matter, we'd be as empty as the ideas of this essay). The modern liberation machines do not understand that freedom is a practice (??) and that no construction can lead to or create this liberation (!)'

Mr Solares says that construction doesn't lead to liberation, and then says that an alliance of bodies would be enough to reconstruct architecture globally; which would mean that this alliance (his alliance) does not seek liberation. 

"The agora must be reinvented. No longer as utopia (!) - since it ignores the presence of the body by definition (It requires people and thus bodies to even be of use) - nor as heterotopia (It is a plaza that discriminates and hasn't been present for a while) - since exceptional spaces generate difference but do not produce everyday life (It is the union of public and private space that generates it) - but as a ruin (Explain?). Infiltrating, inverting, occupying, and hacking (You are trying way too hard here) the agora means reinterpreting its political power of representing all forms of life in the city (It in fact, didn't do that). An alliance of bodies that are unable to see themselves, fragile and shattered, but which, under this condition, can rebuild themselves and reconstruct the very architecture of the world, creating ruptures and opening paths.'

We see here, that this 'alliance of bodies' seeks to make no real change.

'This essay (Explains the lack of rigor!) was developed based on the final considerations of the Master's Dissertation titled Gender and Sexuality in Architecture Theory, presented in 2020 at the School of Architecture and Urbanism of the University of Sao Paulo - FAU USP. 

*According to French philosopher Jacques Derrida, Khôra (also chora) is a receptacle through which everything passes, that which precedes discourse, whose function is to receive everything without leaving any impression or taking any shape of its own. Radical otherness.'

In the case of this final note, what Derrida refers to, I think, is nothing but the process of thought arising from the physical existence of Humans. Additionally, to say something that receives all without leaving impression or taking any shape of its own is 'feminine' or 'radical otherness' (aka the queerness he advocates) is seriously ridiculous. Why would you associate femininity or queerness with being an amorphous nothingness that produces no effect on anything? 

conclusions

This essay was a disappointment. The overuse of tautology to attempt to make a coherent point while missing the great aspect of architecture as a practice suited to human needs which change with the passing of history was lazy.

As a final note, I seriously mean no offence to Mr Solares. It is noticeable that this was a work of passion for feminism and a serious attempt at the examination of architecture from an aesthetic standpoint, though it confused changes in use value as being directly linked to sexuality and omitted all else in order to make the point be logically "sound". 

Thank you for reading to the end, I hope you enjoyed this critique and I also hope that any mistakes on my part are critiqued as well. 

Achtung. Achtung.

#####################################

Critical Commentary: 4 reasons why having a woman as president is important for Mexico

 

4 reasons why having a woman as president is important for Mexico

Notes:

I am transcribing this schoolwork to the blog to display more of my writing. Any mistake or overly optimistic argument is done out of innocence*. 

The "( ! )" indicate points of interest, something I had no time to explain to the person who received this assignment.

*Or compliance with assignment directions

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Cindy

In present day society, women are a vulnerable population, suffering from an inequality relative to men. This inequality comes into being due to the lack of access to work opportunities and their systemic exclusion from them, making women have no say in their own lives. That a woman occupies the presidential seat means other women can do the same; a country lead by a woman points to a better future for them as well, and given a woman is in power, women in general will be able to reclaim their rights' right to be codified in the constitution, by a woman. Lastly, the fact a woman will be president, makes the implementation of anti-discriminatory policy possible to give way to the economic emancipation of women. Let us examine the matter more closely. 

The positions of leadership and decision-making (legislative members, heads of State, and prime ministers) are only occupied by women an 18-20% worldwide (Axtle-Ortiz & Caro-Guzman, 2017), i.e, only around a fifth of the positions designated for decision making are occupied by women, and they thus have less representation. Greater still, this means that, in the words of Axtle-Ortiz and Caro-Guzman (2017): "Their limited participation in government structures where essential political questions and the distribution and the distribution of resources are decided tend to have negative effects (!) on the opportunities of women in the political (!), economic (!) and social (!) ambit."

This takes us to a different matter, feminine leadership. It has 4 characteristics: to listen, empathize, communicate and work as a team. (Do Better, 2023). In addition to the search for cooperation, inclusion and equality that this leadership tends to show, it is conducive to "an increase of 5-20% in their benefits, greater creativity and innovation, and the higher retention of talent" (Do Better, 2023). Seen this way, it is plain that a woman in a leadership position would have these same values in mind, benefitting the women of the working class*.

*Remains to be seen at time of writing, seriously. 

Effectively, an inequality in political representations and in leadership positions consequently leads to the economic inequality of a vulnerable population. According to a study precisely on feminine participation in typically masculine workspaces, we are told that "men have a much easier time finding employment as a mechanic [than a woman]" (Ballesteros & Maira, 2019); this fact reflects that, given a low amount of political representation, there will appear a proportional inequality in the unrepresented population in typically male spaces.

The inequality between men and women, therefore, is perpetuated by economic conditions and a low political representation, a product of an idea that plagues society: that women depend on men. Melero (2011), tells us that "The inequality between men and women is a consequence of differences in access and participation in favor of men and to the detriment of women (!), in all social, political and economic structure, being a constant in different societies independently of their distinct levels of development that are generated." In other words, the reason why women is unequal, it can be inferred, is their lack of sufficient political representation, engorged by the misogyny in the leading body.  

In conclusion, given the lack of representation of women in political decision-making affects them negatively in the economic, political and social aspects (effects which can be seen right now), the opposite effect would result from a women occupying the most important political position of the nation, from which she'd take actions to attempt to eradicate inequality on the systemic level from the country and foster inclusion on a cultural level*, precisely due to being a historical political event.

*From what I can currently recall, this was outlined in a document put out before Sheinbaum's election, named "100 points of development", or something similar. 

References

1. Axtle-Ortiz, Miguel Ángel, & Caro-Guzmán, Lorena. (2017). La presencia de las mujeres en posiciones directivas. The Anáhuac journal, 17(2), 53-92. Epub 24 de enero de 2022.https://doi.org/10.36105/theanahuacjour.2017v17n2.03 

2. Ballesteros Doncel, E., & Maira Vida, M. del. (2019). Explorando Las Barreras de la Segregación Ocupacional. Un Estudio Comparativo Entre mujeres maquinistas de tren y mecánicas de vehículos de automoción. Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, 37(1), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.5209/crla.63822 

3. Better, E. D. (2023, 15 de Junio). El Liderazgo Femenino, Una Gran Ventaja Competitiva. Esade. https://dobetter.esade.edu/es/liderazgo-femenino-ventaja-competitiva [Consultado el 3-11-2024]

4. Melero, N. (2011). La participación de las mujeres  en la gestión local: hacia  liderazgos equitativos. cdsaaacademica.org. https://cdsa.aacademica.org/000-034/388.pdf 

Note: Even though it seems like a lie, I was well aware of how some points used were shoddy, but I had to write a persuasive argument, not an accurate one. Enjoy picking it apart if you want to waste time. 

Thanks for reading

Achtung. Achtung.

#################################

Essay On Patriarchy

How have the traits of patriarchy manifested in my familial and personal life?

Note: This is schoolwork I’ve transcribed, and some details have been omitted for my privacy. 

By Cindy

Today, my mother has asked me how I slept, and I told her I’ve slept well. Two days earlier, due to me staying awake past 12AM, she wasn’t able to sleep due to my room’s light, but she still forgave me. With this phrase, I’d like to try and encapsulate the feeling behind the following words, which is love for my mother.

For many years now, the feminist movement has grown quite popular, and not without reason: it is a movement that seeks the absolute liberation of a part of the population oppressed by the hand, not of the social construct of gender, but by its ideological horsemen of death: misogyny, machismo, chauvinism, apathy; along with its creators, perpetrators and perpetuators, the men. These are related to more things, but for this essay, I shall speak only on what I believe to know aptly, which is the patriarchy.

We’ll first need an appropriate starting point in order to advance toward the complex, which we have just conveniently heard of: The patriarchy. Now, what is it? The term comes from Friedrich Engels, who coined it in his work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, where it was defined as the system of oppression of most antiquity: where man situates himself above the woman, from where he holds dominion over her; however, the feminists would go on to develop this concept further, Gerda Lerner saying that it is “The manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children of the family, and the amplification of that dominion over the women of society in general.”

Having this conceptual base in mind, it is urgent to present apt examples of the reality, exactitude and precision of Lerner’s asseveration regarding it. Let’s start with the most obvious and fundamental example for me, the writer of this essay: The fact that I was born a man; it is therefore worth mentioning that, thanks to the existence of the patriarchy, I find myself in a privileged position relative to women, *only* for being a man. Not because of talent, virtue, capability, but for being a *man*. Due to this privilege, there is not as much constraint on men as women, less restrictions are placed on them, they are allowed to grow without maturing, with, for example, the phrase “boys will be boys”, a manner of excusing the misbehavior believed to be inherent in men, and not in the languid rules of their upbringing.

When young and when adults, men perceive themselves as some sort of model of logic and maturity purely by nature (a terrible falsehood!), they call themselves protectors, providers and, therefore, as the only people who should occupy positions of authority (part of the “glass ceiling phenomenon), this in contrast with how women in society are treated and perceived. Stalking, “It was her fault”, Femicide, “they shouldn’t have defied him”; over any injustice, they immediately blame the woman for the acts of the man. But “what is the glass ceiling?”. It is the invisible (or glassy,) barrier that prevents women from climbing up the workplace hierarchy, due to the patriarchal influence on thought. 

Let us return to my first proposition, which says that I as a man, have privilege. I have said that as men, we are not constrained in the same way as women, and this lack of constraints favors the bestowal of positions of authority to men and not women. A usual counterargument is that men are also limited in their lives, and more forcefully: not being able to talk about their emotions, suffering in silence, having to carry the responsibility of providing, having to appeal to the traditional definition of manhood, reasons that successively become pettier than the last, which may be refuted by pointing to the inventor of these notions, and the one who forces himself to follow them like a lamb; it is overstood that I think they are one and the same and they are men. In pursuit to maintain their position of power, men must establish a twofold hierarchy to thus extend their reign: the hierarchy of men within society, whose purpose is to keep the brainwashed men as subordinate followers, and the hierarchy of these two genders: men and women, the latter serving to divert the attention of the working class men toward women instead of the government or, if we’re feeling ambitious, the bourgeoisie. In addition, the burden of hate usually destined for the oppressor, is conveniently directed to the oppressed. Regular hatred of women is even made out to be normal, their stereotyping as crazy, emotional, submissive, traitorous, whiny; this with the purpose of fitting in with the other men by sharing an enemy in common: women. 

This, if you'd allow, I’d like to demonstrate through an interaction I had, which exemplifies this behavior perfectly, though I use it not to contribute to the point given its anecdotal nature, but to recount a related experience. I stood in front of the tarpaulin chessboard they’d set some weeks ago as part of the sports club recruitment here at my campus, where I was able to watch a chess game alongside a few more men. Near the end of this, I was next to some of them, who spoke of chess, and I asked them questions about it. One of them began to speak about how, in the social sciences campus of my university, there was a large quantity of women in comparison to our campus (the arts, architecture and design campus). This was by no means an abnormal observation, it was a recognition that in this campus, there are effectively a lot of men, (by virtue, probably, of containing the engineering campus); he went on, but he mentioned how women seem to like social sciences, letters, things of this nature, better than engineering or arts. These statements don’t have much wrong with them. It was however the last thing he said, which confused me: “and then women complain when they get paid less!” I, of course, asked him what he meant, mainly to know what made him say such an absurdity, to then express that in fact, the wage gap comes from the discrimination of women at the workplace. But he went silent, then babbled that “they [the men who were with us] know what I’m talking about”. Again, I shall now say this does not serve as a solid base for any broad argument due to the fact that is easily falsifiable, but what the man who said such nonsense and retreated with cowardice is real: the wage gap, along with the way in which this phenomenon is perceived by the population. They see it as a fact that women get paid less for the work they do, and that men somehow always take “riskier” or “better paid” jobs by nature; and along with his shamelessness, the men who were present appeared deaf: they said nothing against it. 

This latter thing is what is called the “patriarchal pact”, the silence and complicity of a man before the violence of another. Some will no doubt say that words are not an act of violence, due to no physical harm coming to a person due to them; but you can observe now, in September of 2024, how violent words can be when used by a person who has a position of power over another group, as small as it may be. With this I refer to the hateful rhetoric and discrimination of the Haitian people, who stand accused of killing and eating their pets due to their home’s famines. This has resulted in a campaign of hatred that has already caused the deaths of cats and the publication of inflammatory news. (Morphet & Reilly, 2024) This use of words, no matter how small they are, have a political impact on the world. Therefore, the act of speaking oppressively of an oppressed population, though it causes not any immediate physical harm, if left unrefuted, leads to real and lasting damage being inflicted on said group. Though if we want to look at an example that most easily demonstrates my point, we shall look at the cases where a man from a given family sexually assaults one of their family members, a woman or little girl, and said family attempts to hide this fact and speak nothing of it. The silence of the family consequently obscures the violent act of the man and protects him, in the same way in which the silence of the two men to my right shielded the coward from criticism. 

In conclusion, I think the patriarchy has influenced my life a great deal, due to the fact I was born part of it. I am part of a privileged population, and I was therefore influenced by its ideas of what is right when I was little, from which I had to separate from as I grew and learned for myself it was naught but an illusion. In spite of this, it doesn’t affect me nearly in the same way as it affects women who, day by day, have to walk the streets with fear and be cautious with men and that, despite this precaution, fear and deterrent measures in the shape of self-defense weapons, they end up being murdered just for existing beyond the working day. In the way in which, for every dollar a man makes, a woman makes 54 cents (Parker & Tyson, 2019); for every day that women suffer under men's societal oppression, men suffer only half of it. 

Addendum:

If it weren't obvious beforehand, I am passionate about this topic. I hope that reading this has been satisfactory. But, as a final note, I would like to say that the reason why I am compelled to be an advocate for women’s rights is my mother, who did much of the work of raising me, and for that I am thankful beyond words. For the very same reason, I dedicate this text to her. 

Every day, more terrible things happen to more women, especially in this city, and one must not stay quiet in these subjects, they must be combatted through dialogue; this goes for men especially, who are the supposed protectors of women, kill and abuse them.

References:

1. Morphet, J. y Reilly, P. (2024). Post witnesses Haitian motorist making illegal turn in Springfield, Ohio, smashes into mom driving with autistic daughter, New York Post en el Viernes 13 de Septiembre de 2024. Available at: https://nypost.com/2024/09/13/us-news/haitian-driver-makes-illegal-turn-in-springfield-oh-smashes-into-moms-truck-with-autistic-daughter-in-back/ [Accessed 15 September 2024] 2. Parker, C. y Tyson, L. (2019). An economist explains why women are paid less, World Economic Forum en el Viernes 8 de Marzo de 2019. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/an-economist-explains-why-women-get-paid-less/ [Accessed 15 September 2024]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

English translation! Hope you enjoyed the read. Send any counterarguments (there are plenty of things to pick at here) through comments. If I ever link my email in this blog, make sure to send a message there. If you are overtly hateful of women, or myself, I shan't take the time to argue with you seriously and will send a message containing an image of a brick back to you.

With that said,

Achtung. Achtung.

#####################################